Curiously, I see no reference in this article to either the Parkland massacre or the activism that it triggered in several young survivors, who organized the massive March for Our Lives and traveled the country all summer long to promote voter regstration and campaign for gun control.
2
How much more will the Democrats read into their modest successes in the mid-term elections? The delusion is sad to witness. Here is reality: the minor advances were by no means "A Blue Wave". Historically the results were predictable having repeated for almost a century. The truth is there is no REAL change in the mood of the electorate. It in no way pro-Trump, it is instead anti socialism which is the image the DNC has chosen to adopt. Without a drastic change in philosophy by the DNC 2020 will simply be a repeat of 2016.
It would really be nice if the reporting on this issue would foster a better approach that most Americans are concerned about gun safety and it is not necessarily a Republican or Democrat "thing".
We need some healing after the assault of extreme groups and Donald J. on our democracy. Most of us still believe we are the UNITED STATES of America. Help us prove that!
2
When my daughter in college took a class which discussed gun control, I urged her to go to a firing range. There's nothing like actually shooting an AR-15 to understand how dangerous these weapons are. There's no real self-protective aspect to it. They are meant to damage and kill people as offense, not defense.
I urged her to do the same with a Glock because even though they are much easier to shoot, these are not so straightforward. If there are sounds in your house at night, it's not going to so easy to find, load, unlock and then shoot while your adrenaline is pumping. She would not be like a cop who gets time to practice.
I understand rifles for hunting, but that's about it for the rest of them. If the NRA is not going to regulate itself, then it's time for us to get rid of these things.
39
@Rajiv: Guns are inherently offensive weapons, with further advantages gained by surprise. This is why US gun policy is a green light to kill.
1
Two things that would be a good start in addressing gun violence, allow people to sue the gun manufacturers and allow the NIH to study mass murder by guns. It is crazy to me that anyone can sue drug, car or other product manufacturers, but not gun makers. I would love someone to try and sue on constitutional grounds if Congress is too cowardly to change the law. Allowing the INH to study gun violence could help educate our fellow Americans and give law makers an incentive to change the law. I know this is unlikely but I still hope, too many people are dying, too many family members are suffering.
38
@Linda We have to stop with the "this is unlikely" stuff. Lots of things were unlikely. People made them happen anyway. It takes work and it takes discipline.
It was unlikely that the Right could take hold of so many state houses in increasingly blue states and corrupt our elections through gerrymandering and voter suppression, and thus impose minority rule on us all for so long. Nonetheless, they did it.
We on the more progressive side of things have to be every bit as diligent. We have to work just as hard to ensure that policies like reducing the number of guns in our country become the law of the land, and that our public policies and politics reflect the will of the majority of citizens, not just the will of the wealthy, well-connected or inordinately loud minority.
10
@Linda The idea that you should be able to sue a third party for an illegal act by someone else is ridiculous.
1
@Linda By your logic, the kin of a woman who is murdered by a husband who smothers her with a pillow should be able to sue the pillow manufacturer.
Its about time, we sorely need and needed gun and ammunition control going back to the last 25 years. I live on the farm, we have guns and they are responsibly locked up and the kids learned respect for the power of a gun by teaching and example from their Father and both Grandfathers.
16
Those who own the vast majority of guns in the US are not part of a militia, and they are certainly not well regulated. No need to repeal the Second Amendment, just read it syntactically as one sentence.
25
@Alan J. Shaw It's a clear statement of original intent, but not a conditional. However, we can literally read "keep" and "bear" to not include "buy" and "sell."
1
@Alan J. Shaw You can easily read the 2nd as requiring the federal government to allow the people to form private militias, e.g The NRA Army. So you probably don't want to go there.
2
@Alan J. Shaw The writers of the Second Ammendment were meticulous in their mastery of the english language. It is completely illogical to read the sentence without the first clause that modifies the rest of it. Absurd.
1
The NRA really made a big mistake when the tweeted we doctors should stay in our lane, what do we know about guns!
you know that lane, the one that takes care of the outcomes from guns
2015, 2,824 children (age 0 to 19 years) died by gunshot and an additional 13,723 were injured.
Those people that die from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control group.
People who report “firearm access” are at twice the risk of homicide and more than three times the risk of suicide compared to those who do not own or have access to firearms.
Suicide rates are much higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership, even after controlling for differences among states for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, mental illness, and alcohol or drug abuse
what do we know
and the NRA led to this:
Federal legislation passed in 1997 stated that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” The vague nature of this law, and its 2011 extension to the National Institutes of Health, has effectively prevented federal funding for firearms-related research.
wake up america!
This is our lane! your lives depend on it!
55
@just sayin Yes, the lane is to provide this information, which shows us a broad brush of very DIFFERENT gun problems each of which has different solutions.
1
@just sayin Dr. So if we legislate against cancer it will go away--Education is the key to this tragic situation not governmental interference--we already have too much of that
The NRA. Aren't they run by the Russians now?
2
Well everyone's jumping on their lists of things that won't work just to show how unfixable this whole situation is. You know what really isn't going to work? Doing nothing which is what we've been trying for the past half century. So how about we trot out the entire list and start somewhere and skip the mindless rhetoric about how it will never work. It is simply unfathomable to me that we continue to do nothing and just magically expect the situation to right itself. We are supposedly intelligent creatures. We have fine examples from other countries about policies that affect real change. The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. So go to the closet and get out your shoes.
23
@crystal Lots of things ARE being tried, at the state level, which is exactly where you want to try it. CA has all sorts of things they are trying.
This is the beauty and power of 50 semi-independent states. Try different things, see what does and does not work, let the folks in those different states try what they WANT to try. Things that work will move towards the national level of support, things that do not will be weeded out.
Pot legalization is on this path currently as an example.
Washington state voters passed an initiative to raise the age to purchase semi-automatic assault rifles, require training before purchase, mandating a 10-day waiting period before purchase of a semi-automatic rifles, among new requirement. Initiative 1639 passed with over 60% of the vote. This took place after the state legislature couldn't get a measure passed in the spring session.
It took a lot of hard work to gather the 360,000 signatures to get it on the ballot, and a lot more to get it through the vote but with a broad base of support and a committed populace, it was done. The support for gun safety is finally coming to the west because suicide, domestic violence and gun accidents have deprived us of too many loved ones.
17
@Jennifer Dolan-Waldman And this is how many things in our country work and SHOULD work. States have wide latitude to pass such laws and initiatives. We can see what works and what does not work. After folks see that these laws are not really much of a burden and if they see positive results, then more states will do it and then it is more likely you move things to a federal law level.
It is how gay marriage move to national law. It is the path marijuana is taking to legalization. Heck, the marijuana laws are even in direct conflict with federal laws.
PROVE these new laws are 1) constitutional, 2) not an undue burden to the 99.999% lawful gun owners and 3) do indeed work.
1
There have been quite a few amendments to the US constitution - starting with those first 10.
What's the big problem amending the wording of #2 so it clearly relates to the original meaning of state National Guard units?
B.
20
@Ben Fist, that is clearly NOT the meaning as the mindset of the framers was dead set against national control of such issues, that was the whole point of the 2nd, to protect AGAINST a national entity.
That aside, it takes 2/3 vote in the Senate and House for an amendment and not sure we are close to any kind of better wording that would help. Remember, we have allowed all kinds of restrictions to the 2nd, we even had a legal Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
Constitutional laws CAN be passed for any number of restrictions. No right is absolute.
It may be a tipping point and hot button issue now, but what happens when these feel-good laws pass and they do zero to help the situation? Would anything being talked about that that has a legit chance at passing have stopped any of the recent horrific events? I don't believe so. So then what?
1
@Marvin -- This doesn't happen in Japan, Australia, the UK. It's exceedingly rare in Canada and Europe.
Strict gun laws really work, reasonably-strict gun laws work reasonably.
7
@Marvin: I consider every civilian who packs a pistol in public places for self-protection a paranoid creep to shun.
1
Not sure what gun advocates thought was going to happen. When there is virtually no response to daily mass murder and high suicide rates with guns. What has Congress done? When , in many states, it is easier to get a gun than a bottle of liquor, when it is easy to slip through the cracks, when there is no consequence, NONE, for allowing a middle school kid access to your gun and he kills other students, and anyone can buy a bump stock to retrofit a semi to an automatic weapon, what did the gun lobby think was going to happen? And when there is no defense that it is a global problem, only an American problem, what did they think was going to happen? The bottom line is guns do kill. The people with their finger on the trigger are ultimately responsible. But we either help those people behind the trigger which we have not done, which costs money, and which will be less likely with cuts to Medicaid and elimination of the pre-existing condition protections, or we go after the gun. If anyone has a better solution, I am all ears. I'm waiting. And I have been for years. Still waiting......Bottom line is the American people are tired of waiting. Is that any surprise? Not to me it isn't.
7
Yes, an article said some Democrats are getting courageous with their F ratings from NRA. How far can this trend go?
Seems the NRA has been regulating the US govt instead of the other way around. It nullifies the will of most citizens and most gun owners, as polls on gun control show.
Our safety, like our health care, is regulated by high profit lobbies, legalized now by the Court in Citizens United. The media isn’t discussing this. Why?
How about censorship of gun data research--- in the land of ‘free speech’? NRA pushed congress to censor the CDC from gun violence research and under fund it. So much for freedom in the USA. Should be a major theme of NYT editorials and columnists. Where is it?
CONTRAST: Countries with strict gun laws don’t depend on gun makers and other corporations TO FUND THEIR ELECTIONS. Thus the citizens get more representation from their elected officials than do Americans. Where is the media on discussing this?
Abroad they have MORE freedom than Americans--- to live out their lives without being shot, and to have a working democacy. This is contradicting our Supreme Court that unlimited money is Free Speech per 1st Amendment.
1
Many of the mass shootings have been committed by white men with legally registered weapons. Gun licenses are as effective as a paper shields.
4
I’ve owned guns, more than a few. Don’t have any right now. Never understood the need for a semi auto of any type but for war.
1
The NRA is a) hoarding its cash for 2020 and b) riding high on a conservative SCOTUS majority. The Heller decision will not be reversed. Full stop.
Time for a national referendum on guns.
While campaigning for gun safety at home the previous administration air-dropped pallet loads of assault rifles into the night over
Syria for anyone to grab-adding to the mayhem there-- some are even being sold on the internet
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/middleeast/us-weapons-telegram-syria-intl/index.html
I try to stay off this argument. The final chapter of course the hero with the weapon is shoving it in my face screaming about their rights. In my front yard.
The military is my model. The weapons are safely locked away in an armory. Period.
With a tip of the hat to Stan Lee, there's an awful lot of comic book fantasy. Yer not running a liquor store in a war zone folks.
Although an outsider to this argument, as an Australian shooter I thought I might add a perspective. The NRA and similar lobbies have so brainwashed many Americans, left and right, pro gun or not, that they believe that in Australia we don’t have firearms. I suspect this is because they cannot accept that modest gun control can make a huge difference, and of course since our 1996 reforms gun violence has hugely reduced. But in fact its not true that we no longer have firearms, as I possess a variety of centre fire rifles, rimfires and shotguns. I am not alone in this, in particular in rural locations.
We control several key aspects. First the person is an adult, passed a police administered firearm safety test, and a background check for criminal or violent behaviour. Second, we limit semi- automatic weapons, handguns and larger magazines to those that have a specific need ( such as security guards, professional hunters, some extreme feral animal control ). For hunters, if you need 20 rounds in a semi auto, well, you are not very good and need a bit of time on the range practicing. Third is we take firearm storage seriously, its safes and separate ammunition storage, and the police can arrive any time to check - in practice its rare to be inspected, but it keeps people in line as a failure in storage is loss of licence and forfeited firearms, which can be difficult to get back.
No normal, sane person with a reason is disarmed. But casual purchase is prohibited
18
@Tony Radford All very good points and we could do some of those but not all. Remember, we have a second amendment to deal with as well as a fourth. The threat of police popping in to check you storage is a clear violation of our 4th amendment. They would need probable cause and a warrant to do so.
And just a nit, but 20 rounds of semi-auto is nothing when dealing with a pack a feral hogs.
And finally, remember, any solution out there will have to deal with the huge number of guns that are already out there in private hands legally, in the gray market and in the black market. You could ban sales of AR-15 tomorrow and it would be fairly easy to get one anyway. For a long, long time.
There are many common sense gun safety proposals that would reduce gun violence--universal background checks on all gun purchasers; 30 day waiting period to allow police to do such checks; ban on all semi or fully automatic firing weapons; raising minimum age of purchase to 21. I support these.
However the real issue are the 300 million firearms in private hands and annual sales of 10 million or more. Cheap and abundant firearms lead inevitably to more gun violence. Firearms need to become very expensive to purchase and few in number in the U.S.
I propose that in an effort to cut sales of new firearms and to reduce the inventory Congress raise the current 11% tax on firearms and ammo to at least 200%. Then take the tax revenues and buy back used firearms for say $1,000 each.
Today more firearms sell for no more than $500 each. If they cost $1,500 each (after a $1,000 federal tax), far fewer than 10 million new ones will be sold annually. With a gun buy back of $1,000, it is reasonable that many of the 300 million used firearms in private hands would be sold to the government and then promptly melted down to scrap metal.
Let's treat firearms like cigarettes--make them expensive and difficult to get and eventually like cigarette use and lung cancer the public health problem of gun violence (both suicides and homicides) will be much less in our great country.
12
@john Except guns last pretty much forever and the market is very saturated already so folks would just turn to a black market. Your plan could make some dent and is a worthwhile part of the puzzle to discuss.
You would also need funding to beef up the borders and ports to try to head off what will be a much more lucrative illegal firearm import business.
Eventually we will reach critical mass. Everyone will either have been shot or know someone who has. We already have people who have escaped being shot not once, but twice. Even the study of gun violence is blocked by the NRA. Who elected Wayne LaPierre to make public health policy and if guns are so great, why worry about the results from some research?
12
The fact that congress has been unable to ban bump stocks is a shocking display of how absurd the power of the gun lobby is. There's no real constituency out there for bump stocks. On Oct 1 Trump said “We’re knocking out bump stocks,” at a White House news conference. “We’re in the final two or three weeks, and I’ll be able to write out bump stocks.”
Like almost everything else Trump says, that wasn't true.
So, will the incoming Congress ban bump stocks? You can bet the House will vote a bill through -- what about the Senate?
Interesting question then is whether the incoming Senate would pass a universal background check law. I doubt it, but perhaps not impossible?
Public polls show universal background checks to be the most popular gun control measure, and even majority support among Republicans.
But could the hard-right Senate coming in muster even a handful of votes for it?
8
@Lee Harrison You have to be careful about words like Universal Background Checks. Broad brush stuff like that gets wide support, similar to things like Universal Health Care. But as soon as you start to add in details, you start to lose folks because that is NOT what THEY thought it was.
@Marvin -- what part of "universal background checks" do you think they fail to comprehend?
The US is a country grounded in the symbol of the wild west where the good guys fought the bad guys in a shoot out. Thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of times this scene has been played out in western movies. It is in the blood. Real men carry guns, also supported by military training.
There is a dark side to everything in life. We are seeing the dark side of a country grounded in the gun myth, supported by the NRA, pushed by every politician that needs an edge to win.
It has been statistically prooven, but basically ignored, that access to guns is the problem. Guns are everywhere, off the scale terms of the rest of the world. Myths die hard and none die harder than the myth of the powerful male with a gun saving whatever.
It is true that as long as we cherish that myth more than we cherish our children, they will continue to die, along with thousands of others every year. A gun is not synonymous with masculinity, or power, it is synonymous with death.
9
@joyce Tempting as it may be to put it all down to repression and myth, guns are an actual source of both power and vulnerability. Some guys wear tool belts because they really are handy, not because they're trying to look sexy. All too many, though, fail to realize that the perceived power is only any good where it actually has a useful application, and more often than not they collect keys that don't fit any real lock in their lives. Unable to actually benefit from the potential power, they only actually get the vulnerability, and never know it.
Jeff Cooper's Four Rules:
All guns are always loaded.
Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
These four rules are found in every gun manual.
If you follow these four gun rules all gun are always safe unless they are in the hands of a murderer. How are we going to keep guns out of the hands of murders? Can you think of any law that will keep a gun out of the hands of murders? You can not, murders do not obey laws. Once you learn to obey the four safety rules and commit them to memory it is safe to pick up a gun. Once it is safe to pick up a gun it is safe for you to learn how to use it. If you start to break these rules guns are no longer safe. If you see someone breaking any of these rules tell them and if they do not stop stay away from them or stay away from them completely. I can not think of any situation where it would not be beneficial/safer to have more people safely carrying guns than not when a murderer is present. How do we know when a murderer will be present? We do not. When murderers start carrying bombs these facts may or may not help you but if they are carrying guns I hope we have what it takes to protect our selves, our loved ones and innocent law abiding people.
4
@Shannon
I'm currently in Japan on 3 year orders. Take a wild guess as to how many murderers can get their hands on a gun here. If gun control doesn't work we will need to move towards a ban. You can't ask the public to pay for your 2nd Amendment right with the blood of their children and loved ones. The only laws that are immutable are the laws of physics. We will need to amend the constitution. Guns are not a must have item. Millions of people live their entire lives without ever even touching one. It's a "nice to have" item not a "must have" item. The logistics of a ban would involve banning all sales to the public of ammo and reloading components that way you disarm everyone without confiscation over time.
10
@Jay Even people supporting comprehensive gun regulation have been brainwashied by the gun cartel's propaganda operation (AKA the NRA) into thinking the Framers of the Constitution wrote the 2nd Amendment to protect an individual right to bear arms.
Turns out they did no such thing, and it's not what the 2nd Amendment says.
They did no such thing because guns weren't practical for self defense until at least half a century after the 2nd Amendment was written. They were imported and very expensive. They were unreliable--finicky in operation. And they had to be laboriously half-loaded before firing.
As a consequence only 7% of Revolutionary era American men owned firearms (based on a study of probate records).
The firearms of the era had become indispensible for armies and militias, for massed fire. That would compensate for the problems of one man, one gun. When the bad guys are busting through the door and it takes over a minute to grab the bulltets and the powder and the ramrod and the gun and then load them in and prepare to fire...not. A big knife or axe was what people used for personal self defense. The 2nd Amendment, consequently was written to support militias, reflecting the Framers' fear of a standaing army--whose necessity was realized soon after--and the Slaver States fears of the federal government disarming their slave patrols. The NRA rewrote our history.
It also proves that every "originalist" in the courts is anything but.
8
@Ehkzu
Thank you for your reply. My only concern for the Nra and the second amendment is they don't let people ban or regulate firearms to the point that it makes it easier for murderers to get guns than honest law abiding people.
This issue seems to swing back and forth like a pendulum. Bill Clinton got an assault weapons ban but it lapsed into the dust. The final word will be up to SCOTUS if they take the case. Their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment will override all federal and state statute.
@Mike So far SCOTUS has given wide latitude in restriction of the 2nd. The biggest setback has been Heller, but that was simply going to far to say that folks are banned from having a gun for self protection in their home.
Heck, in CA right now you have law enforcement being allowed to restrict permits based on 'need' and 'self defense' is not a valid need.
Man up and taking personal responsibility is an integral part of right wing propagandistic tropes.
But not guns.No one wants your 225 rifles.but if you need an Ar15 to hunt deer it doesn’t speak well of shooting skills, I’d get a different hobby.
4
I actually sat in a federal courtroom recently (taking notes for Moms Demand Action) and listened to an NRA lawyer (challenging MA law) say that "public safety concerns do not outweigh 2nd amendment rights." Meaning ... your children must die for our guns.
I really couldn't believe his open disregard for human life.
18
the guns are no longer required for hunting and gathering any longer. please do not worry that critters and varmints will take over the suburbs. and remember that most song birds will sing freer without Daisy and their ilk not being able to continue rotting young minds. Guns belong to law enforcement and the military. the populace of countries like, oh Japan Britain Australia have not rebelled or fallen in statue now that they do not have guns everywhere. this argument needs to end. the sooner the better.
7
Yes, the NRA's influence is waning. Absolutely.
3
The NRA will go the way of the KKK a fringe group with little or no power or influence. They did it to themselves.
4
@Steve You mean their goals and values will continue to be supported by a large swathe of the people for a long time?
It's sad that so many Americans consider the Russian-funded NRA as a separate but equal branch of the U.S. government.
5
Gun Safety - YES. Gun Regulation - YES. Gun Control? whaty do you define control? NRA and its cohorts translate is making gun ownership illegal. We need Gun Regulation. Everyone who has a positive reason to own a gu=n and has a character and personality to use it wisely should have no objection for registering it with the local police. And there is absolutely no reason for someone to carry gun across state lines. And anyone who wants to sell his/her gun do so openly to someone who has the the characterisitcs of a person who can have a a gun. And finally, there is absolutely NO rationale for anyone owniong or making an assauilt rifle or multiple cartridge guns.
7
@Wonderfool "And there is absolutely no reason for someone to carry gun across state lines."
Because suddenly someone who carries for self defense in state X does not need it for that purpose in state Y? Because hunters in Texas don't go hunt in Oklahoma?
"there is absolutely NO rationale for anyone owniong or making an assauilt rifle or multiple cartridge guns"
Self defense comes immediately to mind as a valid reason that many are going to come up with.
When you come in with personalized views like this and set a line in the sand, you don't give any room for give and take for folks with opposite views.
1
@Wonderfool People who use assault rifles for mass shootings tend to be people who form intent to be killers, then purchase a killing machine. Simply banning the buying and selling of assault rifles is optimal. Their presence in the hands of dangerous people will very rapidly attrit out. No need to "ban owning" aka confiscate. That is to intentinally rub a sore spot. Should that be the reaction? No, but reality is what it is, and why intentionally antagonise when there is an effective alternative? Handguns, on the other hand, are weapons of opportunity that people keep "just in case" and end up turning to when something goes very wrong in their minds or lives.
The liberal opposition has decided, en masse, again, to change the meaning of a word in our English vocabulary. They have decided that the word "safety" is synonymous with the word "control". They have created an identifier by placing a dash between the words 'gun' and 'safety' to indicate that what the real meaning of the phrase 'gun-safety' is actually gun control. Otherwise people not in the know might confuse 'gun safety' with 'gun-safety' which wouldn't do since the NRA still is, and always has been, an advocate for gun safety, in the true legitimate, it's in the dictionaries, old and new, meaning of the words.
1
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus
Is the current level of gun control sufficient to protect the public from mass shootings? If not we need to gradually ratchet up the level of control. The publics' right to life and safety trumps your right to bare arms.
5
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus -- "get your man card punched" is the modern NRA.
2
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus I wish the right would stop accusing the entire left of gimmicks that are dreamed up by the PR department.
I was hoping that there would be news of bump stock legislation. Our Trumpian Senate must still be politically sound asleep.
4
The Sierra Club has about the same membership; 3M plus. Yet issues related to climate change and the environment are ignored year after year by the Republicans.
It's not the number of members, it's the money.
18
@HR It's the personally involved constituency. Lots of people have guns. Not many have wilderness. Plus it's the power thing. Let's compare agendas: "everybody get guns" sounds like making the country stronger; "let's shut down industry and trade cars for bikes" sounds like making the country weaker. A lot of people go on instinct, never looking beneath appearance and surface. That's what must be dealt with.
Certainly hope it is a change in momentum. Common sense gun measures have been polling well for a long time. Doing nothing about all these shootings is totally unacceptable and arming churches and synagogues Is insulting and a joke. Maybe we can have a conversation that really looks at all the issues and we really solve a problem.
10
@Kevin J -- the Sierra Club has been instrumental in shutting down coal-fired power plants -- this keeps getting easier and easier as the alternatives get cheaper -- now actually cheaper than coal.
Hard to imagine a gun substitute ....
@Kevin J "Maybe we can have a conversation that really looks at all the issues and we really solve a problem."
We can but you and others have to stop with things like "arming churches and synagogues Is insulting and a joke." That is certainly not the end all be all, but it certainly deserves to be in the conversation of a total solution.
Right now most (all?) active shooter drills are passive in nature. Why not look at making them more armed response in nature?
We also have to look at better detection mechanisms. Look what courts and sporting venue do already. Metal detectors, searches, limited size and clear bags, armed guards nearby.
You need both of these anyway because no matter what gun laws you pass 1) there are a lot of legal guns already out there, 2) there are a lot of illegal guns already out there and 3) things other than guns will be used (e.g bombs).
Remember too, these events we focus on, while horrific and still happen to often are still RARE occurrences when taken in a nationwide context. How many church services were NOT bombed last year? How many concerts were held without incident? How many clubs operation every night in the country without incident? How may schools operate 200+ days a year?
Perhaps some day guns will be perceived to be as much of a health hazard as Agent Orange, asbestos and cigarettes.
8
Tired of "thoughts and prayers" America?
With an average of at least one mass shooting every single day, we're at a point in this country where everyone knows SOMEONE affected by gun violence.
So what are we waiting for America?
Do we need to average TWO mass shooting per day before we realize the NRA is in it purely for the huge profits $$$$ it generates after each mass shooting?
Dems need to make gun SAFETY a HUGE priority in the 2020 election.
We are sick, sick, SICK of losing our children in totally preventable senseless murders.
15
@JM
"Dems need to make gun SAFETY a HUGE priority in the 2020 election. "
it is clear which side the parties are on.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/
Clinton even campaigned with the "mothers of the movement" who lost children to gun violence.( One of them, Lucy McBath, was just elected to Congress)
Even the few "good" Republicans in Congress vote to elect leaders like NRA-owned McConnell, who obstruct all attempts at sane legislation.
It's the VOTERS who have to make gun safety a huge priority when they vote.
Any voter who votes for any Republican is saying that some other issue is more important than ending the slaughter of beloved family members and friends, including (born) children,
6
the people who most want guns are exactly the last people who should have them -- irrational, unstable, and violent.
12
@true patriot Total nonsense. You have absolutely no knowledge about who does and does not own firearms. And when you make that argument -- if it can be called an argument -- you lose any chance of compromise with responsible gun owners. The vast majority of firearm owners have guns for personal defense or hunting. They use them responsibly and never cause harm to another human being. The 'irrational, unstable and violent' ones comprise far less than 1%.
Relax. Americans will enact gun controls when they grow weary of their children being slaughtered. It seems they aren't there yet. Lots more 'memorials' to look forward to.
9
Let us hope and pray that the trend continues for stricter background checks, and periodic re-licensing and even interviews of those whose answers (and verifications) are sketchy. Plus, shouldn't all AK-15s and similar high powered rifles be totally censored, outside of a few exceptional circumstances?
This shouldn't be an issue for most long time gun owners, who value safety and do not want guns in the wrong hands. It won't sit right with the manufacturers who stand to lose money. Too bad.
What next? Turn smart phones into weapons? That might change the sluggish smart phone market. Wouldn't that be an added feature to die for?
1
@Rosalie Lieberman Please let us know what you consider a "sketchy" answer as to why a person wishes to exercise a constitutional right.
Additionally are there other constitutional rights that we should need to explain in detail why we deserve them before we're allowed to exercise them?
2
@Lilo
The Second Amendment was deliberately misinterpreted by Scalia, etc. Bet you aren't
a member of any state's militia. The National
Guard. Who exactly is "well regulated?"
Slaughtered school kids in their classes.
Gun background checks don't solve the problems with gun ownership. The issue is not owning the gun. The issue is trying to defuse whatever is making people think that picking up a gun and shooting a bunch of other people will solve anything or make a worthwhile statement. The other issue is what types of guns the average person should be allowed to own and why.
I grew up in house with guns. My father used to like to go to the country with a friend to shoot at beer cans for the fun of it. This was back in the 1960s and 70s. Times were different and the NRA was different. There wasn't as much of an us versus them attitude or the idea that a good person with a gun could stop a bad person with a gun. The suggestion by the NRA is irresponsible and dangerous. Most people who own guns are not marksmen, have not been trained as snipers and shouldn't consider trying to end a dangerous situation that way.
Part of gun safety is learning how to take care of gun, store the gun, and what not to do with a gun. One thing you don't want to do is give the bad guy an opportunity to get his hands on your gun. The other part of gun safety is that of your fellow citizens. If gun owners think that carrying a gun openly or concealed improves their safety they ought have another think.
8
For years I’ve been told there is no chance for change but I say that’s a cop out. You can only get change if you work for it and I honestly believe that gun regulations is in the best interest of all Americans not just special groups. It will save lives.
Just like voting rights for women and civil rights it will be a steady battle but one a majority of Americans support.
The time seems to be creeping closer.
9
Why is there not a big effort among the urban Democratic parties, where there are such gigantic electoral majorities, to get people who live in those areas to turn in their guns? It is mostly people of color who are involved in gun violence. Why aren't people of color in Chicago, Los Angeles, the Bronx, Baltimore, Tampa, and other big cities turning in their guns in the interest of the public good? Imagine what a precedent that would set.
2
@Observer of the Zeitgeist I will give up my guns right after the police and Richard Spencers of the world give up theirs.
In other words...a week past never.
2
are you kidding? 11 Jewish people shot by a white man? What people of colour were at the country bar in California? Las Vegas?
3
I will keep asking until I get my answer. Where exactly does it say "guns" anywhere in the constitution? I keep looking but I only find "well regulated".
9
@Scott S.
It doesnt say it anywhere. The second amendment has three important qualifiers before granting the right to bare arms.
a well regulated militia.
then it says...
being necessary to the security of a free state
The Supreme court interpreted this as extending to personal security. Hence the ferocious fight to place judges on the bench.
8
@Scott S. You should read the Heller decision in its entirety, not just a newspaper or other media summary. Perhaps then you'll have a better grasp of how the right to 'bear arms' has been interpreted as an individual right to possess a common use gun for the purpose of self defense in one's home.
We need to hear some optimistic news on the gun front. It's shameful and embarrassing that the so called greatest country in the world allows its citizens to kill each other and themselves with little to no restrictions. This infatuation with guns and making it easy to purchase them and carry them around in public as if non gun owners have no rights and don't count even though we pay taxes and have rights too is a sickness that should have been fixed decades ago with tough regulations. Our best hope is the kids from Parkland and elsewhere who are serious about making gun ownership a privilege and not a right will stay tough, active and smart.
8
Republicans will vote for gun control legislation when they vote to raise taxes or expand education, health care, environmental protections or increase international aid. Please stop pointing to a bit of lip service and taking it for action. It's irresponsible and disingenuous. America is in the midst of a 2nd Civil War precisely because corporate power has blocked any and all action on literally every social question of any meaning, from gun control to climate change, from tax policy to inequality. They don't care about your gestures, so stop making nice.
8
I've enjoyed target-shooting, and have been an NRA member, on-and-off for forty years, and have never had the thought of harming others, especially children, with my firearms. I don't follow why this bizarre notion should have entered into American society as the years progressed. When I go to the range, my fellow shooters and I concentrate on the paper in the port; no one talks about random killings.
1
You should talk about random killings, because they happen far too frequently, and they're preventable.
1
@Dan My comment re: random killings is that we don't talk about doing them; they're not what we're about.
1
If you aim a gun at an intruder, the bottom line is that you are prepared to kill. By advocating more more guns, the NRA is essentially saying, "It's okay to kill." Yet there are many other way to defend yourself and your home: compressed air horns, pepper spray, a baseball bat, bright lights...
I have lived in rough areas and never, ever needed - or wanted - a gun for self-defense. I am the son of a gunsmith, the brother of an NRA champion and was for many years with the US Biathlon Team - do not talk to me about being afraid of guns - but I will not kill. A baseball bat by the door is enough, and the results aren't quite as final as killing.
Are you really prepared to kill, gun advocates?
7
@Nathaniel Brown To protect my life and the lives of those I love? Absolutely. I would be derelict in my duty as a free man were I not.
1
@Nathaniel Brown Are you really suggesting that you'd prefer to beat an intruder to death or maim him? If you're confronting him with a club, that's inherently what you're threatening to do. I realize you hope he will run when confronted. But what if he calls your bluff?
Calling them guns immediately cedes part of the argument to the NRA. "Gun" is a neutral word. It feeds directly into their narrative about the "gun" being blameless in the carnage.
Law enforcement and the military call them what they are: "weapons". In the case of the AR platform, they can be weapons of mass destruction, as in the tragedies of Las Vegas and elsewhere.
I have changed my vocabulary to use "weapon" rather than "gun" or "firearm".
8
@JB Uh... I'm all for not letting Republicans control discourse (like, if you're not a Republican and still say "Obamacare," stop it) but "weapons" is an overly broad category that includes knives, swords, baseball bats, maces... And remember that these are the people who are all like "HA, you said 'silencer' not 'suppressor' and 'clip' instead of 'magazine' so you're dumb and it's fine for us to put our death-worshipping hobby above innocent lives,' so you just know they're going to jump all over you for wanting to ban pocket knives because you say "weapons."
@JB I like to take it a step further and call them murder weapons, that’s what they’re for after all.
2
@JB Great idea. I’m going to follow your example
We all know that many comments will be along the lines of NRA talking points, the answer is always "more guns" (and more profits for the manufacturers). "Today's National Rifle Association is essentially a de facto trade association masquerading as a shooting sports foundation. So the NRA does the bulk of lobbying for the industry." (NPR, March 2018)
11
@Steve Kennedy it could also be said that many comments will be along the lines of Everytown for Gun Safety talking points, the answer is always "more gun control."
See, it works both ways, Steve.
@Dino Both ways, sure. Except for one big difference. The pro-gun points are really just propaganda for gun manufacturers who care only about their profits. The gun control proponents are expressing the will of tens, if not hundreds of millions of people who are concerned about their safety. Those hundreds of millions are not as organized or well-funded as the gun lobby/NRA, but that is slowly changing.
6
@Dino
Nasty words don't kill; nasty people with guns do.
I'd like to see our Congress pass a law that treats guns like cars: i.e. you need a license, registration of the firearm, and liability insurance to purchase a firearm and/or ammunition. If your guns and/or ammunition are used to harm or kill innocent people, you are financially liable for their medical bills, funeral expenses, and owe financial compensation to the families of victims.
48
@Steve Aint gonna happen Steve, Laws on the books don't work. How do you find out where the Ammo came from. I reload, so that leaves ammo out. + How many states dont require gun registration for private gun purchases. How many people do you actually think will do what you're proposing.?
1
@Steve, there is reluctance to do this because the jails and prisons would be filled with more people than they are now. The penalties for possession of an unlicensed firearm are actually quite moderate. They should be quadrupled. Everyone who commits a crime is already financially liable to his victims. The problem is, they're judgment proof.
2
The right to carry a gun doesn’t imply freedom from the consequences of improper use.
4
Gun legislation will be determined by public opinion in the long run, and it would be just as foolish to vote GOP because you think they will protect your gun rights as it was to vote against Obama because you thought he would take them away.
2
What is the logical endgame of the NRA position? Why should we have laws outlawing grenades or RPG launchers? What about a tripod-mounted 20mm on an armored half-track? Why stop at the AR-15, weapon of mass death that it is? Why stop at bump stocks? Why not get tommy guns and oozies for teachers and librarians?
If you understand why not, then you can understand limiting rifles to one shot, then reload models, and six-shot handguns. For sane people, no history of violence, domestic or otherwise, burden of proof on them. With a reason, not just anyone. Approve the 2% of hand gun applications from cops and people who drive bank trucks and reject everyone else (license ends if you don’t work at that job any more).
You don’t need self defense unless you’re in an arms race. Stop the race.
13
@Daniel Mozes One question,,,, Who is your first responder if an armed intruder is in your house at 2 am.? Answer that.
1
@Daniel Mozes Sorry, Daniel, but you don't get to decide what others "need."
1
Yeah. All those millions of people who have owned and used guns for generations ought to listen to people with your point of view instead of their own. Good luck with that approach to solving a mutual problem and see how long it takes to achieve what you want.
1
guns equal death. the people who value guns over the right of the rest of us to go about our lives without being massacred in schools, malls, fitness studios or just walking down the street are a small minority. there are more of us, and we will defeat them.
17
@true patriot you're using a rather extreme "it's either guns or our lives" position. it doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
did you ride in a car today? you do know that you have a better chance of being killed in a car accident than you do by gun violence, yes?
2
Explain the percentages cited in the article. They don’t match your assumptions.
1
@Dino
Since when are cars being designed to kill people? Every year car designers add safety features. Every year, gun makers make their products more lethal.
In the same way many Republicans had deathbed-like conversions regarding pre-existing medical conditions on the eve of this year's elections, expect many of them to pretend that they support gun safety in future elections. Their opponents should not let them walk away from an NRA "A" rating, nor should such politicians be able to distance themselves from the NRA's biggest supporter, the coward in chief.
5
It says something that I a 63 year old white guy when pulled over on my motorcycle for speeding, not a harley, the first thing the cop did was ask if I was armed. He had his hand on his gun and had a very serious look on his face. He didn't leave the immediate area of his car until I assured him I was unarmed.
Cops worrying about getting shot by a old man on a BMW motorcycle, we've come to this.
I got a verbal warning.
20
@Paulie Cops always do this during motor vehicle stops. Not sure what you are trying to say here.
@Dino
I have never been asked if I am armed during a traffic stop. Not sure what you’re trying to imply here.
The NRA has wounded itself by being unyielding on any change in gun laws save for those that make them laxer. By being uncompromising, many perceive it as a problem in a time when most are seeking solutions. An avid target shooter, I’m a member of the Liberal Gun Club (LGC), an organization mainly of centrist, left-wing and independents who for the most part have little time for the NRA and its politics. While the LGC is pro-Second Amendment, it is a far cry from the regulations-are-evil mentality of the NRA. It will be sane, non-ideology driven organizations like the LGC, working with concerned citizens and a host of other professionals, that craft intelligent laws to address not only firearms ownership, but the root causes of gun violence. For a closer look at the LGC: https://theliberalgunclub.com
12
Here is what is be ignored. On one side we have the "take all your guns" leftists, and on the other we have the "guns for all, even through crazies" conservatives. What I don't understand is why can't we have a balance that ensures public safety, while still defending the 2nd Amendment???? A great example is Austria, they gave a strong gun culture, and a very low violent crime rate.
8
What the author misses is that everybody like guns and the power they confer. Last week MG wrote about the PROLIFERATION of self defense groups on the left, with 1 even named after Huey P. Newton, founder with Eldridge Cleaver of the Black Panther Party. Huey P. Newton? "On rigole!"Newton was a drug dealer turned political activist gunned down in Oakland, Calif in a transaction gone bad.(Thomas Berkeley, journalist who knew all of the Black Panthers, described Newton as the least stable,psychotic in an interview with me in early 1970's.)Gun lobby, along with our dominance of the international arms market--US controls more than 40 percent of arms sales, is something we will always have to live with, and its not a white v, black issue: An African American sued successfully to be able to own a firearm since neighborhood in Chicago where he lives was a perilous one.One may as well hope for it to be midday when it's 2 P.M.in the afternoon! Illinois and city of Chicago combined have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country!
YES! Children should have the right to grow up! Their lives are more important than the need some people have for lethal gun toys.
15
@Diane B Um excuse me, guns are not TOYS, we need them to overthrow the government, to feel like macho men, and, I hope (um, I mean, heaven forbid) to shoot black and brown people if they break into our houses. Or, like, play music too loud or whatever.
3
@Diane B You do know, Diane, that children face a greater risk from dying in car crashes than by guns, right? I'm sure you missed that when you did your research...
@Dino -- you better go redo your "research."
There are states where the total death rates from guns exceed that from cars; there are a many states now where the death rate of children to guns exceeds their death rate to cars.
We do a great deal to attempt to control car crashes, and as a driver can do a great deal to reduce the hazards for my kids. Cars are required to have extensive safety devices, be inspected, registered, etc. There is mandatory insurance, that protects victims. (And yes, that mandatory insurance pays for accidents caused by felony reckless or drunk driving, in all states.) Drivers are tested and licensed, and driving a car is not a constitutional right.
Hey Dino ... do you know who Jamie Gilt is? If not, go google her. What do you think about "great gun gals" like Jamie?
1
Your article by Janet Reitman in the Sunday magazine Nov. 11, 2018 about the failure of law enforcement in this country to recognize the rise of violent white nationalism which has now become mainstream and widespread, explains to me the complete take over of the Republican Party by the NRA and why we value gun rights over human rights in this country. Failure to institute sensible gun regulation hasn't made a lot of sense until you look at the brutal history of white nationalism, especially in the South. Even the enthusiasm of certain Christians for Trump and the Republican agenda can be understood by the white supremacy agenda. After all the church spawned the KKK. White Southerners used lynching, "convict labor" and laws to terrorize and control non-white behavior. We must not let Jim Crow rise again! We need to identify white nationalist behavior for what it is. Call it out everywhere because Jim Crow was supported at all levels of the society. No wonder the GOP is willing to undermine our Democracy to get control of the judiciary! Bellesumter
12
the nra, funded by the kremlin, suported radical rightwing guns candidates on a platform of guns everywhere all the time for everyone to destabilize the country
time's up
10
NRA is the voice of gun ownership--its power is derived from its membership.
NYT and fellow Collectivists--too many in the media to count--are, not by accident, forever bashing the wrong piñata.
The citizens who own guns are their real targets, just don't have the courage to admit it.
Only way to bring them under heel are Stalinist gulags for gun owners?
Let's remember that the mass-killing in Thousand Oaks was in California--state with the most stringent gun laws in the nation--which suggests what?
7
There's always some bogeyman ruining life for liberals; it's never them, their silly notions, their hypocrites in elective clothing. They lose elections -- it's the electoral college, or racists, or privileged white women, or climate change, or cosmic debris. We love them however because it's their antics that keep getting Republicans and Conservatives elected! Always good to keep a few around though for stuff & giggles.
4
It's about time.
4
Let's remember that the mass-killing in Thousand Oaks was in California--state with the most stringent gun laws in the nation--and had nothing to do with the NRA and its loyal citizens--which suggests what? Stalinist gulags for American gun-owners?
3
@Alice's Restaurant -- Don't talk sense. This isn't the place for that about guns.
3
@Alice's Restaurant
Well maybe the "Stalinist gulags" will be run by the "Second Amendment people" who, if they can't "lock her up," might, as Trump suggested, "do something" abut Hillary Clinton. Sound good to you?
2
It is about time to address the NRA mental health...
7
Thank you for saying "Gun-Safety" in the title! It is much more accurate than "control". Who doesn't want more safety? No one wants to be controlled but we all want to be safe! Let's keep using those words NYT. Don't let the NRA narrative lead your headlines!
8
I wonder how much Trump's obvious duplicity is a factor. Many people (though not most, certainly) are insulted by his (& the Repubs behind him) faking gun control sentiments only to back off, again & again (bump stocks? mental health?--as if these were the problems in the first place) & offering transparently ridiculous solutions, parroted from Wayne LaPierre, like putting guns in the hands of "good guy" teachers. A lot of Americans are idiots, yes, but also a lot are not.
1
Love and respect my firearms, but want nothing to do with what the NRA has become...
5
Most Americans don't want their kids to have to run through active shooter drills in their elementary schools. That is the very opposite of liberty.
Positing themselves as leaders on guns and defending little but complete inaction is a guarantee for failure. It would actually be quite easy for the NRA to assume a sensible leadership role on this issue but there is no apparent interest.
14
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Mao's aphorism appears to apply more to the Republican party than it did to revolutionary China.
I am skeptical that this election is going to change that.
3
According to the Washington Post, "the number of mass shootings account for a tiny fraction of the country’s gun deaths, but they are uniquely terrifying because they occur without warning in the most mundane places."
In short, such shootings are emotionally charged but are of small statistical significance. They appeal to the public despite the fact that they are not particularly newsworthy.
5
@michjas exactly. the truth is out there; most people ignore the truth and are guided by emotions.
1
Wow, the senseless deaths of innocent people is not newsworthy. Nice. We don’t want to live in your world.
8
@michjas
They are becoming more and more prevalent. Remember, a person who survived the Las Vegas massacre died at the California bar mass murder.
Did his “luck” just run out?
4
Americans inherently understand that increasing gun regulation has one effect .. to be increasingly burdensome on legal gun owners. California is clearly the most highly regulated and restricted gun market in the country, yet they just had another mass shooting with a completely LEGAL weapon.
If reducing deaths is the goal, then look to the root cause: mental illness, reporting and restriction of those individuals suspected of mental illness and overall improved gun safety in the home and training Virtually none of the regulation being proposed and touted addresses any of those three conditions
7
@RJPost
I couldn't agree more. Something much more dangerous and insidious is at the root of these shootings. While I'm all for employing more restrictive gun control measures (if not implementing an outright ban on firearms), I recognize the fact that this would only be a tiny step in correcting, what appears to me to be, a very fractured society.
1
@RJPost
AGREED 100%!!! These shootings are the result of something that's much more insidious and hardly being addressed by anyone in this country. While I'm all for employing restrictive gun control measures - if not an outright ban on firearms - I recognize that this is only a tiny step in correcting, what appears to me to be, a very fractured society at its core.
1
State laws are meaningless because they are easily defeated by purchasing items from other states. We need national laws to have any effect.
6
When people express deep concerns that people who own guns that are legal and easy to use and powerful and shoot a lot of bullets are creating a threat to public safety, they are approaching the problem in a way that cannot be successful. They make the focus not upon getting guns away from those likely to do harm but to who are unlikely to pose any threat. Their fear of what the guns can do expresses their fear that people who want to kill a lot of people want to use guns like that to kill many people. They see it happening again and again. Their hypothesis seems to be confirmed.
But nearly all deaths by guns are not committed with that class of guns. Most are done with handguns. Besides the proportion of guns of every legal kind used to kill people is very very small. In terms of the chances of any gun being used to murder, to accidentally kill, or to be used in suicide is unlikely. That also means that any particulate owner of any gun is unlikely to pose a threat to others. So eliminating guns is a brute force solution that is probably the most difficult way possible to address how to keep guns from those who are likely to do harm.
It would be better to use a different approach that focuses upon assuring that who own which guns are all known, and to assure that they are responsible and trustworthy. Both gun owners and those who would not own them could agree with this approach, and Democrats could gain real traction with the issue by taking such an approach.
4
@Casual Observer
From what I see people are not even responsible and trustworthy with their cell phones. They distractedly drive with them even in the states where the law prohibits it.
Gun owners are responsible and trustworthy until they’re not and when they’re not my Freedom to live without fear is taken away!
Repeat again....if More guns made us safer, then we would be the safest country on earth.
10
There are too many guns too easily acquired and obtaining a conceal carry permit is too easy as well. We didn’t have these problems 40’years ago, because it was too hard to get a carry permit, and way fewer guns available for sale.
4
There are far too many guns in the hands of people known only to themselves for there not to be many in the hands of people who will deliberately or accidentally harm people. The issue is how to know where the guns are located and who controls them so that those who have them can be reasonably expected not to do harm with them. That’s a big reach and imposing it upon about a hundred million honest citizens who have kept them for generations is not going to be accomplished as easily as many seem to think unless they agree with enthusiasm.
I assume that all those who favor prohibiting or severely restricting most private citizens from owning guns live in cities or towns with meaningful police forces. Does it ever occur to them that there are many places in the United States where there is very limited access to law enforcement officers. Alaska is the extreme example where a police officer may be a one hr (or more) ride away. But you might also include many small towns and villages in rural regions of the country such as Montana (or even in rural areas of New England), where many towns have no police force, but rely solely on the State Police whose response time to calls for help from many homes may exceed 15 minutes. Indeed, in some (if not many such cases) the police themselves may recommend that citizens with no criminal records take a small arms course, get a permit, and then buy a firearm appropriate for self defense of his home (not large magazine automatic rifles).
5
@jeff fillman
I would have to disagree with your point, Jeff. Australia - where I'm from - has huge swaths of remote areas where the snail-like police response times would make certain parts of Alaska feel like an absolute oppressive police state in comparison. Our gun laws are some of the most restrictive in the world yet no one really seems to mind. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Australians think our gun laws are either 'just right' or 'not strong enough'.
13
NRA members need to revert to a state based organization. No national organization. Then each state can work independently for laws in their own state. Think that would result in a return to the NRA original goals and functions. Which were good and well intended, but are now far off in Right field. Not good.
3
There is another, more general lesson to the story of the NRA. Organizations that start with positive, widely-supported intentions and well-meaning decision-makers do not always stay that way. Part of being a vigilant citizenry is protecting the integrity of our institutions and pruning away those that have outlived their social value.
4
The election was within a week of three horrific cases of hate driven violence including two multiple murders using guns. The sympathy for these probably influenced the election results. Given all the well reported incidents of mass murders by guns, the question remains to be why have not more Americans made their elected representatives act to impose more controls on guns?
The unreflective assert that the lack of better control over who has guns that should not is because Americans consider the right to own guns too important to allow government with the means to confiscate them or that gun manufacturers and the NRA have bought so much political influence that the people’s will is being stymied. Both groups are ignoring the facts that they fear could result in outcomes that they find unacceptable.
The power of interest groups is campaign contributions and lucrative jobs after office holders have left office. Direct payments to actually buy off politicians is still criminal and is prosecuted against powerful public officials. Few former office holders go with the NRA or the gun manufacturers so it’s voters’ support is what the interest groups are helping to gain. The marketing is reaching people’s apprehensions about guns, about restrictions upon themselves that they don’t want.
The NRA exerts influence upon people who fear gun control measures will lead to confiscations. Expressing fear of guns and of owners confirms the fears. The suggested controls reveal motivations.
1
I could say its about time that one irrational lobby that actively promotes weapons for civilians that are military-grade and designed to slaughter innocents started to lose its grip. I COULS day that, but this should have happened rationally decades ago.
If the paranoid arsenal owners were severely restricted to firearms for limited sport (i.e. limited hunting and target shooting) in very limited numbers (let's say two or three instead of twenty with mega-magazines, bump stocks and semi-auto) and EVERY firearm needs to be registered and the owner(s) thoroughly vetted not only to buy but to own their weapons, MANY innocent Americans, including many children, would be alive today.
It is not an infringement upon the Second Amendment to rationally limit weapons of war in civilian hands - got it? It is common sense. The NRA has done NOTHING to help stop our slaughters, so it is well past the time for the rest of us, the rational Americans (many of whom are gun owners), to do what they will not. We will pass laws via a new Congress that Americans deserve, laws that help to protect them and their children. Like it or not, that is what happens in a well-run democracy.
20
@RealTRUTH
As a gun owner who are not American.
Standard & large capacity Magazine and Semi-auto firearm use for sport competition and pest control.
Here, In Thailand we use handgun, pump-action/ semi-auto shotgun, semi-auto rifle like AR-15 for sport competition like shooting target, IPSC, and pest control but we don't have mass shooting like the US.
Even in most countries in Europe allow civilian own firearm like AR-15 as same as American but you need firearm license and mental health check to own guns.
In my opinion, American people buy guns easier around 40-42 states you just fill form 4473 and waiting period around 3-10 days (Depend on which states) then you get guns.
3
@AsianGunOwner
You are correct. Since it is obvious that American paranoia and misinterpreted Constitutional rights have resulted in such inhuman slaughter, we have no choice but to take away these weapons of mass destruction; they are being abused by immature, insecure, amoral wanna-be hit men.
If angry people were forced to solve their problems one-on-one on a level no-fatal platform, MANY lives would be saved. NO ONE NEEDS AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.
The idea of a 'right to bear arms' is ridiculous in the contemporary world. It belongs to a more primitive society.
Insdtead of the concepts of denying gun rights to the criminal or the crazy, people who want to purchase guns should have to prove why they need them. & the type of gun they are allowed to purchase should be determined by that need. For example: if you are a hunter, you nee a rifle - certainly not a hand gun or an automatic weapon. It you feel endangered by the possiblity of a break -in, you need a hand gun, not a rifle or an automatic - accompanied by lessons in how to use the gun. Also, use of the weapon should be limited to your residence. No need to endanger society at large by taking the gun with you when you leave the house. In other words: we should not base permissible gun ownership on the idea of denial, but rather other positive need for lethal weapons.
8
@Jenifer Wolf Agreed! But I think we need to go a step further and repeal the 2nd amendment all together. Alternatively, state governments should draft and enforce legislature that all but places a total ban on firearms. Period. The discussion of 2nd amendment rights has moved well past the point of complete and utter insanity. Professor Spitzer's piece reaffirms that fact.
7
@Eleni K.
Repeal the 2nd A is a great idea. Look how Prohibition made alcoholism and drunk driving disappear.
America's war on drugs made illegal drugs go away. A shining example for the whole world to see of how to handle a dangerous problem.
I seriously think domestic violence should be outlawed also.
5
@Eleni K. It will never happen. Do you have any idea how difficult it would be? And for the sake of argument, what would happen if all firearms in the country were banned? Who would confiscate them? You do know there are over 300 million guns in this country, right? Most of which are not registered anywhere.
1
"Americans don't go around carrying guns with the idea they're using them to influence other Americans. There's no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons."
-California Governor Ronald Reagan, 1967
17
Folks. It is understandable that you would prefer to live in a society with fewer weapons. However, from the perspective of political strategy you should consider this with great caution. A majority of Americans are in support of the 2nd amendment. To them, the right to have and bear arms is the difference between being subjects and being citizens. This is why we ended with Trump. Most of the folks who voted for him, I am convinced, know he is a vile swine. But most of them also did not digest Hilary Clinton's suggestion that we should consider the "Australian Model," the confiscation of all weapons. Liberals are baffled by the fact that most republican voters seem to vote "against their interest." They fail to understand that it is not their prerogative to define what voters' interests are. Judging from the strong response of people inclined to protect the 2nd amendment, they seem to see it as more important than the social safety net liberals have to offer.
4
@alex.hartov
For the sake of accuracy all weapons were not confiscated in Australia. There was a huge government buy back by and gun owners chose to hand them in 20 years ago. It was tax payer funded of course but the public supported it. These days there are periodic amnesties. Guns have to be registered and owners need a license. Just like owning and driving a car. People own guns here for hunting, recreational shooting clubs, heirloom collections, work reasons (eg security guards) and farmers frequently need to own one. You can apply to own a gun in Australia if you are:
18 years or over
Judged as a fit and proper person
Have undergone a firearms safety training course and;
Have provided documentation about the storage arrangements in which they will secure the firearm.
Licences will not be granted to people:
Under the age of 18
Who have been convicted in the previous 10 years in the current or another state/territory of an offence prescribed by the regulations
Is subject to an apprehended violence order or at any time in the previous 10 years has been subject to an order (unless the order was revoked), or;
Is subject to a Good Behaviour Bond to an offence prescribed by the regulations.
I grew up with guns, when the NRA represented gun safety. Now, the NRA is a terrorist organization that makes money off of fear and gun violence. You can feel the tide turning toward that recognition. The NRA is losing its grip around the necks of even the Republicans, who have long been bought by the NRA for remarkably paltry sums of money. Before too long, the gun manufacturers will recognize that their customer is no longer the NRA--it's Americans. And they will have to begin selling guns with technology that has been around for decades and that can make guns safer and limit mass murders. It's amazing what Australia has done, and it's going to happen here.
14
At best, Americans might vote for a ban on assault rifles, but it is hard to imagine a gun law that would have less impact on gun deaths.The FBI Uniform Crime Report (Expanded Homicide Table 8: Murder Victims by Weapon) shows that rifles, including assault rifles, were used in 403 of the 15,129 murders committed in 2017. Rifles accounted for 2.7 percent of murders, but this includes all rifles, not just assault rifles. Assault rifles probably accounted for less than one percent. By comparison, knives were used in 1,591 murders, blunt objects were used in 467 murders and 687 American were beaten or stomped to death by unarmed assailants. A law that required gun purchasers to have high credit ratings would be more effective, but would be judged prejudicial toward minority groups.
The federal courts would probably find a ban on assault rifles unconstitutional. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure Americans are equipped for combat. Weapons designed to kill people are exactly the type of weapons the founders had in mind. We need to repeal the 2nd amendment.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
3
@William Case
Your obviously never learned math. I you deduct all the murders with knives, blunt objects, and those beaten to death, the death toll by guns is still a whopping 12,375 having been murdered by guns.
Guns are the murder weapons of the cowards. No need to get close to their target, feel their breath and blood coming out of their wounds.
And no, the Founding Fathers enshrined the 2nd Amendment to ensure that their newly founded country had a well regulated militia - aka peoples' army -, one that had just defeated the mightiest standing army that time.
The Founders were against establishing a standing army on their soil. They could never imagine what kind of weaponry now exists around the world, but also the fact that a lone person in their cherished country can kill dozens of people with automatic and semi-automatic weapons in minutes.
5
@Sarah
You obviously did not read my comment. It is about the number of of murders in which rifle were used, not about the number of murders that involved firearms. Rifles are used in about two percent of murders, but banning them would not lower gun death by two percent. Killers denied rifles would use handguns.
The founders realized the Constitution would need to be revised due to changing circumstances. This is why they provided the amendment process.
@William Case
Rifles, shmifles. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment WAS, repeat, WAS, to ensure that Americans were equipped for combat in "A Well Regulated Militia".
1
I'm happy to hear the public consensus is at least beginning to address gun violence. However, I think we're on a path towards disappointment. New gun laws will certainly help curtail gun violence. These measures don't change the psychology of gun violence though. Guns enable someone who wants to kill. Removing the guns does not remove the motivation to murder. A murderer with a less deadly weapon is infinitely preferred. However, you still have a murderer on your hands.
This is particularly true in the case of mass murderers. The man who walked into the synagogue would have used something else if not the gun he had. Look at the pipe bomber for a case in point. Removing guns helps. However, there's still the issue of how these violent killers become radicalized in the first place. I won't duck the issue on this one. I believe the cause is Trump and the right-wing media. The pattern is a little too obvious to ignore.
6
@Andy -- "New gun laws will certainly help curtail gun violence."
Wishful thinking. There is not evidence of that. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. The guns in recent mass shootings were legal, and legal under some of our most restrictive gun laws.
It’s about time. I’m not quite a one-issue Voter, but maybe I should be. That just might be what it’ll take, at least for awhile. Sensible and serious Women and Men to unite and defeat these Domestic Terrorists, the NRA. Not hyperbole, that is exactly what they are, greatly aided by their paid political arm, the GOP.
Seriously.
22
The best to anticipate over the next two years is a stalemate. While the House will push gun control legislation, the senate won't consider it and even if it did, the president won't sign it. What we'll get - aside from continuing mass shooting - is politicking; certainly better than the usual assembly-line wish of prayers and condolences, but it's no substitute for effective reform. Undoubtedly there will be opportunities for the democrats to embarrass the republicans in demonstrating their near-decadent oblivion to the rising number of gun death victims, particularly the all-too-frequent spectacle of mass shootings at a venue-near-you. With an increasingly sociopathic NRA sounding off, it's going to be more difficult for the republicans to keep tip-toeing through the corpses.
2
when they try to appeal to the mindless masses, our elected officials refer to the US as " the leader of the free world".
in that free world however, human life is NOT a priority. a simple google search shows how any civilized country managed to find their own solutions to mass murdering. not here. we've already gave the seal of approval to wantonly shooting kindergarten children when, after sandy hook NOTHING was done. so how civilized a society / culture are we anyway ?!
8
To be honest, I find the current gun culture in the United States to be quite ludicrous. While I do understand and appreciate its roots, it's an incredibly poor excuse for not implementing an all-out ban on firearms in light of the events in the past 20+ years. I'm from Australia and we share a similar tradition to Americans in terms of rugged independence and self reliance. This is particularly true when it comes to protecting our legal rights and those of others, but it only took ONE(!) mass shooting for our people and legislature to redesign gun laws and implement a safer and more common sense approach. How many more will it take for your congress to do the same? At this pace I'm seriously doubtful it will ever occur.
18
@Eleni K.
On the latter, let's hope so.
Thanks, Professor Spitzer! There is welcome, good news here backed up with solid facts. Gun safety providing funding to specific races seems key to turning things around.
4
30% of Americans have never even fired a gun (Gallup). For them to advocate more gun laws affects them just as much as laws forbidding me from flying to Mars.
The NRA is the boogeyman for people who have never had any interest in hunting or guns or who don't live in rural areas where they are the only law enforcement around for miles.
Almost 100 million people live in households where there is a gun. The NRA has 4-6 million members, meaning it represents a fraction of the country, and a fraction of gun owners.
2/3 of deaths by guns are suicides. Believing that there will be a lower suicide rate by restricting guns is the same weak logic that mass killings or killings by people who engage in criminal activity will be reduced by a few guns laws.
The focus on the NRA's money or numbers misses the point. The NRA would be just as effective if it had only one member and no money because the main thing the NRA does is challenge gun laws in courts, effectively. And that only requires one person.
Court decisions have not gone the direction that gun control advocates would want. The stronger that gun restrictionists pass laws the stronger the blow-back will be in the courts. This is especially true because the Supreme Court is MUCH more conservative.
The solution for gun deaths is far from being simply a matter of demonizing the NRA or passing laws that will do little.
(and by the way, none of the proposed laws would affect me personally, and I abhor the NRA)
3
@Dan Some good points, Dan. The argument shouldn’t be about guns per se. It should be about the lethality of certain guns. Focus on that key point, and mass shootings may not stop overnight, but the death toll from them will go down.
3
@Dan You don't need to have fired a gun to be a victim of gun violence. I wonder how many kids line-dancing at the Borderline in Thousand Oaks had ever fired a gun, or why that's even relevant to the discussion? I am tired of hearing from the pro-gun crowd that I just "don't know enough about guns" and therefore my opinion that military-grade weapons don't belong in civilian hands is rendered invalid. I don't know much about aerodynamics either, but I'm going to trust a range of government agencies and other experts to make sure air travel is safe. The American people overwhelmingly want common sense gun control because we are tired of the carnage. We tried it the NRA's way, but more guns haven't made us safer. The NRA can either lead, follow or get the heck out of the way.
3
@SouthernBeale
I want to propose a deal. Here it is:
We pass all of the proposed gun laws. You, and others in favor of them can set a number and rate of murders and suicides (from all causes) that indicate in 10 years that the laws have been successful.
If we meet that goal of decreasing deaths then the laws stand. If they don't, then all gun laws are eliminated and gun owners no longer need CCLs to carry guns.
Will you make that deal? No, because, you would be crazy to.
(Unfortunately we can't make that deal because the Supreme Court will throw out gun laws.)
I'm interested in decreasing the numbers of murders and suicides. There is no way these proposed laws will do that--they will fail and by failing then people who believed in those laws will be responsible for the continuing carnage.
You may not like this fact, but your statement that "people overwhelming want common sense gun control" should actually be phrased to say: The 30% who never fire a gun want gun control because they don't have to change anything about themselves. For the rest of then 70% what? From the data it would seem that the majority of them don't want gun control.
Gun laws are feel-good legislation: WE HAVE DONE SOMETHING! Meanwhile, the suicides and murders will continue. And that outcome will be on the gun control crowd because they chose the easy (and wrong) villain--guns.
3
The only way we can potentially move forward on this front, is by compromise, actual 'conversations' with those on the other side, and by not viewing this as 'either/or'.
This article said:
"According to Pew Research Center analysis, more Americans now favor gun regulation (52 percent) over gun rights (44 percent)."
It seems to me we need to change the question to 'how can we provide gun regulation AND gun rights at the same time'? Why can't we have both. Looking at it as either/or is a losing battle, for those who want to see a reduction in gun violence.
People have a right to own and drive a car through our neighborhoods. People over 21 have a right to purchase and consume alcohol. Yet these rights also come with rules and parameters within which people must behave. So let's do the same for weaponry....for a category of items which are not only far, far more dangerous to the population as a whole, but whose sole purpose is to maim and to kill.
All we are asking for is some 'common sense' rules, just as we have for if/when the US were to consider launching a nuclear attack on another country. There are safeguards in place...checks and balances. Other countries (and many within the US) simply shake their heads, that someone can walk out of a store with an AR-15 just as easily as they can a case of beer.
6
There might be the right to bear arms, but what about the right to be safe be safe in school? Not in the Constitution, but more important.
One, if not the primary task of the state is to provide basic safety to citizens. The right is trying to divest this fundamental responsibility. It needs to be called for what it is.
7
The right to bear arms focuses on cultural differences between rural and extended suburban areas versus highly occupied mid and large size cities. If you lived on a farm, a rural mountain area or where large forests and open spaces invited hunting, hiking and outdoor sports then having guns about the house is routine and well accepted. Living in the cities where gangs and close quarters creates a different style of living with cultural opposition and fear and loathing of guns/gun owners. In some parts of America guns are passed down from one generation to another. It's no big deal to go hunting and to own a shotgun, deer rifle or maybe a pistol or two. A gun in the house is like a sleeve on a shirt. It belongs there. Cities and now crowded suburban areas though are vastly different. So are views of crime, self-defense, thoughts on hunting, and of guns in general. Many Americans believe the 2nd Amendment means access to and the right to own and carry any type of firearm.
I went to a rural high school in central PA. Schools closed for hunting season. It was important, a part of life. But, times have changed and the township schools are no longer rural schools and school shootings have changed the world.
I don't believe that there will be major changes in gun control. There are more than 300 million guns in the hands of the public. Fear of crime, criminals, mass shootings and a need for self-defense will limit gun control. We may get stronger background checks. That's good.
8
Those surveyed rank gun control ahead of the climate and environment? That is positively scary on many levels.
5
@Alan
I certainly get you point, but it is not surprising many people see guns as a clear and present danger which makes it more urgent than climate change which is an inconvenient truth, but happening later and somewhere else.
3
Mr. Spitzer has written five book son gun policy and obviously knows something more than me and many others know about reading the pulse of our country in this matter. However, I feel he is too optimistic. If so many mass shootings do not nudge our conscience, I don't know what will. If so many high school students can lead the conversation on gun policy and yet our representatives can't be persuaded, I don't know what will. If a majority of Americans who want stronger control on the sale of guns can't move the needle on this issue, I don't know what will.
Sadly, i remain less optimistic.
7
What was happening with American gun violence thirty years ago was outright world-defying lunacy.
Since then the madness has increased dramatically. Our elected representatives on the NRA-financed Right have willfully obstructed any constructive dialogue about the issue, let aline seeking solutions.
The GOP does not represent the people that elect it; it represents its donor base. The Democrats are hardly better, but they do at least have some faint sense of popular representation, being on the correct side of gun safety policy.
10
It is time to add something to the gun-control conversation. Yes by all means take whatever steps we can ram through now for a possible reduction in gun deaths now. It seems to have helped in Australia in the short-term.
However, of far more potential is to add to the discussion that what we do now in terms of control and regulation will quite likely make a big difference 30, 20, maybe even 10 years from now. For our children and grandchildren.
Just like with climate change debating, it is relatively easy for the nay-sayers to discount short-term improvements. They probably are mostly right. But let's not let that near-term focus distract the debate from applying all the controls we can now for the sake of the future.
6
It's a very interesting question as to which (and how much) gun regulation produces what reduction in gun murders and crime.
We know that strict gun regulation (Japan, UK, Australia) is effective; we don't know how much benefit we can get from more modest measures, nor do i think it is clear at all what partial measures might be most effective.
If the goal is to reduce total gun murders then it is handguns that must be controlled; they are the weapon of ≈ 80% of the gun murders.
5
@Lee Harrison, I respectfully agree, but disagree that only handguns should be subject to greater regulations. Include all guns, and every type of ammo as well. Each and every bullet and shell needs to be accountable. Mandatory insurance, firearms safe storage, Inspections, licenses for the gun owners, etc. Then, let firearms enthusiasts fire away.
5
@Lee Harrison
Why don't American follow European model?
In France, You can own AR-15 with 30 rounds capacity magazine, suppressor, and handguns but you need firearm license it's called B-Category which means you have to pass background check, mental health check, vetting by police, join gun club, etc. after you get B-CAT license then you can own any semi-auto firearm as you wish except FULL-AUTO that forbidden for civilian.
1
@NLL -- very few murders are committed with traditional long rifles. Even the M1 Garand (standard military issue in WW II), an 8-round clip-loaded semi-auto long rifle that was very widely available in the US after WW II, is rarely misused.
It's still a reasonably popular and effective deer-hunting rifle.
Why make laws that just cause hassle for little real benefit?
1
As a boy at summer camp, I learned to shoot a rifle at targets supplied by the NRA, in pursuit of marksmanship awards given by the NRA. I shot well enough to become a proud member of the camp riflery team, with warm feelings toward the organization that helped to teach both this skill and safe practices to accompany it.
In the years since, I've watched that apolitical NRA devolve into an organization that horrifies me. With their absolutist mindset and take-no-prisoners politics, they have managed to accomplish what I would have once considered impossible: make me regret ever picking up a rifle to take aim at one of their targets.
41
It's a local issue. The details of the right to bear or not bear arms should be decided by communities themselves not by DC politicians creating one size fits alll laws or judges parsing the 18th century mind.
2
@PeterC
No it's not a local issue and it's not the "right to bear arms". It's about gun safety laws i.e. gun licenses, safe storage, safety checks by law enforcement. In other words, government doing their job to protect citizens from domestic terrorism. If a gun owner objects to such measures what do they ultimately have in mind? I imagine that folks living in bear country and feel threatened will be able to qualify for a permit.
10
@PeterC
It was judges parsing the 18th century mind--Scalia et al.--who decided that the 2nd Amendmt meant the exact opposite of "well-regulated."
A local issue?--So I can regulate guns in Chicago but you can bring them in from Gary, Indiana?
2
@PeterC: Article I Section 8 of the Constitution provides for Congress to mandate how states organize and regulate militias
1
While any sign that we are inching toward anything resembling a sane policy on guns is welcome (and decades overdue), this is surely cold comfort for the countless Americans whose lives have been impacted by rampant gun violence. Nothing can bring back the thousands needlessly killed because of the failures or our so-called leaders to stand up to the gun lobby and do what's right.
11
There are 5,000,000 members in the NRA. Why can't someone create an association with paid members to counteract the NRA. Why (Sadly) just the relatives of people killed or murdered by guns in the last 30 years in the USA would be enough to start up this association!
Just in the last 5 years, there have been 1,624 mass shootings in 1,870 days.*
Surely this insanity of not making gun laws more prohibitive
is unbelievable!
*https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/02/america-mass-shootings-gun-violence
27
@Majortrout Exactly my sentiment. Why don't responsible gun owners who share the concept of evolved gun regulations create a responsible organization for modern times? The NRA seems to always fall back on their legacy of gun safety and training, but that's an afterthought to their immature and unbending push to keep the money flowing (after all, like most issues, it's about money).
I'm in Colorado where gun ownership in rural and mountain areas is the status quo—most of it without the bizarre gun-worshipping culture. Some hunt, many have personal firearms for home protection in areas where law enforcement can't reach, and many for general safety for themselves and their pets against predators.
6
those NRA members vote especially NRA tells them that they are taking your guns away. We liberals do not vote. I we liberals voted, a lot of things could be changed for the better. We have purists in our party and they might not like one thing about Hillary and they will either not go to voting or vote for Green party or something. The other side will vote no matter even though their candidate might be most flawed.
It is about voting.
3
@Majortrout
Moms Demand Action has a larger (free) membership than the NRA
2
While I'm glad to hear that gun safety laws are more popular the NRA may be losing influence among the electorate, I worry that we won't be able to make much progress as long as increasingly conservative Federal courts and the SCOTUS ignore the "well regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment in favor of an unhindered individual "right of the people to keep and bear Arms." For example, Californians passed proposition 63 two years ago which banned the possession of magazines with more than 10 rounds, a law which might have prevented at least some of the loss of life in the recent Thousand Oaks mass shooting. However, the NRA sued to halt this provision, and a Ninth Circuit judge put a stay on implementation of this ban on these large capacity magazines. As long as the NRA has money for lawsuits and the Republicans continue to pack the Federal courts with pro-gun judges, US municipalities are going to have a difficult time enacting and implementing gun safety regulation, even when supported by the majority.
The only way to permanently solve this, and I realize this is a radical suggestion here in the US, is to either amend the Second Amendment to clarify that the right to individual gun possession should not pre-empt the right of government to enact gun and ammo regulations that protect public safety, or else to repeal it entirely.
43
@MRW More guns than people and perhaps 1 trillion rounds of ammo in this country, yet gun violence doesn't even get close to the "top 10" killers in the US (self inflicted 'violence' not included, even then #10). We get it, 'mass shootings' are scary, but guns are not the problem.
1
@MRW: The right of the unarmed to vet those who believe they need to be armed, for the security of their own free state, is being judicially nullified, just as the judiciary is eroding separation of church and state.
1
@Steve Bolger If someone is not a felon and hasn't been involuntarily committed I think that should be the end of any vetting.
That is the law in Michigan wrt CCL. When the law was changed all the usual suspects claimed that more people owning guns would cause more murders. It didn't happen.
I'm happy my state passed an initiative for stronger gun control. This is truly an indication of the change in voters' views.
30
@Jennie
hardly. the majority of the state itself voted against it, but was outnumbered by the California transplants in Puget sound. it'll be overturned in court...
1
@the other side
Then may we continue to get more people from California moving here. If it's overturned then perhaps our newly Democratic government will be motivated to enact it via legislation.
6
@the other side, I had no idea we were so overrun by anti-gun liberal immigrants from California with such power, the nerve.
1
Robert Spitzer is correct about Democrats finding a long-overdue receptiveness by electorate in the midterms for asserting the need for responsible gun control.
It remains to be seen, however, if past history will be repeated when the N.R.A. resumes its attack mode on political candidates – both Democrats and Republicans – who urge even the most common-sense steps to rein in the gun carnage which plagues the United States.
Many of us believe that the N.R.A., with its partnership with gun manufacturers and sellers, together with its heavy-handed use of political donations to influence elections, should be treated as a RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) enterprise.
There may now be enough sensible hunters, gunowners and collectors who agree that the N.R.A. long ago left its role as a proponent of gun safety and education on the backburner in favor of becoming a radical force in the promotion of gun violence and domestic terrorism.
14
Although the focus of this article is on firearms policy (or lack thereof) at the national level, it may be worth pointing out that voters in Washington State passed a sweeping initiative, Initiative 1639, designed to reduce gun violence. 1639 raises the minimum age for purchase of an assault weapon from 18 to 21, requires a waiting period, requires firearms owners to be told that they face penalties should weapons come into the hands of a prohibited person (penalties that they will in fact face under the new law) (i.e., a "safe storage" requirement), etc. The initiative won with 60% of the votes, statewide.
74
There is one thing wrong with this analysis. Al Gore actually won--both the popular and electoral vote, but lost by one supreme court vote.
103
Let's hope this isn't another false start. Most Americans support gun control...just as a MINORITY of Americans actually own and shoot guns.
10
The NRA's spokesperson at the televised Florida Town Hall after the Parkland shooting bragged about her organization's 3 million members. Rather than being impressed, I took out a calculator. NRA members account for less than 3% of the American population. That is, 3% have been holding us hostage to their agenda -- until now.
So happy to hear the tide is finally turning due to the concerted efforts of gun-control groups, their financial supporters, and the candidates who can now be receptive to their concerns.
A hunter who needs a semi-automatic weapon to kill a deer really shouldn't be in the woods.
142
@Loyle High capacity, semi-automatic firearms aren't just for hunting - though they can be quite effective. Read the background of 2A and try again. Specifically, 2A was instituted with heavy influence from English common law to avoid being held hostage by "big gov't", as has happened countless times in history.
2
@Loyle There are 325 million people in the US. Three million NRA members actually comprise less than 1% of the population.
5
Whoops! I found a typo in my post. Actually, NRA has 6 million members, and that's 2% of the American population. Got my 3's mixed up. Sorry about that. @Loyle
5
Not wanting a more fully-developed police state is not the equivalent of wanting to take away an individual’s Second Amendment rights, even if the exact meaning of those rights may still not be totally agreed upon. Simply from a logistical standpoint, the notion of actually mobilizing government forces in order to disarm the populace, among whom those forces are a part of, is completely absurd. It will never happen. And no one wants it to, except for a negligible amount of idealists.
The NRA is like the giant Alex Jones in the room, but they also happen to have tax-exemption. That kind of political lobbying power is ludicrous, and it’s completely unnecessary.
9
The gun-safety issue is a mutually delusional partisan conservative and liberal distracting political ploy that ignores the deadliest reality of gun-safety.
Of the 37, 000 + Americans who die from gunshot every year about 2/3rds are suicides. And 80% are white men who tend to use handguns. While they are also disproportionately military veterans.
Mass shootings are rare. And so are stranger shootings. About 95% of homicides involve people of the same color aka race.
Not all mass shootings are created equal. Black mass shootings do not matter as much as any single white shooting. How many Americans have heard of the Orangeburg South Carolina massacre in 1968? Or the mass shooting on the South Side of Chicago on October 22, 2018?
9
@Blackmamba
I'm not sure if your arguing against gun control or for it. The US ranks 38th in the suicide rate for 100,000 out of 177 countries, but its firearm suicide rate is eight times that of other high-income countries.
As to whether mass shootings are rare... well, that's a relative term. Isn't it? There have been 307 mass shootings in the US since January 1st this year. Nearly one a day. Meanwhile, the UK has had a handful since 1991. And Australia has had 3 since 1996.
3
@Patty O
Gun control slogans do not matter. What gun control matters accepts truth. No country that has no 2nd Amendment matters. Do you know the percentage of mass dead and wounded? From 1996 to now 1135 dead due to mass events. About 858,000 total dead.
@Blackmamba Mass shootings are rare?? Thousand Oaks is the 307th mass shooting in 2018 in the USA. You call that rare?! What other country can say the same?
1
People who want to go out and kill another, can do so with a spoon, a rock, brick, pen, or a gun.
California with their draconian gun laws just got hit by a gun crime.
Had the guy used a knife, would you be banning knives as well?
Besides, by definition, criminals break the law. Making more laws simply makes more criminals; making more laws will not deter some one from breaking them.
5
@AutumLeaff A major overhaul of gun laws has worked very well in Australia. Read up on it.
It's tragic that we did not correct our gun madness 30 or 40 years ago. But that's no reason to carry on compounding the tragedy, is it?
55
@MC Even with the strengthening of gun rights (Heller, 2008) and increasing gun ownership, interpersonal violence has been steadily decreasing for the past 2 decades. Seems like the "problem" is largely solving itself, and the real issue, mental health concerns, deserve the real focus.
1
@AutumLeaff So do you think the shooter in Las Vegas would of been as effective lobbing knives out of the hotel window? You're kidding right with the knife analogy?
8
If there is a big turning away by Americans for guns, I don't see it past the pages of the NY Times. If anything, the National Rifle Association has a record number of members. This editorial also completely ignores other firearms organizations.
The NYT is very selective about the shootings that are reported. Last week an illegal alien that New Jersey wouldn't hold for ICE murdered 3 people in Missouri. Read about it everywhere except the NYT.
7
@mrmeat
I couldn't find it anywhere except Fox News and it's offshoots. And the detainer order authorized Middlesex County to turn custody of Mr. Perez prior to or upon completion of his sentence. ICE had nearly a year to pick him up and didn't.
Once a person completes their sentence, the state can no longer hold them in jail; regardless of whether they are citizens of the US or not. That's the law. In my jurisdiction, we call ICE every time we pick someone up who happens to be here illegally. ICE almost always tells us to let them go.
1
If that is true, shame on NYT.
@mrmeat
Actually, this was only reported on a national level in extreme right wing media - Fox News and the Washington Times. Not saying this wasn't an awful crime, but typically domestic murders are only reported locally.
I vote in every election, which means local candidates always knock on my door. I now tell them I'm a single-issue voter on gun control. Living only a few miles from Parkland, all parties on my doorstep gave lip service to gun control this election cycle. However, when Moms Demand Action (a gun sense group that arose after Sandyhook) offered to interview the local republican candidate for the state house on his views, he declined. That translated into both votes and money for his opponent. He is now the Loser.
I have three kids in elementary school doing active shooter drills after kids were gunned down 3 miles from them in their own school. I look for exits and places to hide when I land at my local airport (FLL) after the recent mass shooting there. I've followed the dystopian federal law suit in Florida in which the NRA wants to regulate the speech and silence physicians and pediatricians inquiring about their patients' gun safety. I have had ENOUGH!
191
@LL. Well said! What the heck do we have to do? Establish cemeteries outside our schools? Could it be that until they see the fruit of their misguided opinions, they will stick with present policy?
10
Don't forget the Stand Your Ground Law.
1
@LL Moms Demand Action! The future is female! And hopefully less lethal for American children.
2
The Gun sale in these United States is an abomination, as is any maiming and killing, but re-inforced by a runaway N.R.A. intent in keeping the current national violence going, all in the name of selling guns by fearmongering...and the profit motive. Too bad we have republicans willing to sell themselves to it's highest bidder, you guessed it, the N.R.A., in a full display of political prostitution. If we were willing to spend as much on the runaway N.R.A. as we are in stopping international religious fanatics from causing violent death, the story would be quite different. And peace in society.
5
Democrats need to make Republicans own the anti-gun safety platform, and then pillar them with it. It's a winning strategy for 2020.
12
“It is an unsettling coincidence that mass shootings bookended the 2018 election, from a Pittsburgh synagogue on Oct. 27 to a bar in Thousand Oaks, Calif., on Nov. 7.”
Is it a coincidence? Do we live in a world where having two mass shootings within any given two week range is unusual?
10
Without the National Terrorist Association, America would have somewhat sane gun laws.
Instead, America has a ‘thoughts and prayers ‘ gun control policy which translates to a “Drop Dead, America” and we’ll pray for your corpse public safety policy.
2nd Amendment Derangement Syndrome is one of many symptoms of Pachyderm Spongiform Encephalopathy which organ- harvests America’s brains and converts them into right-wing gruel, paranoia and 1787 thinking.
The Founding Fathers did not support the right of individual citizens to randomly haul around small nuclear weapons (I.e., AR15 assault weapons of war) in the defense of neighborhood slaughter.
The Guns Over People party has lost its mind and its humanity and should be sent to an asylum where they can learn that guns kill people.
The Party of Death deserves to be shot.
“Our children must die so our guns can live”
Nice GOPeople.
40
@Socrates
Once again, thank you for your honest comments. I really appreciate "2nd Amendment Derangement Syndrome " and PSE. Party of Death indeed: healthcare is not a right but guns for everybody is just fine, after all both policies result in premature deaths, which seems to be their goal.
4
@Socrates
So people who disagree with you on gun policy and constitutional interpretation are evil, stupid and deserve to be shot.
Nice.
And liberals are supposed to be the thoughtful ones not locked into reptillian thinking patterns...
1
@Lilo -- so where does Socrates say "deserve to be shot?"
It a reasonable inference from his prose that he thinks they (and you) are "stupid." One might even stretch and infer a presumption of "evil." But he directly says "sent to an asylum where they can learn that guns kill people."
Why is it that you seem incapable of basic reading comprehension and rational argument? Why does this seem to be universal among gun advocates?
1
A majority of Americans have favored sensible gun regulations for a long time but the NRA has so far managed to cow our representatives into submission to the NRA patrons, gun manufacturers who are only interested in selling more military style assault weapons and pistols to anyone who wants them. While I agree the tide is turning, we face an emergency public safety situation - too many people of questionable mental competence have access to deadly firearms. California actually had a law that should have allowed the police to confiscate firearms from the Thousand Oaks shooter's home when mental health professionals were called to his home because the police found this furniture mass murderer in an irrational agitated state, but tragically this new law was not enforced. Confiscation with redress of a court petition for restoration should be universal. Reasonable suspicion of mental illness (based on an affidavit sworn by neighbors, relatives, educators, health professionals or law enforcement) should be sufficient for short term confiscation of all firearms owned by, or in the home of that individual, everywhere. In this situation, the burden needs to be on the gun owner to demonstrate they're mentally competent to assume this responsibility.
12
The trouble is that the right of ownership and use for self-defense of firearms in the US is somehow linked to N.R.A.
I dislike the politicized attitude of N.R.A. to sports shooting, as much as I dislike the opposition to the 2nd Amendment by the leftist radical, militant vegan, anti-tobacco but pro-cannabis Democrats.
Life might have been more secure in this country, if the Founding Fathers inserted three critical words in the 2nd Amendment: EVERYWHERE AND ALWAYS. This would not have opened a legal loophole for the States and municipalities to legislate, where and when can a citizen carry a weapon, either concealed or open.
7
@Tuvw Xyz, So, you're for amending the 2nd Amendment! Good! I would definitely go for guns being "everywhere and always" as long as they are chipped and strictly regulated. How about it? Or are you simply one of those who holds an absolutist belief that the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct?
1
@Tuvw Xyz
In case anybody is curious as to the thinking of Second Amendment zealots, please read the comment by Tuvw Xyz, of Evanston, Illinois.
According to Tuvw Xyz, of Evanston, Illinois, the only people asking for some sane gun restrictions are (1) leftists; (2) militant vegans; (3) anti-tobacco but pro-cannabis Democrats.
Given that Evanston, Illinois, voted for Barack Obama by 85 percent, and for Hillary Clinton by 87 percent, and is home to Northwestern University--doubtless a hotbed of leftists, vegans and pot smokers--it's hard to understand why Tuvw Xyz doesn't move to a place with carnivores, cigarette-smokers and Republicans.
@Tuvw Xyz
The Founding Fathers may have purposefully omitted "everywhere and always" with equal forethought as when they included "well regulated."
It is abundantly clear that there will be no gun safety legislation as long as Republicans are in power.
The only meaningful "thoughts and prayers" we can offer in support of the victims of gun violence and their families is that Democrats take the reins of power from the top to the bottom of our government.
I grew up with rifles and shotguns for hunting all around me. No one ever saw the need for a pistol or automatic weapon.
The Second Amendment doesn't give me the right to own a surface-to-air missile and neither does it give me the right to own an automatic rifle.
Those are for hunting people, not animals, and they are overkill for defending my home or my person.
It is really that simple.
85
@Didier Read the background of 2A and you will realize that the purpose was not to ensure people could hunt animals or "shoot for fun". English common law was for protection against neighbor and state, and was a strong influencer of the Bill of Rights.
3
@Didier That's your opinion; I'll own whatever kind of weapon I choose to and civilian ownership of machineguns has never been addressed by a court.
For years, federal judges have ruled that the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not guarantee an individual's right to bear arms. No federal court has ever ruled that the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own a gun. But million believe otherwise.
Interviewed on the PBS Newshour in 1991, former chief justice Warren E. Burger said The Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud,' on the American public." Justice Burger often asserted that the "right to bear arms" belongs to the states, not individual citizens, and attacked the NRA for fostering the opposite view.
Interpreting The Second Amendment as somehow empowering civilians to own military-style rapid-fire "assault" weapons is lunacy. How ironic the persistent reports (though not definitely proved) that National Rife Association chief Wayne LaPierre, who constantly calls for a nation in which every adult is armed to the teeth, became unglued when faced with compulsory military service during the Vietnam Era, and was declared unfit due to what a physician claimed was a "nervous disorder." One could argue that assault weapon fetishists suffer from a similar condition.
33
@Mark Hugh Miller. Make that "...millions believe otherwise."
2
@Mark Hugh Miller I assume in your opening paragraph, "No federal court has ever ruled that the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own a gun." You mistakenly omitted "... until the District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008 by the Supreme Court." That decision explicitly protected an individuals right to own firearms for self defense. The decision DID allow restrictions but the individual right is now the law of the land.
3
@Jeff. Thanks, Jeff. You're correct; I overlooked the Heller decision -- completely forgot about it. So I believe the path forward might lie in Heller's allowance of restrictions on that right.
The increasing realization that no one is safe from people who want to kill and can get easy access to high powered firearms is finally starting to penetrate American skulls. Statistical probability ensures that mass shootings are going to continue at the rate nearly one a day unless one of the major metrics changes and the only one that is sensitive to effective change is access to guns. Essentially two thirds of the the country is being held hostage by the one third of households who own guns. It's still got some way to go because the Republican party is in thrall to gun owners but at some point the NRA's murderous grip on the country is going to become more of a liability than an asset to Republicans.
37
@John Actually, we're being held hostage but a much smaller minority. Just 3% of Americans own 50% of the guns.
https://wapo.st/2chZAiL?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.52d806fe7a72
2
the right to own a firearm is imbedded in the constitution when read by any reasonable person. Including the right to bear arms as outlined in the Federalist Papers prior to the adoption of the 2nd Amendment. That doesn't however restrict the Federal Government from prohibiting use of those weapons which contribute to criminal behavior, extremist groups whose objective is to over throw our form of government, cause civil unrest or against the citizens of the nation. Hunting regulations have always been left to the States. Automatic weapons, and semiautomatic weapons have been banned or restricted in magazine size for hunting. You don't hunt rabbits with a .50 caliber weapon when a .22 caliber is the correct weapon. hand guns were really not considered in the 1800's until revolvers were existed. Pistols however have evolved from 8 rounds to large capacity magazines. The Federal Government or a State has the right to restrict the capacity of these items to establish these guidelines as law. When America was Great, We weren't this uncaring about the rights of our neighbors, communities and families. Even the Military locks their weapons up except for training and War.
8
Your points are valid but I disagree with your first statement, that the right to bear arms for individuals is in the constitution.
The constitution actually states:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I am not a constitutional scholar but I think any reasonable person reading this would understand this right to bear arms is tied to being part of a well regulated militia, and not an absolute individual right to own firearms.
It is stated right at the beginning that this Militia is to be “well regulated” - so there is no question in my opinion that the constitution allows the state to regulate ownership of firearms.
I’ve always been baffled that the 2nd amendment is touted as an absolute right for individuals to bear arms. I think that is a fundamental distortion.
22
@M The first part of 2A says that we need a well regulated militia to ensure a free state. The individual's right to keep and bear arms is the result and is to remind your how it supports the first statement. If they meant states have a right to have militias and nothing more, individuals would never have been mentioned here. Proof of this line of thinking can be found in English common law.
1
@Double Duece: If the unarmed cannot vet those who deem arms essential for themselves, liberty is not secure in a free state.
2
Subject: Gun violence, the NRA, and Health insurance that fully covers mental health care ...
Just maybe -- now that the NRA might be losing some of its power and more women will be sworn into office in the House of Representatives -- our discussions regarding health care will include demands (not requests for, but demands) that insurance companies fully cover mental health care.
If I am not mistaken, all or most of the shooters over the past years have had mental health problems. Yet there has been very little mention of forcing insurance companies to cover mental health care.
All forms of "donations" by health insurers to our politicians must come to a complete halt.
Stigma must also be addressed so that more people will seek mental health care instead of allowing their rage to increase to the point of violence.
There is a great deal to accomplish before gun violence is reduced.
3
@cynic2: US firearms policy is cognitive dissonance on steroids. Handguns and assault-weapons derived rifles are made to kill people, and things will get used to do what they were made for.
So what kind of new laws or regulations would specifically address "gun safety", while at the same time helping deter any random guy who can pass a background check from purchasing a lethal weapon? Simply passing a background check just means you haven't previously committed any serious crimes.....the shooter in Las Vegas would have passed.
Instead, let's require a license to own a gun, and to purchase ammunition. To get this license, you'd have to take a gun safety course, and pass an examination. And of course pass a background check. Give current gun owners a grace period to obtain the necessary license.
I don't think this violates the 2nd Amendment, since gun ownership is already restricted in many ways. And this would not prevent someone who is willing to get such a license from committing mass murder. But it would restrict the use of guns to "serious" and hopefully responsible gun owners, and make it less likely that someone whose only purpose is to kill lots of people will be able to do so with a gun.
3
@N
The 2nd amendment should be repealed; alternatively, state legislatures should implement rules that all but place a total ban on firearms. Period. This discussion has moved well past the point of insanity and this thought piece just reaffirms that fact.
@Eleni Kazan If you repeal the 2nd then all of the others are optional too, see what you get.
@N Your proposal would have done exactly NOTHING to prevent the latest shooting and is actually already the law in several states.
Climate Change and Guns
America is facing two crises that have come to a head and that, although they appear separate, in fact are related. Both are in the news almost daily, and the majority of Americans want both dealt with - promptly.
Climate change related events have completely obliterated two towns — Mexico Beach, Florida (Pop. 1,000+) and Paradise, California (Pop. 27,000+) in the past three weeks. During that same time period there have been two mass shootings — in Pittsburg and Thousand Oaks, Ca — and dozens of lesser but still tragic shooting events. More than 30,000 people are killed by guns in the U.S. every year.
What these crises have in common is that it is essentially the same crowd that is preventing us from dealing with them. The climate-change deniers and the gun "rights" advocates sit to the right of the political spectrum (they are mostly, but not all Republicans), and largely advocate for the same policies — more oil, more guns. Or, in the case of their sponsors in the fossil fuel and armaments industries, more profits.
Changing their entrenched views has proven impossible, or at least more work than it's worth. What we must do instead is organize, organize, organize and cement a sane majority to take over the levers of power and repurpose our government to serve the needs and will of most Americans.
71
@Philip S. Wenz And movement on both issues have been held hostage by profits -- profits for Big Oil and profits for the gun manufacturers. The NRA hasn't represented it's members for years. It used to be more like the 4H club until radicals in the organization took over in the '70s and it's mission and messaging radically changed.
What is true about the deniers of climate change and the acolytes of gun worship -- neither care about the future of your children. It's all about the money.
What I have never understood is ... don't these people have children? Are they all sociopaths? Do they not see that a gated community does not protect you from guns or fire?
2
What about the Supreme Court? Since we've had a recent confirmation of the gun rights view of the 2nd amendment, can't we expect them to just invalidate any meaningful gun restrictions?
1
@roseberry That's a great point. But if the winds of social attitudes have indeed shifted....the SCOTUS will probably shift too.
Just as gay marriage became a touchstone issue of freedom that most Americans, at worse, were ambivalent about...and one that SCOTUS upheld...you may see a similar approach here.
Keep in mind that any gun control that makes it through on a legislative basis will be extremely weak. We're talking background checks. Something that is BEYOND INSANE that we don't do in a uniform way right now. We also aren't allowed to keep records nationally on who buys a gun...lest the big bad govt come to everyone's homes to seize them.
So yeah, we *may* get some measures through, and if there is enough support for it, the Supreme Court won't dare strike it down.
That body is very political and astute, despite seeking to wrap itself in judicial robes of impartiality.
1
I have wished for this tipping point for a long time and there have been many discouraging years in the interim. I’m finally feeling some optimism. While it has taken far too long, maybe the will of the majority - including many gun owners - will ultimately prevail. Good to learn that the death grip of the NRA may be weakening. This will be a long game but the game is on!
87
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool, typical East Coast liberal, who's never handled a gun. In fact, I'm virulently anti-gun, with the strictest gun laws possible.
That said, we can't develop guns laws in isolation. Recently, I've met people who own guns for hunting. It's a way of life; they eat what they kill; and they agree that there is no need for a hunter to have a semi-automatic weapon.
And I agree that the tide is turning.
We need to identify those sensible regulations that the majority of Americans can agree on and start there. We need to assure those that are scared of losing their guns that they will only lose their guns if there is a valid reason for the safety of them and those around them.
127
@HN: This approach, and only this approach, will open the door wider on the issue. I'm appalled at the virulence of some of my fellow hunters/shooters, collectors and enthusiasts, but equally so at their counterparts across the divide. We could agree to disagree on semi-auto weapons for now, there's more important stuff to work out. Let's be candid and admit that Mark Kelly and Gabby Giffords' organization was seeded heavily by Mike Bloomberg, who actually fleshes out the role many on the right ascribe to George Soros, at least when it comes to firearms (M.B. has bankrolled dozens of these organizations). While we're being candid I'll stipulate for the record that the NRA has become totally compromised, probably involved in illegality with foreign agents and conspiring with manufacturers and politicians. That's why I and so many others have let memberships lapse and withhold contributions. Yet from 5 million members at most they come up with 11 million + for lobbying and political activity, and pay no taxes. Something stinks.
If you want people to understand the "truth" about guns, teach it to them from an early age, before they get a chance to form wrong or incorrect attitudes, habits, ideas. The more universal this is the better our chances of getting eyes on those who should have nothing to do with firearms.
The notion of Trump leading the country makes me sick. The fact he has a NYC concealed carry permit makes me want to exsanguinate. Let's get this done.
18
@HN - You are correct. I too have never touched a gun and have no interest but I have friends who live in rural Wisconsin who hunt and eat what they kill themselves. Unfortunately, they don't believe in ANY regulation. They just think it won't work and that it will lead to only criminals having guns. What's interesting is that they are not conservative, GOP voting types - they vote straight Democrat, are pro-choice, support the rights of all minority groups and immigrants, etc...Very liberal in every way. I suspect there are quite a few other Democrats who are against gun control and we need to find a way to reach them.
14
@HN - I agree as with you, but the problem comes with defining your "sensible regulations" . . . that's precisely what's so difficult. What constitutes "arms," exactly? Even among the most ardent N.R.A. members, few would support the right to bear surface-to-air missiles or grenade launchers. But many people do support the right to bear guns specifically developed for warfare. Most people want some kind of limitations on arms, even if they don't recognize it. The difficult comes in defining what is "sensible."
3
This article is hopeful, and perhaps America is starting to move toward sensible gun policies. Most of us wear seat belts now, fewer people smoke cigarettes in this country than ever before (although vaping is on the rise), and it wasn't that long ago that no sane American would have paid money to eat raw fish.
But there's a flaw in Mr. Spitzer's argument. He assumes that a greater percentage of voting Americans and elected officials will translate into changed gun policies. But we are living in an era where gerrymandering, dark money, and a minority of Americans in sparsely populated states (most of whom hate the idea of gun laws) exert disproportionate influence on our politics. In addition to electing more officials not in the pocket of the N.R.A., we also need address these more intractable political inequities.
35
To be honest, I find the current gun culture in the United States to be quite ludicrous. While I do understand and appreciate its roots, it's an incredibly poor excuse for not implementing an all-out ban on firearms in light of the events in the past 20+ years. I'm from Australia and we share a similar tradition to Americans in terms of rugged independence and self reliance. This is particularly true when it comes to protecting our legal rights and those of others, but it only took ONE(!) mass shooting for our people and legislature to redesign gun laws and implement a safer and more common sense approach. How many more will it take for your congress to do the same? At this pace I'm seriously doubtful it will ever occur.
21
@Eleni Kazan You are right. Thankfully there will be no all out ban on private ownership of guns in the US. We're not Australia.
If such a thing were even attempted tens of millions of people would refuse to comply. At best we'd have a new Prohibition. Worst case we'd be talking about a new Civil War.