It strikes me as terribly sad that we measure the impact of these shootings primarily in terms of “number of people killed”.
Sad as the death of an innocent person is, think of the (usually) larger numbers of innocents who are injured - maimed, disfigured, disabled, doomed to a life of physical and/or psychological pain, etc. - and their loved ones.
The number of such people is far larger than that of those killed.
The combined numbers are TRAGIC!!!
And the NRA is to blame! (As well as the weaklings and toadies we have sent to Washington all these years.)
1
‘New urgency’? Yeah, right!
"New Urgency to Gun Debate"
NEXT!!!!
The New York Post:
Masked gunman killed by police in wild Brooklyn shootout
TODAY, September 2, 2019, 2:00am
A masked gunman was killed early Monday in a fierce firefight involving seven police officers after he shot at a patrol car in Brooklyn, cops said.
https://nypost.com/2019/09/02/gunman-fires-on-police-during-wild-shootout-in-brooklyn/
"Americans kill each other at roughly the rate of 16,000 a year! From racial violence to family violence to gang warfare to street crime to mass murder - the blood never stops flowing."
~ BOB HERBERT
The New York Times, Jun 12, 2009
1
The details of this mass shooting brings to mind the movie "Falling Down". The main character is on the edge, recently lost his job, and is angry at the world and sets out on a shooting spree. It just goes to show that on any given day someone who appears normal can lose it and the ready availability of these military style guns puts all who happen to run into him on the bad day at risk. The drum beat is getting louder and even Texas Governor Abbot is beginning to hear it despite signing 10 new laws allowing guns in more public places. Even HE is beginning to realize this is not a political game and people are paying with their lives.
2
The NYT headline, "Texas Shooting Brings New Urgency to Gun Debate in Congress" is wishful thinking. There will be no sense of urgency. Certainly not in the U.S. Senate, at least. But this mass murder is another notch in the NRA's gun.
An article in this newspaper in 2018 discussed a study that showed that the number of mass murders in a country is directly correlated to the number of weapons.
3
My condolences to the victims and their families. Thoughts and prayers, blah blah blah. We all know nothing will change, start the clock until the next massacre.
In time even the soul gets callused when the situation never improves. Moving on, this is not news - this is normal. Get used to it.
3
Texas shooting brings new urgency to
“Make prayer offering every day from hall of GOP Congress”
4
why dont we talk about gun crime in chicago more,could it be that leftists want more people disarmed so gov. can take more power
1
Do you realize that this was the original intent of the 2nd Amendment? The US was not supposed to have any military at all, only local militias. Of course most of the people who like the notion of the 2nd Amendment also like the military and hate the "organized" part of "organized militias"
2
@jose macias Nope. We don't discuss gun crime in Chi-town, because gun laws do not prevent criminals from using guns. The definition of mass shooting is one person shoots 4 or more. Although Chicago has a pretty high body count on any one weekend, 1 person rarely shoots 4 or more. Maybe because some of the others are shooting back or the shooter is a lousy shot.
The body count in Chicago and Texas may be the same, the difference is the definition. A difference without distinction.
Why doesn't the liberal media report on the UN agenda to disarm all civilian populations in the world?
https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/salw/programme-of-action/
That's the reason New Zealand banned their guns so quickly. They are following the UN agenda. But we must all trust the UN, right? They set up those 'UN safe areas' during the Bosnian war in and around Srebrenica. You know, the ones they did not enforce and just allowed the Serb general Ratko Mladic to efficiently organize his mass extermination of 8,000 Muslim men and boys.
All the casualties and destruction, this time spread out over miles. Yet again not one word of a “good guy with a gun” returning fire.
And still Texas and its governor continue to loosen gun restrictions, in the name of enhanced public safety, parroting the talking points of the profiteers at the NRA.
It’s way past time to get a clue Texas -- your politicians and the NRA are not on your side. The only people being killed and injured due to your lax gun laws are children, other innocent bystanders, and police.
1
Nothing will change. The Republican Party and the NRA had no problem with 20 six and seven year old children dying, 26 people in all, at Sandy Hook. Why will they care now? It's all over people.
4
Is this the NYT’s version of the all-too-frequently seen headline from The Onion? We all know lawmakers feel no urgency to pass new gun regulations. A few thoughts and prayers is all we’ll get. Let’s stop claiming otherwise.
2
The current pack of cowards won’t do a thing. Trump won’t do a thing.
If you actually want sensible gun laws, don’t vote Republican.
7
After all the lives that have been lost via gun violence in the US one would think that all legitimate pols and reasonable persons would say; “enough is an adult” And they would join together to engineer both legislation and begin the a society course of conduct that would result in a cultural shift in our perspective regarding gun
Sadly, these people are so money hungry and class conscious that they refuse to see the engrained hypocrisy of their culture and it principal girders of sexism and racism have produced not only a cadre terrorist, but they’ve also produced the worlds most of the worlds mass murderers, mysogenist and both homophobes and homosexuals.
They’re bought and owned by greed and money, and the once great AS/WASP culture is literally coming apart T the seams
Only 7 dead? By US standards, that’s not a mass shooting, just a typical day in Gun Country. Washington pols don’t care, so nothing will change. But I will send thoughts and prayers, since nothing can be done to save tomorrow’s victims.
1
Republicans remain the gold standard for hypocrisy, agreeing that "mental illness" should prevent someone from owning firearms, but providing no effective background checks to determine the presence of this malady. Every death and injury in every mass shooting has the Republican party seal on it. They own it. When they pass comprehensive universal background checks, then they can ask for our forgiveness. Good luck with that.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
4
This headline is thoroughly false. All I can say is No it does not.
Gun lovers have a clear plan: oppose any and all restrictions. They are for the most part strongly and consistently committed to this simple agenda.
Gun control advocates have dozens of plans; background checks, mental health warnings, fingerprint technology, storage requirements, regulating interstate transport, licencing sellers, banning the bullet and on and on. The level of commitment to this incoherent agenda spikes whenever there is another shooting in the news and then fades away until the next incident.
You don't get a prize for guessing who is going to win this fight.
I think you mean "a new urgency to do nothing!"
2
More guns equals more killing, simple as that.
1
As long as our politician's keep accepting 'bribe money' from the NRA nothing will ever change.
Does the NYT have this "new urgency" article sitting on the shelf, waiting to be run after every mass shooting, where all you need to do is change the date, place, and names of the actors?
Nothing will happen. We all know it.
1
Nothing will come of this.
"Texas Shooting Brings New Urgency to Gun Debate in Congress"
Isn't that the point of all these shootings? Every mass murder shooting is fuel for the liberal's agenda. The reason America has so many mass murder shootings is because it has a second amendment. The goal is to render the second amendment moot. The liberals have admitted it over and over again. Every new shooting advances them toward their goal. They say so. These shooting are what people call false flag attacks.
More guns equals more killing, simple as that.
The biggest "mental problem" this country has right now is what goes on in Trump's brain.
2
My six year old granddaughter has to go through drills in case a gun nut invades her first grade classroom.
This is “freedom”?
4
This is a backward lawless country. Even though vast majorities agree we cannot get our act together to have background checks and stop mass shootings. Because of AIPAC and kindred organizations its our country Israel right or wrong. We are not competent to have anything like a remotely reasonable immigration policy and we love to incarcerate people forever and forever. If this is the democracy we are bringing to the world perhaps a toast of something else would be better. This is an impotent undemocratic, and dangerous country and unless you are coming from far worse or have a special circumstance immigration is not recommended.
2
US citizens tend to laugh at mass shootings which occur in Latin American countries, and use their occurrence as evidence of how the local authorities are unable to control crime there. The plethora of mass shootings occurring with surprising regularity in various parts of the USA, plus the all too numerous deaths and i juries which are the result of those criminal acts, should stimulate such much more serious consideration of the gun laws in that country. The right to keep and bear arms as enshrined in the 2nd. Amendment to the US Constitution must be fully respected, but should be limited o clubs and swords, and in the case of firearms, to models of smooth bored flintlock muzzle loading muskets and pistols as were available in 1791 when that Amendment was ratified. A possible alternative could be to modify the coverage of arms to only pea shooters and pop guns, as used by small children, thereby to increase the possibility of nobody getting seriously hurt if that type of much more harmless weapons were to be carried and used in public.
And the freedom of speech and assembly should not apply to radio, tv, and the internet. Not around in 1791.
1
I think one of the biggest issues that gun owners have with recently proposed legislation is the effectiveness it would have on stopping these shootings. According to this article there were 283 mass shootings this year. Which of these shootings would have been stopped by background checks? How many would have been slowed by an assault weapons ban? I don’t see much info on this. Many anti gun people are opposed to any guns. Gun advocates see these laws as a first step in removing all guns. There needs to be more than just one answer to this problem and to say just make gun laws stricter is not going to solve the problem.
Also the federal government makes laws all day that they never enforce. How many people have been arrested for lying on a gun application? Making more laws does not necessarily translate to solving the problem.
1
This article mentions that there were 283 mass shootings this year. This is not really the number that we are talking about. It includes typical criminal shooting incidents between gang members, etc. a better metric would be to classify an incident as “indiscriminate violence” attack. Although sometimes workplace violence is part of this problem. It also does not necessarily mean gun attacks. Some times these are committed with vehicles or knives. These incidents need to be studied very closely to fully understand the problem and develop a multifaceted solution. Each criminal’s life and behaviors should be dissected and categorized.
1
Regardless of what the Congress approves and the President signs it will not be the correct action. Their drum beating will only make noise for Congress fails to ask the question 'what, besides confiscation and socialistic laws, would have prevented the past shootings?'.
1
In the current civilian arms race we as a nation have passed the point of overkill. Any measures taken that would reduce gun deaths of any type would be welcomed at this point. You are not going to even begin to tackle the problem of mass shootings until you admit that it is the guns that make such events possible. Easy access to assault style weapons, devices that enhance their performance and associated gear are the problem.
Have we come to the point where some people only feel safe with thousands of rounds, maximum magazines, combat armor and multiple choices in guns? I see a flag here. It isn't red. It's white. The surrender and capitulation of government leadership to the acceptance of mass shooting as part of the normal fabric of American society. This isn't about hunting or protection. It's about our killing fields.
Forget red flag laws. Forget prayers for survivors and families of victims. Ban all high capacity ammunition clips. Ban high capacity guns. Nobody needs them except the military.
1
Why have the influence-peddling Koch brothers never engaged in "manufacturing consent" around a positive goal such as the banning of military weapons in the hands of all incels, white supremacists, pathologically mixed-up 18 to 21 year olds boys, and other would-be mass murderers, along with all other US citizens?
Instead, the inexorable march to their graves, like so many other business deplorables, bound forever to that selfish fraternity whose only guiding principle is to of never get in the way of someone else's profit margin.
History will not absolve them.
1
As i said last time this happened. It will soon be forgotten. The NRA, Trump and Congress make sure of that.
I don't understand why Americans can't vote on these kinds of issues - a national referendum. In my home state of Colorado, citizens voting for or against ballot initiatives is the only way anything gets done. A national ballot initiative on guns would show where Americans really stand. These people in Congress are useless.
64
@Nancy There is no provision in our rather ancient constitution for direct citizen participation. Presumably, legislation could be passed that would authorize some kind of process but that would, presumably, be subject to challenge on the grounds that it is not constitutional.
We are seeing a dramatic demonstration in Hong Kong of people who are demanding democracy. If such events were taking place here, thousands would be arrested and charged with any crime available, including "disturbing the peace", "resisting arrest" blocking a street...but disruption is the only means by which demonstrations get the attention of the public and elected representatives.
Real change in a democracy such as ours requires one or all of the following: 1. Organize and donate massive sums of money to get into the game (small donations from millions) 2.Vote with specific demands for change as the deciding factor 3. Put your body and your life on the line as they are doing in China.
The "will of the people" has no meaning to people in office unless it is matched with demands for action. Then, it has to be presented in such a way that there is no other choice but to follow what the voters want.
8
@Nancy good point. might just as well elect red and blue buttons for our national congress. debate is useless. this would require an amendment to our constitution. so be it.
of course, all members of congress will be against it. the current status is their bread and butter.
2
@Nancy honestly thats not the issuesl. Citizens shouldn't ever give up freedoms most guns and shootings would cease if laws were enforced.
3
Since I left America in 2000 mass killings have increased, the infrastructure increased its rapid deterioration, and the homeless have destroyed the quality of life in more cities like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and New Orleans.
When the children at Sandy Hook were killed and the country didn’t respond with strong gun control I knew that the nations soul was lost.
Many Americans are crying out in agony by writing about their anguish in newspapers. The president has made more Americans angry than any other president.
Cultures eventually decline. Maybe this is the slow death of America.
224
@Michael Kittle I think you nailed it, Michael. America is a nation in decline. The divisions, anger and inequalities are massive and growing. It likely won't end well.
As for guns, the 2nd amendment was clearly a huge mistake.
16
No, it’s still safer in the U.S. than a century, ago. Trump is playing with fear and loathing for political purposes and it’s affecting so many people that it’s triggering reactions in huge numbers of people. The reaction on the left is reciprocity, not attempts to bring about reconciliation. But the nation is experiencing problems that his divisiveness prevents addressing. So we shall see whether reason can prevail.
Unfortunately, this debate was over the instant we, as a country, decided that 20 children ages 6 and 7 being killed wasn’t enough to do anything about this. If Sandy Hook wasn’t enough, nothing will be.
280
@Ty
Agree that it seems hopeless. But there are many people in this country who are working hard to enact sensible gun laws that do not infringe on 2A. I donate every month to 'Everytown for Gun Safety' which advocates for gun control and against gun violence. Until our lawmakers stop taking "campaign contributions" from the NRA, we will have to continue our fight in the courts.
10
@Ty the "debate is over" only as long as Americans continue to vote for Republicans to hold the White House, the Senate and the House. Everything hinges on that decision in November 2020.
14
Members of our armed forces need to use military weapons while in training or in combat. Some of our police may need to use military style weapons in some situations to protect the public, but they should be trained to do so. No one else should have access to military style weapons. No one else! Never! Not you! Not me!
318
@W. Michael O'Shea
Well said. Those that say the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to these military weapons are wrong. 240+ years ago the US patriots needed to be armed to fight the Redcoats and establish independence from the British. Look at the second amendment for what it is, a historical document.
89
@Dave Steffe The sad truth these are not people who read to discover the truth about anything. But it still is a very good point and I am going to bring it to their attention the next time I hear that argument.
12
@JM
There is no inherent "right to bear arms". No where in our founding documents is there an inherent right.
13
It's not a matter of background checks. It's a matter of guns. The more guns that are around, the more people are going to get killed. Sorry to say this, but from an Australian perspective it is hard to see why this is even front-page news: all Americans seem to do with legally acquired guns is to kill each other.
288
@Jh NOT SO in the U.S. Since 1980, the number of firearms in the U.S. has doubled, but the murder rate has halved. In 1980, the murder rate was 10.2 per 100,000 residents (Dept. of Justice, "Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008", p.2). In 2017, the homicide rate was 5.2 per 100,000 residents (FBI, "Crime in the United States", 2017. Table 1).
If firearms drove the incidence of criminality, the murder rate should have doubled. It didn't. The murder rate halved.
Second, "gun control" is a concept alien to U.S. jurisprudence. In the U.S., police forces have no duty to protect the average person. The U.S. Supreme Court so held in 1855 (South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 296 (1855)).
In the modern words of a U.S. Appeals Court decision: "But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution.”(Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982)).
This is “good law”, i.e., this decision has not been over-turned. This decision binds only Federal Courts in the Seventh Circuit. But other Courts may cite to Bowers. So, if we have no right to protection from the government, it follows that we are responsible for our own protection.
7
@Jay E. Simkin Point is though, without guns, nobody would get killed by them. That guy today wouldn't have been able to stab or strangle his victims from his truck. No guns = zero fatalities in that scenario. Shouldn't be too hard to understand. I just don't get why you are so obsessed with guns. Sounds ridiculous to me.
240
And other countries are now issuing “Travel Warnings” because of our daily mass shootings and the relentless hate speech uttered by our POTUS about people of color and Muslims.
Ain’t America great?
113
Why are we even pretending that something meaningful will happen ?
All Republicans will cave in front of the NRA. All of them. And we know it.
It’s time to stop wasting time and energy on bipartisan « solutions ». If you are pro-life and not pro-gun, vote democratic.
337
@Guillaume
Republicans and conservatives in general worship "rugged individualism" and the gun is the ultimate example of individualism. Your life means less than mine and I'll shoot you to prove it. Not to mention the conservative dislike for anything collective such and decent government that goes beyond "me" to represent "us". They cling to guns as the ultimate response to a government that stops representing "me".
Republicans will never champion gun control because they see guns as a defense against "us", the "others", and "those people". You see, they are the "real Americans".
16
@mike
And that includes "hunting" - it's sick hearing these "rugged individuals" claim they "feed their families" by hunting.
3
@Mimi
I am not against hunting if done within regulations and without hurting the environment. As to feeding their families, if deer and other game were good to eat you could buy it at the supermarket. Farmers would have domesticated them long ago and fattened them up on the farm.
1
Despite their clearly terrifying effects, these mass murders are not as great a risk to anyone as distracted driving on roadways. But they are still horrifying. Every time they happen, the first thing that is asked is whether a semi-automatic rifle was used. It has become a symbol of mass murder and often described as if those guns enable these crimes—meaning that the mass killings would be impossible without out them. Getting rid of them will relieve that association and the specter of those kinds of crimes. Those with knowledge of guns know that these guns can be replaced by others and that banning this gun will not solve the problem.
1
Let's parse the words of the Second Amendment.
"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."
1. "A well regulated Militia"
- The militia is now the National Guard.
- This is under joint control of the states (governors) and the federal government (commander in chief).
- This is a hierarchical command structure, not every citizen for himself or herself.
- The United States had no standing national army at that time. And the Founders were skeptical of that concept. So state militias (now the national guard) were a necessity then.
2. "the security of a free State"
- This is not about individual rights.
- Rather, this is about collective rights to security, under the control of governors and the president, for states and the nation, respectively.
- This says nothing about individual security or individual rights.
3. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"
- What are Arms? What did the Founders mean by this word, construed in the context of 1791?
- Arms were flint locked muskets.
- Arms were not machine guns or automatic weapons of war.
- Arms were not nuclear weapons, or chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction.
4. "shall not be infringed"
- What does infringed mean?
- How does a requirement to register Arms with the government infringe upon one's rights?
- We do not have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, per the First Amendment.
4
Liberty is only possible by trusting that others will do the right thing unless they prove to be untrustworthy. You are afraid so you cannot trust people with guns to do the right thing.
@MidtownATL If anyone had bothered to try, 7 years on from Sandy Hook, we would be near the end of the constitutional process to amend the Second Amendment. More than half of that time would have been in Obama's second term.
I do not favor changing the 2A, but I do tire of yak-a-bouts complaining to simply erase or ignore it.
Now, one of these people running for the Democrat nomination should offer a thought, an idea on how to amend the US Constitution. I don't mean some little EO or legislation on the fringe. A real amendment to the US Constitution. Not free health care. Not free college. Not free car insurance. The termination of the Second Amendment. Let the Democrat nominee bear that cross into the election.
Of course, there is a possibility the majority of Americans might not support terminating the 2A.
1
@MidtownATL If I had this person "parse" the title to my house, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't even own the driveway.
1
The Constitution specifies the right to vote. The Constitution also specifies the right to keep and bear arms.
In order to vote, you must register with the government. In many states, you must show a valid photo ID to exercise this right. In many states, a felony conviction strips you of your right to vote for life. In some states, if you do not renew your use of the right to vote (by periodically acknowledging it to the state), your voter registration will be cancelled.
If voting and gun ownership are both Constitutionally protected rights, why is it so much easier to own a gun than to vote in much of our country?
Every time some politician proposes to restrict or curtail voting rights, we should propose that those same standards be applied to gun ownership.
3
In Germany, France and the UK, on average, 170 individuals per 100,000 receive inpatient treatment for a severe mental health condition. In the US, the number is only 60 per 100,000.
1
@Flyover Freddie They have free healthcare. It's cheaper.
@Flyover Freddie Interesting data. What's the source?
@Jay E. Simkin
National Association of State
Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD)
So, once again, you think congress is supposed to take action? The state of Texas isn't interested in action. They want more guns on their streets. As your editorial points out. Texans won't be happy until they are number one. It's kind of a dubious distinction, but hey, I guess that will make the governor happy.
If you were to make a equation to represent the problem of mass shootings in the US, with x being the variable that represents guns, you would only have to solve x to solve the problem. No other variable in the equation is deadly.
One thing I did not do during the Viet Nam era was flee to Canada to evade the draft. Big mistake. If I had gone north then, today I'd have health care and no guns instead of guns and no health care. I'm now probably too old for Canada to want me.
3
@Curtis
Hurry, Canada may decide to erect a wall.
2
Gun worship seems to be the state religion of Texas. And of other states all of whom share one thing in common; they're all under Republican control. Mass shootings have occurred in other states but the cult of the gun seems to prevail only in those "red" states. Moreover, this strange religion demands human sacrifice, the lives - well over 283 of them this year alone - killed in mass shootings.
And the strangest thing of all is that, almost without exception, these gun worshipers claim to be devout Christians. I don't understand that. Can anyone here?
People, it is silly to blame the government and its lame limbs of the law for this chronic weapon crisis. There's no law saying that people have to own or use guns. That, my fellow Americans, is the free choice of each and everyone in America to decide. Thus, it is solely the responsibility of each and every one of us - and we are truly "free" to do so! - to choose NOT to own or use guns. So simple and yet apparently tragically hard for some to accept this fact, this responsibility.
1
Maybe it’s not the guns. Maybe mass shootings are caused by thoughts and prayers?
3
The mentally ill, and criminals continue to acquire firearms with our current background checks. People are dying because these background checks are not working. There are shooters buying guns legally then using them to kill innocent people. The system we are using is not working at all. Senate should have no problem increasing background checks. And sane citizens with no criminal record should have no problem with more thorough background checks because they have nothing to hide. Anyone who is a danger to the public should never be able to buy a gun legally, this system is unacceptable.
@Hailey Background checks indeed are a consumer fraud.
Only 62 Federal prosecutions followed 76,142 denials (in 2010) of purchase applicants. For the data see, Regional Justice Information Service, "Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010", 2012, p. 7 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf .
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report (No. 18-440, Sept., 2018) shows that of 112,090 denials by FBI screeners, only 12,710 were sent for "investigation". Of that number only 12 resulted in prosecutions!!
Plainly, far more than 12 denials were fully justified. It is a Federal felony for a "prohibited person" to possess or to try to acquire any firearm. Such a small number of prosecutions shows that Federal authorities do about stopping those, who seek to abuse firearms.
"Gun control" is mathematical idiocy. At end-2016, there were about 402,000,000 firearms in the U.S., more than one for each of the 328,000,000 U.S. residents (See U.S. Dept. of Justice, "Firearms Commerce in the United States", 2000 and 2018; military-owned firearms excluded).
Things so abundant and concealable cannot be controlled. That's what foredoomed Prohibition, the nationwide ban on alcoholic drinks (1919-33).
Then, as now, home brew ingredients could be had in any grocery. In some regions, distilling alcohol ("moonshine", "white lightning") was a tradition older than is this Republic. Prohibition made some "moonshiners" wealthy. Those, who backed Prohibition, were impenetrably stupid.
Every time a mass shooting happens you start to hear about taking away the guns owned by the mentally ill. The mentally ill are not the majority of these shooters. Maybe you have to be crazy to commit mass murder but you do not have to be mentally ill. You do not have to have been diagnosed with a mental illness by a psychiatrist or committed to a mental institution against your will by a judge. That is being mentally ill.
The word crazy is often used here because the vast majority of people cannot comprehend how a person could commit a crime like this. It is an all purpose word used for people we cannot understand. Criminal or evil person would be closer to reality.
This is all so obscenely frustrating because it keeps happening. We read that other countries have close to the same rates of mental illness but few, if any, mass shootings.
What causes these mass shootings? Criminals, evil people and guns and sometimes the mentally ill.
There are cases where a mentally ill person does commit mass murder with a gun. This country is sadly lacking in services for the mentally ill. I live in a mid-sized city and here there are no services available for the mentally ill who want help. Everything is full except for Psychiatrists who only take private insurance.
Thoughts and prayers.
I am exhausted from reading about all the 'talking' going on. We do not need more talk, or promises from our president or Mitch McConnell; what we need is for someone to put aside partisan politics and take action!!! For God's sake, who will step forward?
More cigarettes =more smoking-related deaths
Less cigarettes = less smoking-related deaths
More automobiles = more traffic fatalities
Less automobiles = Less traffic fatalities
More guns = more gun-related deaths
Less guns = less gun-related deaths
How does 2+2 no longer equal 4?
1
@C. Pierson NOT SO!!! since 1980, the number of firearms in the U.S. has doubled, but the murder rate has halved. In 1980, the murder rate was 10.2 per 100,000 residents (Dept. of Justice, "Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008", p.2). In 2017, the homicide rate was 5.2 per 100,000 residents (FBI, "Crime in the United States", 2017. Table 1).
If firearms drove the incidence of criminality, the murder rate should have doubled. It didn't. The murder rate halved.
Please note that I cite to published and public data sources.
I bet you a quarter that nothing will get done about this anytime soon from Congress, the President, and most state governments.
Every two weeks, a new urgency.
Putting an optimistic spin on this: Mass/individual murder does reduce the population. Maybe with enough of it, we'll welcome the immigrants who want to contribute to America.
What a messed place our beautiful dream has become.
I wish the police in all states, especially Texas, would speak up to the governors, Senators and President about how they feel, being called on to stop these massacres, being threatened by jerks w/automatic weapons for just a traffic stop. The so-called President gives lip service to respecting police - do they not even have health insurance in Texas??
1
New urgency? More like new cynicism/disgust. I keep reading how a huge majority of citizens want background checks. Yet the mass killings go on and on and the same stories are repeated citing "urgency." I thought our government was about "democracy" and "majority rule." Really don't care about any arcane explanations about how government really works/lobbyists/money in the political process etc. Quite simply it points to the process as not what it's supposed to be/stupid/corrupt/ self serving for those elected, some mix of all of these elements.
1
So a mentally ill person started killing indiscriminately in Texas. We had a stabbing in CA a few weeks ago (August 7th) where a mentally ill person indiscriminately killed four people. The mentally ill people who decide to kill will do so whether they have to use a gun, run over people with their car, or stab them with their kitchen knives. The notion that taking away the rights of sane people so the insane will not do harm to others is naïve.
Contriving these atrocities to be de facto due to “mental illness” is conservatives’ way of wiping the blood off their hands, especially since they have nothing useful to offer to address mental illness either.
3
Vote every Republican out of office. Every single Republican, be it local, state or federal. Get them out and keep them out until the party splits in two between the professional/white shoe conservatives and the screaming nutcases. Only then will we be able to make progress on all of the urgently important issues we face as a country.
2
How about we get those "red flag" bills passed, and then red-flag anyone who tries to purchase a military style weapon or magazine designed for the sole purpose of killing your fellow humans--because they are clearly insane!
But, seriously, the oaf in the White House is correct that "it's a mental health problem" in the sense that when a uniquely American mentality of entitlement (my right to that American Dream--happiness, prosperity...and to own any firearm I want) collides with our current social reality you frequently get individuals who view personal failure as a capital crime perpetrated on them by "others" or by "the system" or the government--which effectively means everybody else. Some use the only right they feel has been left to them--that AR15--to exact their idea of vigilante justice.
1
@The K, Not Murray Proposed "red flag" laws share two lethal defects. First, none provides that one accused of being a threat, should get prompt and full reimbursement from public funds, of his or her attorney's fees and costs. Otherwise, for almost all, a "red flag" order means permanent loss of firearms and the civil right to be armed.
Few have the tens of thousands to litigate with a State To level the playing field, a "red flag" law must provide for reimbursement from public funds, of an accused person's legal expenses, at their attorney's usual hourly rate. Bills must be paid within 30 days of submission, or there's a 50% penalty.
Second, "red flag" laws must contain a "right of private action". If someone lies to a Court, and so gets a "red flag" order, the person targeted must be empowered hire an attorney to pursue a perjury charge, if a prosecutor won't Few perjurers are prosecuted. Here, too, that attorney's fees and costs must be reimbursed from public funds.
A "red flag" accusation can destroy a person's good name, so there needs to be sure recourse against those, who lie to Courts.
If all the local, self-appointed gun toting good guys aren't handling these things in Texas, not so sure where they will.
1
"New urgency", right. Until about September 15, with the next "new urgency" cycle initiating with the the imminent next mass shooting.
"Texas Shooting Brings New Urgency to Gun Debate in Congress"
Oh, please. Every time there is a shooting we see the same headline about it "bringing new urgency to gun debate".
Has it ever happened? No. For a couple of days, there's talk, and nothing gets done. And nothing will get done until the NRA shills are voted out.
I'm not holding my breath.
1
The only agency is in the people who want sane gun laws, Congress's only urgency is "when is the NRA check coming?"
The US is like a combat zone, anything you do can get you shot to include doing nothing at all.
Trump was the keynote speaker at the last two NRA conventions. Trump got $36 million from NRA. Trump is owned by the NRA. Trump owns the Republican party. Trump will allow no Gun Reform. Zero. Zilch. Zip. People will Die as long as Republicans are in power. Vote Blue no matter who. Ray Sipe
3
Sensible Senate Republicans - an oxymoron not lost on me -are surely starting to realize this is an issue that does not bode well for 2020. The quandary they face is understandable. Hold to the party line and risk losing sensible Republican voters - assuming there are some - and hence the election, or speak truth, instead of pablum and be "primary'd", lose funding, dry up and blow away. The. good news is there is a middle path: Vaguely support meaningless legislation that will potentially affect anyone who has ever taken an antidepressent, leave laws for weapons that should never been in the hands of the general public as they sit, and call it a day.
See, there is a "sensible solution after all!
I wish this would bring more urgency to the debate for gun supporters but it won't. In a comment on Fox News, I asked how many people had to die before they would considering modifying the 2nd Amendment, Quoth one wag, "100,000,000."
3
They just refuse to agree to let others decide who may or may not own guns.
Urgency? I highly doubt that.
1
"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." (2nd Amendment)
The clear intent of the Founders was to facilitate state militias. The United States did not have a standing national army at that time. The state militias are now the National Guard.
I propose that every gun owner in the United States should be required to register for, and serve in, the "militia" -- the National Guard.
To the Supreme Court, I would point out that this is consistent with a strict construction of the words in Second Amendment.
14
@MidtownATL I agree entirely with you that the Second Amendment SHOULD be interpreted narrowly to protect only guns used by militias. Unfortunately for us, the question has already been decided by the US Supreme Court, in DC v. Heller. It ruled against us, essentially concluding that the second half of that sentence is NOT limited by the first half.
Possibly Heller will get reversed, or the Second Amendment will be amended or repealed. But I seriously doubt either will occur. If my prediction comes true, our wishes won't count for anything at all: The issue has been decided, once and for all.
2
Thank you Antonin Scalia, and the rest of the “permissive” constructionists, who have so very much to answer for.
@MidtownATL The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees. Get and read the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) decisions.
The US Supreme Court usually upholds its precedents. In US v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects ownership of military-type firearms.
Miller, a career criminal and a fugitive, was not represented. No one told the Court that the weapon at issue - a sawed-off shotgun - was widely used by front-line US troops in World War I. The Germans - outraged by combat use of a "hunting" weapon - protested via the Swiss (neutrals). The US rejected the German protest, see: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp02/d912 .
In 1939, there were many front-line war-fighters, who had found sawed-off shotguns to be very effective for clearing trenches. Our Courts rule based on evidence. The Miller Court had no evidence that sawed-off shotguns had recently been a common combat weapon.
Semi-auto firearms, about which many fulminate, derive from military-issue rifles. Ownership of semi-auto weapons plainly is protected by the Second Amendment.
The press buys into the false narrative that some GOP politicians actually want a small amount of gun control but are too afraid of their base to pursue it. This premise is a lie. Those GOP politicians are as fundamentally against gun control as their base. There isn’t going to be any grand bargain or compromise on this issue. If you’re a pro-gun control voter you have to make this issue a redline in every election.
7
How come when there was a mass shooting in New Zealand, their Prime Minister and legislators acted almost immediately to tighten up their gun laws and they haven't had a mass shooting since.
But here in the U.S.A., we've had several mass shootings since the New Zealand one and McConnell, Trump and LaPierre have done everything they can to keep the laws the way they are.
By the way, who is in charge? La Pierre or Trump?
Even as I write this, the gun laws are loosening in Texas, to, among other things, allow guns on school property, even if the guns are hidden in a locked car....how well is that going to work.
I wonder how many Trump supporters were killed in these shootings. I guess the safety of the regular voter means nothing to these creatures (I just can't call them humans).
6
@Joie Anderson Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand's prime minister, cannot tell the difference between the law-abiding and the criminal. She has no moral compass. None!
Because of the horrendous crime committed by a non-resident, she ravaged law-abiding firearm-owners. What crime had they committed?
The essence of moral blindness is to treat the criminal equally with the law-abiding. Someone so morally blind is a clear-and-present danger: there is no crime, of which PM Ardern is not capable.
If the New Zealand murderer had been a Maori - New Zealand's analog to Australia's aborigines - I'd guess PM Ardern would had all Maoris seized and murdered. For, if one Maori committed such a horrible crime, are not all the rest equally likely to do so?
Those, who back "gun control" are morally blind. That makes them far more dangerous than any number of lunatics with rifles.
@Joie Anderson
It is too late ...............citizens should never have been permitted to posses semi automatic weapons. I am happy with my essentially fool proof 6 shot revolver.
What do people expect in a state where everyone is armed and they carry their guns with them. Just think about what would have happened if this guy had not had a rifle in his truck. Nobody would have been shot by him.
The truth is that we have passed the point where background checks are going to stop this insanity because there are just too many guns already in the wrong hands. This is not Australia where people turned in their guns after the mass shooting that brought that country to it's senses. The arms merchants cannot afford to have the United States change it's laws because it would cut into their profits. We are their biggest customers and it is in their best interest for us to keep killing each other.
1
Apparently, the "well regulated Militia" is not very well-regulated.
2
If young men of color were involved in these mass shootings, there would be a ban on assault rifle so quick your head would spin. I don’t understand why a ban on assault rifles for men, especially white young men, under the age of 35, is such a frightening idea? Like president trump says: what have we got to lose? Let’s give it a try. Ban these weapons. What horrible loss would occur? As the NRA says: a gun doesn’t kill people. People kill people. So if all the automatic weapons were banned, what difference would it make. I say, let’s try it and see what happens. What have we got to lose?
9
The semi-auto reloading system in a rifle is what makes them dangerous. These guns are not suitable for military use, they are just semi-auto rifles of which there are many models that are just old wood stocked hunting guns. The argument is just hype directed at people who never use guns to play on their lack of knowledge. Nearly all who fear ownership of so many guns in circulation do so because they think that that amount determines the peril to society. Removing most of them from popular ownership is their true objective.
@Lynne Behind "gun control's" dazzling facade - the false promise of safe streets - is a nasty reality: mountains of corpses.
The biggest murderers in the 20th Century were officials of governments "gone bad". Some 50,000,000 - including millions of children - were murdered in at least eight major genocides.
Germany enacted "gun control" on 13 April 1928, before the Nazis took power. The goal: to curb fights between Nazi Party and Communist Party thugs.
When the Nazis lawfully took power in 1933, they found in police stations, lists of firearm-owners. Plainly the Nazis did not allow those whom they hated - of whom Jews were only one group - to hold onto firearms.
The disarming of Jews was not decisive: Jews were only one percent of Germans. The prompt disarming of the many other Germans, who hated the Nazis, quickly gave the Nazis an iron grip.
The Nazis were not then wildly popular. They won 43.9% of the vote in an election held on 5 March 1933, even with Nazi party thugs having terrorized other parties' candidates. Even so, the Nazis - short of a majority - had to form a coalition. It had a slim majority in the Reichstag (parliament). By at once disarming their foes, the Nazis stifled any resistance. By 1938, Nazi policy successes - e.g., the seizure of Austria and a revived economy - made the Nazis truly popular.
The Nazis murdered some 13,000,000 of whom some 6,000,000 were Jews (of whom 1,500,000 were children) and 750,000 Gypsies (Roma).
Gun owners are untrustworthy people who if they want to be respected must act according to demands of the people who fear anyone who owns guns. It is up to all gun owners to prove that they are not going to turn out to be mass murderers.
1
@Casual Observer Your statement suggests that those, who back "gun control" have no moral compass. You want those, who have committed no crime, to have to prove their innocence. That is the total perversion of American jurisprudence.
Fear and loathing for heinous crimes but no certain way to prevent them is causing people to redirect their feelings to the weapons and those who own weapons. Fear and loathing overwhelms reasonable thinking.
Expecting anything good from congress on gun control is insane. They did virtually nothing after Las Vegas! That gun violence resulted in 58 deaths and 422 wounded. The ensuing panic brought the injury total to 851.
851 people killed and injured in just minutes by one man with assault weapons. The response by congress? Thoughts and prayers!
Don't expect any action at all from congress. This is gun-crazy America, after all. Where death by guns is a constitutional right.
1
@SalinasPhil The arms merchants own congress and it is in their best interest that we keep killing each other so that they can continue to sell us the lethal weapons needed to accomplish the job.
I'm starting to think that a lot of gun owners actually ARE mentally unstable.
Who needs an arsenal of guns in their home?
A paranoid, that's who.
9
@LauraF In the 20th Century, the biggest murderers were officials of governments "gone bad", not criminals, ordinary or organized.
An example. In Rwanda, 800,000 were murdered in just 119 days (7 April - 19 July 1994).
The Rwandan regime did not set-up Nazi-style murder facilities. Village-level murder squads with machetes and nail-studded clubs sought out Tutsis (the target ethnic group), and murdered them on the spot. Rwandan adults' national identity cards stated the bearer's ethnicity.
Rwanda's "gun control" law is Decree-Law No. 12/79, 7 May 1979 published in the "Journal Officiel" (Official Journal), 1 June 1979, pp. 343-346, in French and Kinyarwanda. This law remains in force, as amended by Law No. 13/2000, 14 June 2000.
The Tutsis had been targeted in prior years but could not get permits to acquire firearms, so were helpless when murder squads arrived.
A "lucky" few, who had cash in their pockets, could sometimes pay a murderer to expend a bullet. Those without cash were slashed and/or had limbs hacked-off and were left to bleed to death. Many, who took refuge in churches and schools, were incinerated therein.
.
Rwanda's post-genocide rulers have learned nothing: they maintain the "gun control" regime that promoted the 1994 genocide.
In short, "gun control" is a policy that seems attractive: a false promise of safe streets. Behind "gun control's" shiny façade is a nasty reality: mountains of corpses.
Do you still think "gun control" is a good idea?
It’s urgent only for Democrats who wants to use this as politically opportunism to separate Trump from his base and divide the GOP. This will end in frustration for the Democrats too along with Mueller, the recession, Russia, Israel, IrN, immigration....
You’re correct that only Democrats consider it an urgent issue, and that Republicans don’t see the slightest urgency in protecting Americans from being slaughtered.
1
" ... [gun control] measures would impinge on Second Amendment rights." An amendment from a time of flintlock weapons and which refers to an "organized militia" in no way authorizes today's civilian ownership of military grade weapons capable of killing dozens in less than a minute. "It is way past time that elected officials take immediate action to address the public health epidemic afflicting our nation and leading to the death and wounding of our fellow Americans as a result of gun crime ... In less than 30 days, there have been five tragic shooting incidents ... The common denominators among the incidents ... are assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines ... There is no legitimate reason to have weaponry designed for combat on our streets ... " (Art Acevedo, Chief of the Houston Police Department, 19Aug2019)
1
@Steve Kennedy The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. Get and read the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) decisions.
Military-type firearms are precisely those, ownership of which is protected by the Second Amendment.
The US Supreme Court usually upholds its precedents. In US v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects ownership of military-type firearms.
Miller, a career criminal and a fugitive, was not represented. No one told the Court that the weapon at issue - a sawed-off shotgun - was widely used by front-line US troops in World War I. The Germans - outraged by combat use of a "hunting" weapon - protested via the Swiss (neutrals). The US rejected the German protest, see: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp02/d912 .
In 1939, there were many front-line war-fighters, who had found sawed-off shotguns to be very effective for clearing trenches. Our Courts rule based on evidence. The Miller Court had no evidence that sawed-off shotguns had recently been a common combat weapon.
Semi-auto firearms, about which many fulminate, derive from military-issue rifles. Ownership of semi-auto weapons plainly is protected by the Second Amendment.
@Jay E. Simkin
The Supreme Court is not Moses. We can bring legal challenges to the Constitution about the legality of weaponry, just like any other legal challenge.
Obviously, it is not on our country's best interests for there to be so many guns circulating so freely, as all of the gun-death stats indicate. The need to "promote the general welfare" takes precedence over the desire of individuals to own the weapon "du jour."
1
@Jay E. Simkin Not true. "Does the Second Amendment really protect assault weapons? Four courts have said no ... The question of assault weapons was not addressed by the Supreme Court when, in 2008, it held for the first time in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, went out of his way to say that the right 'is not unlimited' ... The Supreme Court has declined to review any of these cases. A reason may be that at the moment there is no split among the appeals courts across the country, a factor that heavily influences the high court’s choice of cases. The appeals courts have all agreed that assault weapons bans are okay” (Washington Post, 22Feb2018)
My Facebook feed is filled with "good guy with a gun" memes and prideful claims that had the poster been there they could have stopped the shooter. The "good guys" seem all too willing, eager even, to shoot someone...anyone? Violence inspire violence. We're a fearful angry nation and sometimes it feels like we're prepping for civil war.
4
@fourfooteleven
These scenarios always play out heroically in the gun-guys minds. But when faced with a real-life scenario, they'll just freeze. Not because they're cowards, necessarily, but because that is what happens when a person is suddenly put in a terrifying situation. The attacker always has the advantage. It takes soldiers quite a bit of training and experience to get past this freeze/flight instinct to confront the enemy--training that most gun owners don't have.
1
@Susan You're correct, but not for the reason you suggest. Read "On Killing", by Col. David Grossman, USA, Retd.
Most firearm-owners train to die. They train by standing in one place and shoot at fixed targets. Or, they move, stop, and shoot.
The key to prevailing in a shoot-out is to shoot while moving. Most shooting ranges forbid this.
Most, who train in the realm of firearms - including police trainers - have never been in a shoot-out.
During World War II - when battleships "ruled the waves" - there were few engagements between these warships. When those occurred - e.g., Bismarck vs. Hood - these ships did not stop, fire, and then resuming moving. They fired while under way.
That's what must be done in a shoot-out: shoot while moving. Some training academies do teach this. But they are few and tuition, properly, is not low-cost.
The people of Texas need to understand there is a fix for this.
Democratic leadership at the state (Governor) and federal levels (Congress & WH)!!
Aside from that, these massacres will continue.
The GOP simply does not care about its constituents. They have consistently shown that they are either incapable or unwilling to govern in the best interests of the general population.
The fact that the GOP leader in the senate considers himself the grim reaper (his words) should tell you all you need to know.
Vote Blue- like you are voting for the Cowboys!
5
It's important to remember the Democratic message on gun control has been unchanged since the early 60s: bans will result in increased public safety. There is little evidence to support this position in this country, especially the plummeting overall murder rate over the last thirty years--in the face of an explosion of gun ownership.
The Democrats' opportunistic use of these mass murders as a guise to offer their tired, stupid policies is contemptible.
Mass murder is apparently the new "suicide by cop." The public debate should be focused on WHY these events are suddenly happening. And, especially, if our country is so rotten that these monsters feel emboldened to act, whether gun confiscation or extreme controls is really the thing to be discussing.
Indeed, one might argue that this is all a validation of the core purpose of the 2nd Amendment, as a safety valve to allow citizens to protect themselves, once the authority of and trust in government starts to disintegrate.
1
@Hans Here are some data - from public and published sources - to back-up your case.
Since 1980, the number of firearms in the U.S. has doubled, but the murder rate has halved. In 1980, the murder rate was 10.2 per 100,000 residents (Dept. of Justice, "Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008", p.2). In 2017, the homicide rate was 5.2 per 100,000 residents (FBI, "Crime in the United States", 2017. Table 1).
If firearms drove the incidence of criminality, the murder rate should have doubled. It didn't. The murder rate halved.
Further, "gun control" is a concept alien to U.S. jurisprudence. In the U.S., police forces have no duty to protect the average person. The U.S. Supreme Court so held in 1855 (South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 296 (1855)).
In the modern words of a U.S. Appeals Court decision: "But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution.”(Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982)).
This is “good law”, i.e., this decision has not been over-turned. This decision binds only Federal Courts in the Seventh Circuit. But other Courts may cite to Bowers. The bottom line: if we have no right to protection from the government, it follows that we are responsible for our own protection.
2
@Jay E. Simkin
Why are there so many men (it's mostly men) in this country who think the government is going to attack US citizens and force them into slavish obedience to their will? The irony is that the government is in cahoots with the NRA and pro-gun people to keep its citizens cowed and terrorized by allowing continual random gun massacres!
1
@Jay E. Simkin Here is another fact. The United States has the highest rate of death by firearms of all the industrialized nations. We are the murder capital of the world. I suspect that having so many guns in the hands of so many people may have something to do with it.
1
The only answer is to make private ownership of high capacity military style war weaponry a federal offense. That having procession of one will mean never voting again and going to a Fed prison. Buy them back. The men bent on doing mass killing cannot be stopped. A few are caught but most will just get sneakier. It is a game to these monsters. A way to hurt and be cruel; humans are cruel beings.
Trump must bear the label of "Mass Killings President" and the GOP and NRA. We are thousands of senseless deaths past a reasoned approach to gun ownership in this nation. Obviously this nation is just going to accept this carnage as some sort of pathetic tragic way of life. Like the blood shed in the streets of drug lord controlled countries we so disdain. SICK and endlessly sad.
5
@hoosier lifer
"Like the blood shed in the streets of drug lord controlled countries we so disdain"?
Your comment reveals the security and privilege from which you speak--there has long since been all kinds of "blood shed in the streets of drug lord controlled" cities across this land, but those deaths and shootings have never received such focused and sustained "outrage." That just comes when the problem reaches the security and privilege in the suburbs...
I am reminded of Charlie Brown having Lucy hold the football for him to kick.
3
I’m 74 years old and I never thought the day would come when my mindset even “entertained” thoughts of running an errand at the local supermarket and possibly being shot dead by a AK47 wielded by a macho nut!
I never thought the day would come when my first and foremost question to ANY political candidate on ANY level of government would be...”What are your proposals for stopping the insane, senseless slaughter of people by guns in the USA?” Just saying “for or against” means nothing. I want to know what the candidate will support.
If I don’t like what I hear, I won’t vote for that candidate. Sadly, all other issues run a very distant 2nd and 3rd in importance to me.
3
And by "new urgency" you mean will do absolutely nothing, no matter what.
4
@RG So, explain why it is that Massachusetts - with nasty and repressive firearms laws - has an incidence of violent crime twice that of next-door New Hampshire, which has few laws regarding firearms (FBI, "Crime in the United States - 2017)?
In New Hampshire, murders are so rare - the murder rate is about 1 per 100,000 residents, or about one-fourth or one-fifth the national average - that the Attorney General prosecutes all murderers. The average county attorney does not see enough murders, to become adept in their prosecution.
Explain why it is, that New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont - which do not require a license for concealed carry of firearms - at least since 2001 (with a one-year exception) have been the three state in the Union, with the lowest incidences of violent crime.
@Jay E. Simkin
"Each year when Crime in the United States is published, many entities—news media, tourism agencies, and other groups with an interest in crime in our Nation—use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region, or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents" https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/caution-against-ranking.
The operative word above is "simplistic". That's where you come in.
Did you know, (probably not), that of the 35000-40000 deaths by firearm per year in the US about 70% are by suicide?
Hope this helps.
@Jay E. Simkin
Well, you know something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you, mister "jones".
I hope folks google your fascinating history.
Canada has relatively strict gun control laws.
Toronto is the 6th safest city in the world, according to "The Economist" Intelligence Unit, even with a population that is more ethnically diverse than any American city.
Gun control laws work.
11
@gschultens "Gun control" laws worked in Germany.
Germany enacted "gun control" on 13 April 1928, before the Nazis took power. The goal: to curb fights between Nazi Party and Communist Party thugs.
When the Nazis lawfully took power in 1933, they found in police stations, lists of firearm-owners. Plainly the Nazis did not allow those whom they hated - of whom Jews were only one group - to hold onto firearms.
The disarming of Jews was not decisive: Jews were only one percent of Germans. The prompt disarming of the many other Germans, who hated the Nazis, quickly gave the Nazis an iron grip.
The Nazis were not then wildly popular. They won 43.9% of the vote in an election held on 5 March 1933, even with Nazi party thugs having terrorized other parties' candidates. Even so, the Nazis - short of a majority - had to form a coalition. It had a slim majority in the Reichstag (parliament).
By at once disarming their foes, the Nazis stifled any resistance. By 1938, Nazi policy successes - e.g., the seizure of Austria and a revived economy - made the Nazis truly popular.
The Nazis murdered some 13,000,000 of whom some 6,000,000 were Jews (of whom 1,500,000 were children) and 750,000 Gypsies (Roma).
When are ER doctors/staff, EMT, law enforcement going to say "enough?" The stress on these people has to be enormous.
2
"who had been fired from a trucking job..."
"stopped for not making a left turn signal"
a pressure cooker that blew
he just let go
that is not mental illness,
that is explosive rage of a man just cut loose from his moorings,
with immediate access to an AR-15, on the seat
once begun it unfolded like a too familiar
script, now reality
why was the assault rifle ban not renewed?
why isn't its not even being discussed?
it is already a law they allowed to lapse
the vote for reinstatement would identify those legislators who care little dangerous, exponential increase of mass shootings and mass deaths, mass casualties, and uncountable lives forever changed by trauma
then their constituents can re evaluate their usefulness in serving them
the conversation has changed
reinstate the automatic weapons ban
VOTE
2
Sorry, but in my opinion, the article's title is totally ridiculous. What "New Urgency"? We have been dulled by the prevalence of mass shootings in our society and, unfortunately, this recent Texas shooting is just more of the same. If there were a 'new urgency', the House and Senate would be in session.
3
"Opponents object to its provision making virtually all gun sales and transfers, including those between family members, subject to background checks."
What arguments do they have against closing the loopholes?
2
Well, well. Rick Scott, of all people, is an advocate of gun control legislation. Or so it says here. He wants red flag laws to keep guns away from mentally ill people. Is that fair? Does that mean anyone who is mentally ill? During their whole life? Won't there be some bonafide legal challenge to doing so? Seems obvious. And what clinical expertise will a judge have to decide about that? In reality, those red flag situations, when clear-cut, will apply in a very small number of cases, far fewer than the hype that's being given about them.
Case in point: In TX, a man gets fired from his job. Soon thereafter, he drives around, shoots multiple people, killing 8. That's actually a red flag situation. For it to work, time is of the essence. But also informants are necessary, those who know him and his state of mind and his access to weapons and having strong suspicion that, having been fired, he will become very dangerous. They have to be willing to come forward, not hesitate. And, of course, an agreeable judge. If all that falls into place, soon enough, lives may be saved. But, with TX awash in guns, he could obtain, one way or another, another gun. And then what?
2
The Republican Party is in denial about this issue. As they do many times, they apply the same old tactics they have always used regarding gun violence; meaningless words, promises of action, stall tactics and then - nothing. These tactics have now outlived their effectiveness with the public, although not with their NRA funders.
I have to believe as a rational human being that in 2020, no amount of money from the NRA can save some of the GOP senators and representatives up for re-election. I believe that in 2020, there will be a real political shift which will leave the GOP left behind in the entire gun debate and in the minority in the Senate. The NRA has overplayed its hand and so too has the GOP on this issue.
1
The NRA has only about 5 million members, in a nation of 327 million.
How is it that this tiny constituency has so much political power?
6
@MidtownATL
It's really simple of you to assume that all gun-owners belong to the NRA, or even consider ourselves allies of this organization. In fact, plenty of us consider much of the NRA's rank and file to be a reason to be armed and able to defend ourselves in the first place...
@SD
The love of money is the root of all evil. We need to remove influence-pedaling from our politics. Only when Congress cannot be bought will we see change.
1
@SD
"It's really simple of you to assume that all gun-owners belong to the NRA, or even consider ourselves allies of this organization."
- I assumed no such thing. There are many more Americans who are gun owners than members of the NRA. Furthermore, many members of the NRA do not support their political agenda.
"In fact, plenty of us consider much of the NRA's rank and file to be a reason to be armed and able to defend ourselves in the first place."
- That is a non-sequitor. How do armed NRA members inspire you to be armed yourself? Are you the "good guy (or gal) with a gun"?
- If so, how do we, or the police, know which side you are on, when you pull out your weapon and start shooting people?
1
I’ve seen this mournful movie enough times to conclude that nothing short of sweeping the NRA-addicted Republicans out of the WH and Senate and perhaps packing SCOTUS will result in any sane gun reforms. Meanwhile our citizens will continue dropping like flies.
2
New urgency?
Where in the article is this urgency demonstrated? Same old thoughts and prayers from the right.
1
"gun safety legislation" is a euphemism for gun-control laws.
And gun control is a euphemism for people control, because only people are subject to legislation.
Euphemisms are essentially dishonest. When used by control freaks trying to pass gun legislation their dishonesty is palpable in almost every word they utter..
So, let's logically analyze gun violence: Take every gun away from private Americans and--except for the considerable violence perpetrated by law-enforcement agents--there would no longer be a gun-violence problem. Of course violence would surely continue unabated, andactually increase as violence would surely be required to wrest guns from the hands of some Americans And the psychopaths who would otherwise murder with guns would undoubtedly turn to other, perhaps more lethal, means like bombs or biological weapons. The worst mass murder in a school in the U.S. was by bombs in Bath, Michigan. (Google it.)
The other word in the phrase gun violence is violence. If violence could be eliminated by fiat there would be no gun violence even if every American owned a dozen assault rifles. Thus, guns clearly are not the problem.
Our legislators will never seek to eliminate violence because they are committed to using violence and coercion, if for not other reason than to collect the taxes on which they utterly depend for their daily bread.
Obviously, the problem isn't guns. It's violence. Control freaks are barking up the wrong tree.
Why does this only happen in America?
Maybe it’s not the guns.
Maybe it’s because America is the only country where people regularly against their personal interest.
@✅Dr. TLS ✅ Mass shootings do happen in other countries, just at far lesser levels. The only difference is that the easy availability of guns in the U.S. to anyone and everyone who wants one, including those who are inclined to carry out mass shootings.
The Texas solution to mass gun slaughter seems to be more guns everywhere for everyone. If true, then it suggests that more polio or more measles or more cancer would cure those deadly or painful diseases. No, more guns will not solve our national disease of guns. It’s guns that are causing our own self imposed deadly and painful national sickness. Bring reason and control to gun ownership and amend the second amendment in such a way that the SCOTUS will correctly interpret what it meant meant by “A well regulated Militia”. Where is that Militia... nowhere, it doesn’t exist and never will. But gun violence everywhere, well that, for sure, exists. Wake up and count the dead. Do what needs to be done to end our common scourge of uncontrolled, unregulated gun procession and its directly related violent consequences. Change out those politicians who do nothing for those who will. 2020, 2020, 2020.
2
480,000 tobacco-related deaths in the U.S. last year. 70,000 opioid deaths during the same period. 11,000 DUI fatalities. There are some 400,000,000 privately owned firearms in the U.S., and counting...Can we please just stop with the phony hand-wringing and "thoughts and prayers"? As a country we like drugs. We love guns. We lack any courage to confront death-dealing industries that send millions to political candidates.
The titillating headlines pay for lots of air time and make for convenient sound bites, but come on....
If the carnage weren't so devastating, it would be almost amusing to see these pointless articles after each massacre, acting as if the United States were still a functioning society with a government able to address its problems rather than just rob its middle class.
There is no "urgency," and in fact we've reached the point at which each new atrocity merely amplifies the disgust most decent people feel for this oligarchic government that not only fails to protect its citizens but actively promotes their random slaughter.
The cost of gun violence is not only borne by the victims and their families but by the body politic, as its loses any faith in the worth of their public institutions. This is how nations die--violently, screaming at phantom enemies and muttering thoughts and prayers.
3
Why is there no association of effectiveness data with the imaginary schemes that will cure our gun violence problem. It would take about 2 days for an expert with data on shootings to prove that red flag laws and background checks would not have stopped most of the recent massacres.
How many family members would turn in a loved one because he shouldn't have a gun? "I had no idea that Billy would do that ..." Or how many of the killers would have failed background checks that would that have kept them from getting guns, legal or illegal.
Face it! The US has more guns per person than any other advanced stable country and we have many more murders. If a "good guy with a gun is the only defense against a bad guy with a gun" then the US is the safest country on Earth. It isn't and that talking point is a cruel lie.
The delusion is: all we have to do is take guns away from everyone who might cause a mass killing. ... That seems to be the birdbrained solution, although the pigeons in my back yard are smarter than that. There are exactly ZERO ideas on how to reliably identify mass killers until after they are done. Afterwards we are 100% sure.
None of these plans are any more than simpleton wishes based on no data that proves that they would do anything at all.
1
Several people who were likely to commit mass murders were stopped by people reporting them over the last two weeks. This man scared his neighbors with his use of guns and he was fired from his job. There is plenty of evidence to support the probable ability to reduce these massacres by identifying likely dangerous people.
Confiscating 300,000,000 million guns owned by an estimated up to forty percent of the adults in this country is not going to be imposed successfully without a police state.
@Casual Observer Americans own some 402,000,000 firearms (excluding military items). See U.S. Dept. of Justice, "Firearms Commerce in the United States" 2000 and 2018. You'll have to compile the data.
Basically, the Russian owned GOP is saying: 'Now settle down everyone. This is making the gun manufacturers rich, and at the same time, Putin very happy.'
Losing some lives in the meantime is just the cost of doing business.
1
If we accept that “mental illness” is at the root of this infamous American tradition and we know that mental illness can be a slow descent from “mental wellness” often taking years, then every gun owner every year will need to be rigorously screened for “mental illness.” Now just how many gun owners will submit to that screening process? Who’s going to pay for it? What bureaucracy will administer it? How “mentally ill” do you have to be in order to give up your guns? Will you even give up your guns? Will you be paid fair market value for your guns? Will you lawyer up to fight it in court?
Oh yeah, this is really going to work.
Ask your pro gun associates these questions and you’ll likely hear crickets.
1
@Sandy "Will you be paid fair market value for your guns?" Not in Connecticut. Under their red flag law, guns are subject to civil asset forfeiture and thus considered exempt from 4th Amendment protections.
And if we accept that ducks are actually blue heelers, then every baby duck needs to be set free to herd sheep.
I must restrain myself so that this comment will meet the Times's civility guidelines. I mean, what New Urgency is now brought to the gun debate? The authorities will discover that the gunman had mental health issues--Surprise! What they will not bother to acknowledge is that he also had guns! They will focus on the first fact and disregard the second. We will have another shooting a week or so down the road. They same guys who are shocked now will be shocked then, into their usual inaction.
11
"Texas Shooting Brings New Urgency to Gun Debate in Congress".
No, I'm sure the urgency to do something will be after the next mass murder. If not, maybe the one after that. Or maybe a dozen or so headlines later.
3
Every American has the right to bear arms...except when entering the White House, the Congress, and the Courts.
Why?
Because guns kill.
But for politicians and justices, it’s OK to kill ordinary Americans like high school students, working moms and dads, and police officers.
Why?
Because gun deaths equal more gun sales equal more bribes (donations in Washington parlance) to them.
The trite response of thought and prayers is true. The politicians and the justices are thinking and praying for more deaths so that they can have more money.
Keep ‘Merica Great!
4
@Opinioned! Brilliant, really. This needs to be part of the campaign to vote out all infected GOP, starting with Abbott.
You fear people who own guns because guns have been used by some people to shoot others. Why would a third to forty percent of American adults own guns, including up to 15,000,000 civilian style assault like rifles?
@Casual Observer
Because there are a lot of pathetic people out there who believe that these weapons will save them from their delusions.
Only 48 hours after the latest weekly mass shooting this time involving a 17 month old baby and the news about starts to fade in the media. Politicians know this and count on it.
Remember when the NRA used to make some absurd statement or hold a gun rally after a massacre? They don't even have to bother now.
The body count will continue unabated. We all know it yet even Americans won't get off the couch to force politicians to take meaningful action.
There are handfuls of activists scattered throughout the United States that are trying but does the media ever do a story on them? Haha hardly. It's not sensationalism so it won't make a profit and mouse clicks.
2
Regarding gun control, the words urgency and Republicans shouldn't be put in the same sentence.
2
Without any doubt, "guns" is the most absurd issue in American history. Nobody likes the scenes of innocent victims being shot time after time. After each time, politicians mouth the usual blob: "my thoughts, my prayers, etc." Then then move on to consider reforms to the assumed or presumed right of firearm possession accorded to citizens by the Constitution. Everybody misreads what the Constitution says and then move on to the usual perorations about "background checks," insanity, criminals, age restrictions, etc., etc. They are all diversions from the real reason for the shootings. The guns themselves that are accessible to whomever wants them. The reason for the killings is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to see: the guns that are continuously "improved" to make them even more lethal. Americans kill each other with guns more than any foreign enemies kill them. When will sanity enter the brains of Americans? In the age of Trump the outlook is hopeless.
1
So, are the Texas Christians not praying enough?
Not sincere enough in their prayers?
Or has God repeatedly targeted them due to their sinful behavior?
Curious that when a disaster hits the northeast it’s because of our embracing something non-Christian, so what are our brethren in Texas guilty of?
2
I'm sure Mitch McConnell will be sending thoughts and prayers. That should do it.
1
Amazing how collective minds can't find a solution and continually rehash old remedies. The 2nd Amendment is as outdated as the "horse and buggy" but what is the collective solution to a mental illness issue? Moreover, if you ban guns, there are other means
to a destructive end.
The US Attorney General has just drafted a piece of legislation institutionalizing the death penalty for mass shooters.
That will not be an effective deterrent because mass shooters usually are of the ideological type, so they believe they are fighting for something bigger than themselves.
5
And they are usually also suicidal while taking dozens out with them.
New Urgency?
The GOP feels no pressure on this issue from their voters.
The NRA will continue to outspend gun regulation groups.
I applaud the NYT writing this article but the 'political reality' is a far cry from what the Times would have us believe on the left.
5
Federal law, all 50 states.
1. Assault weapons should be banned.
2. Straw purchases of guns should banned: Gun owners should be required to report sold or stolen guns to the police. Ghost guns should be illegal; all guns should be required to have a serial number. It should be illegal to modify a gun to shoot more times than the manufacture intended. Violating any these laws should be a felony with the possibility jail time. If any of these laws are violated and a gun is used in a crime, mandatory jail time should be required.
3. Federal government should offer a buy back program for assault weapons. If citizens don't participate in the buy back program and they are caught with an assault rifle, mandatory 3 years in prison for each gun they didn't turn in.
4. All gun owners must purchase liability insurance.
5. Gun shows should be banned.
We should have a national database (going forth) before any gun is sold, ballistic of each gun should be registered to a state and federal database.
I heard this morning a Congressmen say, 'Senator Mitch McConnell needs to get off his "can" and bring gun legislation to thhe Senate floor'.
I'd advice American citizens to get off our "cans" and do our job.
18
@Trina In your wildest dreams, Trina. Your legislation will be perceived as too Draconian and is dead on arrival. (I say this as someone who has never owned a gun and would probably like your proposals in an ideal world.) Chasing millions of owners of assault style weapon owners with potential jail sentences will just create more resistance and play into all kinds of paranoid fears among gun owners -- who vote not because of NRA money but because, rightly or wrongly, they believe in guns. How about we start with expanded background checks and prohibition of any future sales of assault style weapons.? Prohibiting future sales of assault weapons is a stretch but at least give it a try.
@Trina
Thanks for the list of good ideas. It's too bad our president and Congress can't legislate similar ones. If even just one of these made it to law, we'd most likely see a drop in gun incidents.
The number one cause of gun deaths in the US is apathy, which in turn is caused by influence-buying in government. We need to get private money out of politics. Other nations do. They are a lot more democratic than the U.S.
@Trina
Greetings from reality Trina,
Seeing as the myopia of your list of mere palliatives doesn't even gesture towards the fact that our country continues to increasingly produce these sick, alienated, anomic young men (which is the real problem here), do you have anything of value to say about what happens to all of these lone, hateful young men in this fantasy land of yours where there are no guns anymore?
The issue is whether votes can overcome money.
8
The issue is whether anyone will be trusted when a majority of people are afraid of anything which frightens them.
@Carl It's not just money and advertising. A lot of people really believe in guns. How are you going to change their minds? Maybe only gradually.
There are gun control related Bills passed in the House, in
February of this year. Why has the Senate Majority Leader not taken up the Bills for a debate, and vote?
Between February, 2019 and today, there has been several mass shootings, and individual gun related crimes, around the country. How many more lives must be lost, for the Senate to deem the subject important, urgent and a priority?
2
No paperwork can prevent such happenings. The saturated coverage is a goad for those so in mind to perform such horror
@SMPH
Did you know that the El Paso "shooting" was a fake? I heard rumors, but I think it was a plot to destroy Trump's reputation! God Bless the Man! The Dayton shooting--I just don't know whether I can believe it, either. Of course, I don't know any of the details. People are talking among themselves about these terrible events that are "SUPPOSED" to be happening, but ever since Trump got rid of all of the news services, we're not sure what's going on in the country. Well, I have total faith that our dear leader, Trump-for-life, will report the God's honest truth about what's going on.
In Trump we trust. AMEN!
So let’s just ignore all of this and go on our way. Probably won’t by my kid shot.
So do nothing? I don’t understand this argument.
The human animal is again proving that it is a failure. Not even their supposed gods can fix this misunderstood animal survival instinct. What should be of greater importance to those of us who are opposed to the misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment, which was written to give the states the ability to challenge an autocratic takeover of the federal government, is the fact that the majority of males in our male dominated society seem to have been unable to move beyond the survival protection responses their parents passed on to them. Until this nation wants to correct the 2nd Amendment where it is written in today's language and be more descriptive of the original intent then we will never move away from the mass killings which will only increase in frequency and intensity.
8
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.
The Founders of our Republic did us no favors with this Amendment wording. Unfortunately, I do not know the original literature surrounding this text and what the authors actually meant or were thinking. However, it bears repeating that words regulated, security, free State appear and, in our times, don't seem to apply to victims or potential victims of gun violence.
9
@Moses Google Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010). You'll find U.S. Supreme Court decisions, that will be enlightening.
Those, who use the term "gun violence" wish to shift attention from murderers to the items they abuse.
The largest known U.S. mass murder occurred in Bronx, New York, on 25 March 1990, at an unlicensed "social club". Eighty 87 were incinerated, when the murderer poured gasoline on the wooden steps, the only entry/exit, and set them afire. The murderer died in prison.
@Moses
The fact that the word "regulated" appears tells us everything. This word is conveniently ignored by those who oppose regulation. It is past time for our Congress to start following the U.S. Constitution and REGULATE!
1
@Moses
A well regulated militia is a lot different from some jerk with an agenda.
Further, when the Second Amendment was written, the new country had just come off of the British occupancy where British soldiers would just come in and take over somebody's house.
That's one reason for the gun laws.
Another reason is that when this country was new people still had to hunt with guns for food ~ they didn't have Costco.
Of course, if you shoot a deer with an assault rifle, you'll just get hamburger filled with bits of bullets.
I know I've written this before in response to another mass shooting, but once again: Abolish the Second Amendment.
1
"But in the weeks since, with lawmakers scattered across the country in their home districts, the issue seemed to drift from public view."
In other words, you need to have mass shootings every couple of weeks to keep the public motivated and focused on this issue. Nothing but thoughts and prayers, thoughts and prayers, with nary a step forward. Keep that modus operandi up and you soon will reach the tipping point at which the American people will get angry enough for long enough to vote out the do nothings and replace them with those committed to the will of the people.
But it's beyond tragic that so many more innocents have to be sacrificed to the short attention span in the American public, and it must be said, the media as well, to embrace solutions to a problem with the same verve they have for the headline grabbing brutal results of same.
7
Please, no more platitudes. We do not need "Shooting Brings New Urgency". The rhetoric after Sandy Hook, et al has been the same. Are we waiting for one more mass shooting or one more month of gun deaths in Chicago, Baltimore, Newark and other cities before action is taken? How many tragedies are required before legislators act?
9
It does? I think not. The republicans are intransigent. The only change will come from elections.
12
Background checks will never stem the flow and usage of military type weapons or any other weapon, because of the flourishing black market for weapons. Criminal defense lawyers across the country, such as I, can attest to the fact that anyone can get any weapon almost anywhere and at any time. What"s needed is the complete ban of military grade weapons by private citizens. I have a right to be safe and free that's just as important as a hunter's right to use a gun for sport. Why isn't our personal safety on the same level as those of the NRA backers?
15
Well, the AR-15 is not a military grade weapon, it is designed for civilian use. They are legally sold civilian guns.
The weapons of war claims are hyperbolic to arouse two concerns. First, that the weapons are produced for killing people and second that they have no legitimate other purpose.
It’s untrue, both ways. These are semi-automatic rifles that fire as fast or slowly as the user squeezes the trigger. That mechanism has been used in sporting guns for many decades. The ammunition is a standard civilian round.
The effort to ban the gun begins a ban on civilian guns based upon fear of how they may be misused, and so on all guns now owned legally could also be banned. The whole issue is being misrepresented.
@C Wallis Honchar In the U.S., the average person has no right to police protection. The U.S. Supreme Court so held in 1855 (South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 296 (1855)).
In modern English: "But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution.”(Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982)).
This is “good law”, i.e., this decision has not been over-turned.
So, if we have no right to police protection, then we're responsible for our own protection.
In U.S. v. Miller 307 US 174 (1939), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to military-type firearms.
Miller, a career criminal and a fugitive, was not represented. The Court saw no evidence that the weapon at issue - a sawed-off shotgun - was widely used by front-line US troops in World War I.
The Germans - outraged by such use - protested via the Swiss (neutrals). The US rejected the German protest, see: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp02/d912 .
In 1939, many veterans could have testified to their combat use of sawed-off shotguns. But the Miller Court had no such evidence.
Semi-auto firearms derive from military-issue rifles. Semi-auto weapons plainly are protected by the Second Amendment.
Because the gun lobby buys politicians through campaign donations. It’s the American way to being the “free-est country in the world.”
If the Dems can get background checks for all sales except for those to family and "friends" and a ban on high capacity magazines this is a "win" worth taking. Do not let "better" or "best" be the enemy of "good". They should push for "shared liability" for the seller of a gun to a family member or friend in the instance that the buyer commits a crime with that gun as a check on the sale. While a ban on "assault type" rifles will probably not fly, how about a push to ban "fully automatic" rifles?
1
In terms of per capita, Canada, a country that shares much of America’s culture,with a population that is a tenth of the US population, should have proportionally a tenth as many homicidal maniacs and thus a tenth the number of mass shootings in our schools, houses of worship, and other public gatherings, but we don’t. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen here, but it is rare.
I believe that the most important difference between the US and Canada is that guns are not as readily available here as in the US, and we don’t have a powerful gun culture that values The uninhibited right to gun ownership over life itself.
14
@Jack Shultz You may be right as to cultural aspects. But if some Canadian government decided to annihilate all First Nations members, murdered they would be. Even if most Canadians opposed such a genocide, they would be helpless.
Perhaps without knowing it, Canadians have bought the risk of genocide. Good luck!
@Jay E. Simkin
Yeah, the alternative is always a horrific slaughter in Simkin's faulty reasoning book that he is writing in snippets on this comments section. Call it The Doomsday Scenario (wait a minute...hasn't that title already been taken...?)
1
It doesn't bring any "New Urgency". Little children were slaughtered at Sandy Hook and it changed nothing. Congress will continue to offer "Thoughts and Prayers", while they look the other way, as the NRA continues to shove cash into their election coffers.
I don't know why I'm wasting my time writing this. I just glanced at the comments below me and see a score or more people that have already tread the ground I'm walking now.
Americans understand the reality we exist in: Elected officials care about money, not the welfare of the people that elected them.
Big surprise.
14
When the 1994 Assault Weapon ban passed, mass shootings went down, after the ban, mass shootings skyrocketed to numbers even higher than during the pre-ban decade - this is documented in published research.
Why was the ban allowed to expire in 2014, maybe because George Bush was in the White House? Ronald Reagan actively supported the bill writing letters to House Republicans.
When Dems controlled the House, Senate, and White House for the first two years of Mr Obama’s first administration the Dems did not show leadership or distinguish themselves from Republicans - they did not pass any legislation to control the military assault slaughter.
4
If guns are made people will get them. If people have a gun they will use it. Why not ban manufacture of guns and make having a gun illegal? Most of those getting shot are low to middle class citizens so the rich don’t care if lots of them are killed. USA sells or smuggles guns into other countries destroying the peace and safety of these otherwise wonderful places. China bans owning or selling guns inside china so it’s very safe there. After living and working in china 25 years the only violence I saw were people fighting in the streets after some argument. Yes, there were also a few stabbing. But if china allowed guns there would be millions shot every year. Common sense for the betterment of citizens. But of course banning guns will never happen unless USA government system is replaced by a wiser system.
5
GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL NEVER BE A PRIORITY FOR THE REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS: The death of innocent civilians at the hands of white supremacists and mentally ill cannot and will not be a matter of urgency for the Republican politicians. The show of phony rage and the talk of urgency, on their part, is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction that we’ve noticed time and again in the aftermath of every mass shooting. Give it a day or two and it will all be forgotten before we know it. If the past is any indication, the sad saga of the frequent shootings will go on uninterrupted. Thanks to the Republicans for preserving the status quo at the behest of the NRA.
However, what saddens me the most is the desensitization of the American public to mass shootings. It doesn't matter who in their family dies, their sorrow and rage over the senseless killing of their loved one happens to be too fleeting as well. Since the NRA and the Republicans know it too well, they feel free to promote the sales of powerful guns to anyone with no concern whatsoever for the deadly consequences. To them, money and the strong hold on political power is what matters the most. Ordinary people to them, in my opinion, are expendable.
It’s a sad state of affairs which, by all appearances will go on indefinitely until America elects a President who sincerely cares for the well- being of the people. Let’s hope, whoever the Dems nominate, is that President.
4
When it comes to our debate about gun violence, headlines with phrases like "new urgency", "renewed focus" and "spur action" are meaningless: "fake news". Scientific studies have given us the answer, get rid of the guns. Period. Don't tell me it can't happen. I remember when people smoked cigarettes in hospitals, not huddled in shame on center medians. Our nation's health depends on it!
8
I am not oppose to banning assault rifles. However, Tthe purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure Americans are armed with weapons of war so, if the need arises, they can from militias and fight on battlefields just as they did in 1776. Assault riffles are exactly the type of weapon the amendment was written to protect.
Rifles, including assault rifles, are used in a tiny percent of murders.
The most FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that in 2017, which was the year off the Las Vegas mass shooting—
—7,025 people were murdered by handguns;
—1,591 people were stabbed to death,
—696 people were beaten, stomped or kicked to death;
—467 people were clubbed to death;
—403 were killed by rifle fire, including assault rifles;
—and 264 were killed by shotgun blast.
It would be better to ban handguns.
2
@William Case
"A well-regulated militia" does not apply to virtually all of the U.S. citizens who own guns. There is no requirement that ANYONE join a militia or receive training in gun-handling and before being allowed to own firearms. Therefore, is it possible that they are violating the Constitution by owning guns without the requisite training?
Also, the idea that all Americans should be able to aquire assault weapons because the founders intended it, is ludicrous. The modern-day equivalent of the "well-regulated militia" is the US military. They alone should be the ones entrusted to possess such dangerous weapons. After all, are individuals allowed the right to their own nuclear weapons? And why not?
1
@Susan The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees. See the Court's Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) decisions.
Military firearms are precisely those protected by the Second Amendment.
The US Supreme Court usually upholds its precedents. In US v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects ownership of military-type firearms.
Miller, a career criminal and a fugitive, was not represented. No one told the Court that the weapon at issue - a sawed-off shotgun - was widely used by front-line US troops in World War I. The Germans - outraged by combat use of a "hunting" weapon - protested via the Swiss (neutrals). The US rejected the German protest, see: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp02/d912 .
In 1939, there were many front-line war-fighters, who had found sawed-off shotguns to be very effective for clearing trenches. Our Courts rule based on evidence. The Miller Court had no evidence that sawed-off shotguns had recently been a common combat weapon.
Semi-auto firearms, about which many fulminate, derive from military-issue rifles. Ownership of semi-auto weapons plainly is protected by the Second Amendment.
@Susan
The adjective "well-regulated" in the 2nd Amendment modifies "militia," not "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." In the 1700 s, well-regulated meant well equipped and well provisioned' it still has that meaning in unabridged dictionaries.
The authors of the 2nd Amendment meant to ensure Americans were armed so they form militias and fight against government forces if the government become tyrannical or oppressive. The US. Army is the opposite of a militia.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the amendment protects weapons in common uses. This would exclude assault rifles, but no nuclear weapons.
Like most Americans, it think the 2nd Amendment is outdated and should be repealed, but we shouldn't pretend it doesn't say what it says or ignore it. If we can ignore one item in the Bill of Rights, we can ignored them all,
Congress should make a law about buying insurance every time people buy a gun, same as the laws we have when we buy a car.
2
@Lupe Sorry, I missed that part in the Constitution about having a right to a car.
@Lupe
The insurance industry will deny a lot of people this coverage, based on their likelihood of being a danger to themselves and to others.
Just going to be the same GOP Delay, Deflect, Deny tactics - nothing will happen.
2
Urgency? Congress?
You're joking, right?
The Democratic-controlled House passed gun control legislation months ago. The GOP-controlled Senate refused to even bring it to the floor for debate.
By the time Congress returns a week from now, this massacre too will have been forgotten.
4
On February 27th, the Democratic-led House of Representatives passed two bills to improve universal background checks on firearms purchases. These bills passed 240-190 mostly along party lines.
Since that time, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has not allowed the Senate to vote on (or debate on the Senate floor) the House gun safety bills. He and other Republicans beholden to the NRA's lobby money block all discussion or efforts to improve gun safety while only offering "thoughts and prayers" after every mass shooting
Republicans in Congress are a large part of the problem. They embrace red herring arguments blaming video games, mental health or anything but access to military-style assault weapons. Vote Republicans out so America can address gun safety legislation to remedy mass shootings.
54
Gun regulation has now or should be the No. 1 domestic issue for voters in the November 2020 election. The Democratic House must move forward with a comprehensive bill regulating guns including universal background checks with mental health information added, closing all loopholes, banning assault weapons, and limiting the size of ammunition clips. Let Mitch McConnell and his Republican senators sit on it and continue to allow more gun massacres, but then let all the Democratic nominees for president and all those running for Congress endorse it and run on it as a top priority, day 1, issue. It's time for all adults to vote with the courageous young Parkland survivors and vote the gun lobby supporters out of office. It's time to protect the American people and stop supporting the N.R.A. and the gun manufacturers. It's time to wash the blood off our hands. It's time finally to vote #NeverAgain.
24
@Paul Wortman
Why should it be number one? Our glorious medical systems kills many times over the numbers killed by guns, the result of preventable medical error.
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus Let's skip the "what about-ism" and stay on topic. Any lives we can save we should. And, other nations have shown that gun massacres can be almost eliminated.
It’s nice that someone is thinks that this most recent incident has created a sense of urgency that will be acted upon. My cynicism has grown in leaps and bounds. Sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, hundreds more will die or be injured in mass shootings in the US by the end of the year. The only question is where and when. It seems that our society has decided that this is ok.
The real question for me now is how we take care of the survivors. Who will pay their medical bills? Who will take care of the orphans? Short and long term disability for impacted folks who can no longer work? How about a weapons and/or ammunition tax to support the people impacted by shootings?
33
@Kristen
and the lifetime trauma they will never live without
the nightmares, the fear and anxiety
these have no price
bring back the automatic weapons ban allowed to lapse in 2004, a law that could be reinstated
the conversation has changed
@Kristen
The right to lifers?
@Kristen exactly....
Governor Scott put it out there, hailing Red Flag laws. Okay, how many guns have been confiscated in Florida to date?
It seems to me that red flag laws have the appeal of seeming to do something but in reality does nothing to make us safer. It just gives politicians the ability to how good and serious they are while accomplishing nothing.
15
Great! "New urgency" is what we need, until next time.
We know what works. We know how to fix this.
Same for health care.
We just don't act like the rest of the world.
34
"Texas Shooting Brings New Urgency to Gun Debate in Congress."
No, it doesn't. Stop getting peoples' hopes up. The NRA owns half of Congress, it owns the President, it owns the Supreme Court, it owns most state governors, and it owns most state houses. The NRA represents gun manufacturers, and its singular goal is to increase gun sales at any cost.
Until voters oust the NRA puppets, nothing will happen. Even Republican standard-bearer Ronald Reagan couldn't have gotten gun control legislation through Congress in this climate.
38
@Steve Acho
Yes.
Money owns the Republican Party.
To them, it’s all about the bottom line.
1
The stalemate that is the gun debate, forever enshrined by the practically inalterable 2nd amendment, exemplifies by all things eventually come to an end. This include the US and the US constitution. Everything that is created - languages, cultures, countries and constitutions included - is eventually destroyed. Unfortunately that type of revolution may be needed here.
6
We need to end the fiction that possession of assault weapons is a 2nd Amendment Right. Most who own them have nothing to do with a "well regulated militia." Ownership of these killing weapons poses a major risk to American national security. The NRA other even more extreme members of the fringe have to be stopped. Ban the manufacture, distribution, sale, and possession of these weapons. Establish a mandatory buy back program. Extremely controversial? Yes, for some fringe people and their sycophantic, non-leading politicians. For the rest of us? Common sense for self preservation.
26
@Art Mills
reinstate the assault weapons ban
it is already a law allowed to lapse
those legislators who are against it will be revealed to their constituents who may now understand they are not serving their best interests
Why are we blaming politicians? The politician is sent to Washington to vote in our interests. Since they vote with the NRA and we vote them into office again, year after year, doesn’t that mean WE the American voter subscribes to the status quo?
So you say you like the tax cuts and the pro life Supreme Court, so the gun issue is minuscule in comparison and, besides, you are not a one issue voter? That’s a reasonable position. Just don’t complain about the mass shootings.
8
Who writes these headlines? We have more people slaughtered and there’s a “new urgency” in Congress? I’m still waiting to see the “old urgency” or just any urgency in response to these horrific events. Note, all who have eyes to see, that Congress is still in recess and even once it wanders back to town there’s no reason to expect any dramatic action on gun control, ever, in our lifetimes. This isn’t urgency; it’s complacency.
16
It's not guns that kill people. It's the paranoid gun culture in a country awash with easily-obtainable firearms that kills people.
13
The Republican controlled Senate and White House will not do anything meaningful. We all know this.
31
Most of the gun deaths that occur in the US (predominantly suicides and gang-related violence) will be challenging to solve with any sort of gun regulation, but the tragedy of these types of mass murder is that we could easily reduce their frequency and their mortality, but we won't. The reason this could be easily solved is because we have a clear picture of the people who do this sort of thing and their weapon of choice. But the reason we won't is because gun advocates (the minority of Americans) are more dedicated and loyal to the issue of free access to guns than their opposition, and it isn't even close. You'll see a lot of tortured comments here pleading for more gun control, but then they will forget about this until the next time this happens. In the meantime, gun advocates will be working hard to oppose any sort of meaningful gun regulation. That's really why nothing ever changes.
10
True! The gun advocates are a minority, but as you say a vocal, dedicated group. I was surprised to learn that the NRA has a mere three million members! They have lost some, recently. My husband and I marched in protest with “March For Our Lives” we need to continue constant march towards sanity!
8
@Leo So, Japan and Australia and (fill in the name of a country) don't have all those "challenging-to-solve" gun deaths and just happen to have massive gun regulation. And you're still willing to say we're helpless to do anything about it?
8
@JimBob You've mischaracterized my position on this matter. I never said we are helpless. I said, we aren't committed to solving this problem. We also have this little thing called the Second amendment. We aren't ever going to be anything like Japan as long as that exists. Do I think Japan has the better approach to guns? Absolutely! But it is beyond fantasy to think we can do what Japan has done in our lifetime. We can't even make gun registration universal and that doesn't even come close to doing anything towards preventing the type of disaster that just occurred in Texas.
1
I disagree with the title. If high school kids, elementary school kids, church goers, synagogue attendees, etc getting shot didn't bring urgency, drive by shooting will not.
If 40,000 dying from guns every year does not bring urgency, this, sadly, will not either.
The only thing that will bring urgency is when politicians who are more interested in representing the NRA instead of their constituents start getting voted out of office...then, maybe then, there will be a sense of urgency.
24
President Trump cares mostly about himself and his family and how much he can make from the office of president, both now and when he leaves office. The election is coming and his base loves guns so, there is little chance of any substantive changes of gun laws as Trump is in thrall to the NRA.
14
Is there really any difference in the situation we have with guns than with the issues our society had with tobacco? How about the prevalent use of lead in products? How about sugar in everything? How about the health effects of chemical pollution? How about the fossil fuels industry?
In all those businesses, products that are harmful, even deadly in some cases, those businesses have denied, obstructed and successfully lobbied law makers to look the other way to protect their profits.
The brilliance of the gun manufacturers was to tie their product, guns, to their definition of the 2nd Amendment and they marketed, and sold, and lobbied their way until they are untouchable. Guns are impervious to science, the 'Constitution' protects them
The lead industry succumbed to science. The tobacco industry still fights the science. Big sugar pushes their products and obesity affects more people in the US. The EPA reduces regulations for air and water pollution to the benefit of business. The fossil fuel industry denies climate change - now with the help of the government.
The difference between gun and the other products listed above is their damage is immediate, dramatic, tragic and heartbreaking, just like plane crashes. The other products are slow destroyers of life over a long term.
In the end, it's just about product, profit, and power.
The people affected or killed by these products are just the cost of doing business.
Don't take it person, it's just business.
17
Hand guns, rifles, shot guns, pretty much any firearm, have
been around and accessible to the public for as long as I can recall. The only requirement was age - a person had to be 21 in order to purchase a firearm over the counter. My cousin used to fly to Montana for hunting trips and carried his weapons with him.
My brother used to take the Greyhound bus to meet my dad for a deer hunting trip and had his rifle with him. Firearms have always been around.
However, what's changed is the attitude that it's okay to murder innocent people because they lost their job or don't like a particular sexual preference, or had a bad day at school.
Somewhere along the way, a different and disturbing mindset has been at work for a while. Mental illness IS a key component in many of these disturbing scenarios. But others like the 58 year old lone wolf in Vegas just got it in his sick head to massacre folks at an open concert.
It just seems whatever regulations and safe guards are placed on firearms, people will find ways to carry out their disturbing and deadly decision to murder innocent people.
That all being said, I think this extremely haunting and disgraceful "new norm" must be addressed on both fronts - gun safety legislation AND mental health. I believe they are the flip side of the same coin and cannot discuss one without the other.
More MUST be done other than cheap and empty words.
10
@Marge Keller - The vast majority of Americans understand that “the new norm” is a nation flooded with guns, a powerful political lobbyist called the NRA, and Red States that make it easy to carry anywhere, anytime! What could possibly go wrong with that?!
This isn’t about changing society, or doctoring human behavior. It’s about a nation awash in gun violence because... yup: far too many guns.
12
Well said, Marge, and the other thing that has changed is the easy availability of Military style weapons which can be bought over the internet and off our streets.
2
@Marge Keller
What have we heard from politicians about funding vastly expansive mental health services?
Crickets.
1
This idea that we have to keep firearms out of the hands of “the mentally ill” directs our attention away from the fact that anyone can snap into a dangerous mental state, when something really bad happens to them. Alcohol can make it easier to snap, and worse, as we all know. If there’s a gun at hand when this happens, the danger is mortal, for everyone in the immediate vicinity. This is patently true, yet we continue to ignore it. Why?
20
@Eric money, money, money and more money.
Collected data proves that states with more stringent background checks have less gun violence. Countries with gun control have less mass murders. The old defense that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns doesn’t work any longer.
We cannot blame mental illness or video games for what is going on in this country. As long as the NRA is supporting all the GOP politicians, this madness will continue. The GOP has ceased caring about the people they were elected to represent and only care about keeping Trump in office so they can continue their power play. Get out and vote in 2020. Be a part of the solution. Do not sit idly by and allow this to continue.
20
Republicans are not likely to take up the cause of gun safety, with the NRA spending heavily to elect Republicans opposed to gun control.
According to the "Miami Herald", "in 2016, the NRA's reports filed with the Federal Election Commission showed it shelled out a record-setting $55 million combined on independent political spending and direct contributions to candidates in federal races.
But two NRA sources told McClatchy that the group spent even more -- close to $70 million, and perhaps much more. One source, a prominent NRA committee member, told McClatchy in several interviews that the gun group’s chieftain Wayne LaPierre informed him of the higher number."
Evidently, according to credible sources, Trump received over
$30 million from the NRA in 2016, and Mitch McConnell received over $1.3 million. How can we get legislature on gun safety passed when we have one party accepting what amount to bribes from the NRA?
17
The hashtag trending on Twitter is #NRAOwnsGOP ....your comment makes the point! We must vote out every Republican.
1
Like all the mass shootings before this the president claims background checks wouldn't have prevented them. And thoughts and prayers will not prevent the next one. Do something.
16
Elected members of the Republican Party are failing citizens because they value NRA contributions and because they’ve been allowed to get away with doing nothing. They keep being reelected because enough voters ignore the human cost of gun violence and keep voting for them. Until they are forced to pay a price by not being reelected, they will continue to do nothing.
The other issue that never seems to see the light of day in the gun violence discussion is WHY so many young, or mostly young, white men are committing these murders. While a mental state is certainly an element, few, if any, of them would be categorized as mentally ill. And even if they were, guns are easy to buy by almost anyone. Until we address the deliberate stoking of anger and hatred toward immigrants and minorities by politicians, Internet sites, and media like hate radio and Fox News, we will continue to see angry white men taking matters into their own hands and killing as many innocents as they can before police kill them. Reagan eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in 1987: “The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced.“ We need a return to honest, equitable, and balanced media—and we need it now.
16
All you have to do is listen to what I call “AM Hate Radio” to know why so many young white males are angry. Or you can go to a Trump rally and listen to the hate. You, live in Texas which has just loosened gun laws even further, now you can go to church or school or to see a movie with your gun! Won’t be visiting Texas any time!
Because the sentiment that 'the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' has carried the day, we are a nation awash in guns. Yet, somehow the only good guys with guns who make any difference at all are the police. Where are all these civilian good guys with guns that are supposed to make us all safer? The price we're paying is that people who shouldn't have guns are loaded to the teeth. We see the results virtually every week in the headlines. It's not just good guys with guns that will stop bad guys from committing mass murder, it's also keeping assault style guns out of their hands in the first place.
11
That cow has already run away after we foolishly left the barn door open. It really seems a waste of time to go around in circles about limitations on new gun sales when we are already awash in armaments. Though the craven policies of our officials (mainly but not exclusively Republican) barely even address, let alone solve this issue, America’s suicidal tragedy with guns began long ago. To make anything like progress we need to deal with the problems we have today, starting with policies that limit, restrict, or eliminate the sale of bullets for guns already out there, especially ARs and other machine guns expressly designed to mow down people as fast as possible. Yes, this gives a feeling of power to the powerless, but it is a public nuisance of the very worst order. Gun “enthusiasts” will not be able to resist shooting off their existing rounds and using up supplies and then we might have a chance to get things under control, perhaps with a National law limiting distribution of ammo exclusively to well-regulated militia groups such as the National Guard, according the the Second. Meanwhile, the paranoiacs can still cuddle up under their blankets, clutching their assault weapons like the mechanical teddy bears they so obviously need. Don’t even bother to pry the useless weapons from their cold, dead hands. Just render them less dangerous to others.
Gov. Rick Scott and other politicians trying to make mass shootings a mental health issue are regurgitating a red herring argument. Mental health and gun safety are disparate issues.
Dr. Arthur C. Evans Jr., current CEO of the American Psychological Association, issued a statement regarding gun violence and mental illness. “Blaming mental illness for the gun violence in our country is simplistic and inaccurate and goes against the scientific evidence currently available.“
“As we psychological scientists have said repeatedly, the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent. And there is no single personality profile that can reliably predict who will resort to gun violence. Based on the research, we know only that a history of violence is the single best predictor of who will commit future violence."
Access to more guns, and deadlier guns, means more lives lost.
“Based on the psychological science, we know some of the steps we need to take. We need to limit civilians’ access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. We need to institute universal background checks. And we should institute red flag laws that remove guns from people who are at high risk of committing violent acts."
15
@Question Everything; Of course people who randomly kill people are all mentally ill whether they use a gun, an automobile, or a bomb. But, that is not really the point. It is easier for those people to kill with a gun that anything else. I'm a gun owner but I will not vote for anyone who takes NRA money or who will not fight for stricter laws and the elimination of military style guns, high capacity magazines and other accessories that turn semi-automatic rifles into military killing machines.
The only way this will stop is when Republicans are voted out of office both at the state and federal level. Democrats need to stop worrying about “perfection” and “inspiration” of the presidential election and work on getting Dems in offices at all levels which is what the GOP did for the past several decades.
Also, there is an excess of liberals living in deep blue areas. We need your residency and votes in Purple states such as AZ, TX, PA, GA, NC and FL. All of these places have their charms during long parts of the year. Get a second home if you’re wealthy enough, or stay long term with friends or relatives if you don’t want to move full time. But establish yourself as residents where your fellow Americans need you most. And while you’re there, help out with voter registration, getting people to the polls, and with the Democratic candidates on all levels.
Also, all of you never Trumper Republicans? Change your party registration to the Democratic Party. Stop whining about how Democrats aren’t delivering your proper savior from Trump. Register to vote with us and then you can have your say in the primaries and caucuses. As a moderate leaning liberal, I can say to you that your contributions will be much appreciated.
15
There is nothing wrong with back ground checks, red flags, references and proof of training, none of these stops the 2nd Amendment unless you fail the test, in which case you shouldn't own a firearm.
Also Texas needs to get smarter representation because owning a gun is not a god given right, it a privilege, like driving a car.
7
@BTO Not so! Proposed "red flag" laws share two lethal defects. First, none provides that one accused of being a threat, should get prompt and full reimbursement from public funds, of his or her attorney's fees and costs. Otherwise, for almost all, a "red flag" order means permanent loss of firearms and the civil right to be armed.
Few have the tens of thousands to litigate with a State To level the playing field, a "red flag" law must provide for reimbursement from public funds, of an accused person's legal expenses, at their attorney's usual hourly rate. Bills must be paid within 30 days of submission, or there's a 50% penalty.
Second, "red flag" laws must contain a "right of private action". If someone lies to a Court, and so gets a "red flag" order, the person targeted must be empowered to pursue a perjury charge, if a prosecutor won't Few perjurers are prosecuted.
A "red flag" accusation can destroy a person's good name, so there needs to be sure recourse against those, who lie to Courts.
The bottom line: nothing is as destructive as officials of a government "gone bad". Even if we knew for sure that such a thing could not happen in the US - and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II argues to the contrary - the presence of violent criminals is reason enough to uproot "gun control".
The doings of criminals and lunatics cannot set the standard by which the vast law-abiding majority is regulated. To do that is moral perversion.
2
Interestingly, the Constitution does not mention cars since at the time they didn’t exist. Neither did the kind of military assault weapons many now define as guns, when in the 18th Century guns were understood to be single shot blunderbusses, the kind of weapons the Constitution guarantees to members of recognized and regulated militias like the Minutemen.
2
@Jay E. Simkin You mean like what is occurring now, from the White House down?
From what I see from the UK, the US is never going to solve its gun massacre problem. The problem is that politicians who oppose reform always rationalise that whatever measures are taken then someone can circumvent them and therefore enhanced controls and laws are pointless. This is a false argument. Every law can be, and is broken, but that doesn't mean that laws are not required. The other problem, mysterious to those of us living outside the US and in the 21st century, is this constant reference to the anachronistic 2nd amendment. The US is living in the past and US citizens get ripped to pieces by assault weapons on an astonishingly frequent basis as a result.
18
@Garry Taylor
There is a tendency to view the U.S. Constitution as a companion piece to the Bible. The right to own guns is God-given to many. Until we change this mindset, we won't move forward.
This is the second time of living through terror. The first began with the towers and continued through anthrax and the sniper. This period of terror is a weekly mass shooting that can happen anywhere.
7
Urgency? Please. This is what a once representative republic looks like, when it no longer represents those that elected its legislature. The current legislature, bottlenecked by one man, traitor McConnell, is a useless disgrace. Now beholden to corporate and foreign interests, "lobbied" (read bribed) into inaction, it no longer serves the citizens of this country.
One party has shown an irrational stubbornness against affecting change, no matter how dire the emergency. ALL republicans MUST be voted out of our government. It's pathetic we're forced to wait until next November to be able to make this too-late change.
I hope none of your family nor friends are next, but you know there WILL BE a "next".
15
Let’s face it Republicans do not want gun regulations and even if by some miracle they change their tune we know that the NRA owns Trump!
There is blood on their hands. None of the founding fathers ever envisioned this kind of carnage. They did not grant nor did they intend to grant an individual the right to own a military weapon!
16
@Justice Holmes
Exactly! I doubt we will ever see any serious reforms as long as the Republicans hold any power.
Scalia's parsing of the second amendment in Heller was ridiculous, dishonest and at best showed how the NRA had their own SCOTUS justice in their pocket.
Until all three branches of our federal government are willing to address this issue we the people will not see any federal law reforms to truly keep this from happening with such frequency.
Until then....
Start by voting for ALL the Democratic candidates.
17
Right now, Americans cannot go to church, school, shopping or drive down a highway without risking their lives. Risking our lives every minute of the day is not the character of the United States of America; fear is not the life we work so hard to support. The taxes we pay partially go to our protection, and yet Republicans support a monstrous gaping hole in our safety. Voters are not stupid, there is a solution to gun violence - we must take Republicans out of governments, all, for our own safety.
Voters no longer will patiently watch Republicans tip-toe around obvious solutions. Guns have so thoroughly saturated every nook and cranny of America that no set of gun laws will make a sizeable difference, other than banning guns entirely.
Other countries have removed guns from their societies successfully. America must do the same because Americans can't go outside without risking their lives. Republicans who don't "get this" (and it appears that they won't) will be taken down in voting booths across this country.
13
Very odd that nothing has been stated about the shooter's motive.
His residence, internet search history and social media must have been thoroughly searched by now...yet they are saying nothing.
2
@JM
Yes. Because studies are showing that the more attention and publicity you give to the shooter, the more likely there will be copycats. Plus, giving detailed info on the individual shooter to the average American does not help anything. Law enforcement and others need the info. However, in aggregate - across many shootings - the patterns that emerge among the killers are what's important, and they should be shared with the public. But a detailed account of each killer in major news outlets seems like it will only provide encouragement to others.
4
@JM Seems that the motive doesn't matter. It's a wander down the garden path. The problem is the 2nd Amendment. Not my business? Well, actually it is. The more available guns are in the U.S., the more likely they are to be smuggled up into Canada. Especially in the Toronto area. And used up here to kill people. And, I suspect it happens to Mexico as well.
1
If the press would simply STOP using the word "SHOOTER", with its vaguely positive overtones, future cowardly mass murderers might be less taken with the idea of getting noticed for marksmanship.
7
"According to the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit that tracks gun violence in America, there have been 283 mass shootings in 2019, defined as those in which four or more people were killed or injured, excluding the perpetrators."
I wonder where Chicago is on this list?
Anyway, most people here are against mass shootings. Me, too. And, it sounds like the primary parties responsible for our modern Black Death are the federal government, the NRA, the gun industry, White male privilege, video games, movies, gun shows, gun show loop holes and any other unnamed entities. The most favored cry is, "The government must stop this plague."
You want the government, that can't stop an invasion by peasants, to solve the gun problem? Yeah, don't hold your breath.
@Mike
Chicago? Is that the whole response of the fevered right wing know nothings? In every article about mass shootings, the right wing intones :"Chicago, Chicago, Chicago", as if that explains anything.
Gangsters shooting each other over street slights is very different than people who have nothing to do with average, civil people going about every day life. See the difference?
I have dead zero fear of Chicago gangsters. First, I'm not in Chicago. Second, I have nothing to do with their drug sales, street cred slights, etc. I'm not in that orbit. That scene is very sad and I have to see that life wasted. But I have zero fear of it.
I do live. Which is why mass shootings concern me more.
12
@Djt The shootings in Chicago may not technically be "mass shootings", where one individual is responsible for multiple casualties, but, 5 or 10 or 30 victims still count. The reason we don't hear about Chicago, gun laws don't seem to have any effect on the body count.
The shooters get their guns from other states. Yes they do. Straw purchases are against the law. More background check requirements will not change this. I think every law that could be enacted, has been enacted. With no effect. That is why we don't talk about Chicago. And to be sure, I have no idea how to curb those shootings, either.
@Mike - If only Texas would return to its previous status as an independent Republic comments like yours would cease to be an embarrassment to America. Chicago does not suffer from mass murder by crazed gunmen with semi-automatic weapons. It suffers in its poorest neighborhoods from the illicit drug trade that puts bad money in the pockets of unemployed males, targeting individuals involved in criminal gang activity, not crowds of unknown citizens.
You’ve got access to the internet, right? You could have educated yourself on this in less than 10 minutes.
Every times there is a mass murder by firearm there is a "new urgency." It lasts about a week and then nothing is done to prevent it happening again until the next new urgency.
5
Washington needs to do 2 things now:
!. Bring back the assault weapons ban.
2. Pass the "red flag" laws and background checks.
Washington needs to stop arguing endlessly whether this or that measure would work. If it doesn't work, then do more. Don't let the "perfect" get in the way of the "good." Act now, do something! America demands it.
7
Debate? There is no debate, Republicans are working for the NRA, Democrats would ban high capacity rapid fire weapons right now. The voting public is in favor of a ban and background checks, but Republicans are 100% against it, shills for the weapons industry.
Vote them out!
12
@bobdc6 Can the news media or Congress investigate the connection between Russia and the NRA? Thirty million $30,000,000 was funneled from the NRA to Trump's election in 2016.. more than ever before.
6
@Diane Gould
I wish, but the Republican Congress would never do that, Democrats are tied up in court over Trump's money trail, the FBI is sidelined by Toady Barr, Trump's personal lawyer, and the press is being demonized as the enemy of the people. The only answer is to vote the Republicans out.
@bobdc6 You're in error. Background checks are a consumer fraud, that dwarfs the crimes by Bernie Madoff, the financial swindler. Only 62 Federal prosecutions followed 76,142 denials (in 2010) of purchase applicants. For the data see, Regional Justice Information Service, "Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010", 2012, p. 7 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf .
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report (No. 18-440, Sept., 2018) shows that of 112,090 denials by FBI screeners, only 12,710 were sent for "investigation". Of that number only 12 resulted in prosecutions!!
Plainly, far more than 12 denials were fully justified. It is a Federal felony for a "prohibited person" to possess or to try to acquire any firearm. Such a small number of prosecutions shows that Federal authorities do little about stopping those, who seek to abuse firearms.
And, even if the Feds prosecuted every ineligible buyer, those determined to get firearms can go to criminals. At end-2016, there were about 402,000,000 firearms in the U.S., military items excluded. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, "Firearms Commerce in the United States" 2000 and 2018.
Things so abundant and concealable. The efforts if foredoomed.
When I spied this item's headline, "Texas Shooting Brings New Urgency to Gun Debate in Congress", I said to myself, "No it hasn't. Nothing has"
If you're looking for criteria to excise some of the disease within our body politic in 2020, then please...consider starting with any pol, on either side of the aisle, who has equivocated on gun control.
9
Thousands will have to die, and they will have to consist mainly of Republicans' family members, before they even begin to think about maybe possibly starting to wonder about perhaps talking about banning assault weapons.
9
This headline does not match the facts within the article, which is that the NRA’s Republican pets are, at best, making vague empty promises. And most are still blocking even the sanest, most popular gun control legislation, including McConnell and Trump. When you write a headline like this it makes the majority who won’t read the article think Republican leadership is doing something about this and they’re not. Please revise it to be accurate: Democrats Seeking Basic Gun Control Policy After Texas Shooting Blocked by Republican Leadership.
12
@Jason Snyder OR. "Immediately Following Latest Mass Shooting, Texas Loosens Gun Laws".
1
"Texas Shooting Brings New Urgency to Gun Debate in Congress"
No it doesn't.
If you think politicians are going to make any meaningful changes to the 2nd amendment you are sadly mistaken. After thousands of mass murders and hundreds of thousands of gun deaths nothing has been done and the latest victim was only 17 months old.
Did she asked to be shot?
12
So, let me understand, we are a country in which the sacred right to owns machines of mass destruction preempts the rights of the vast majority of citizens not to be killed miserably in the streets, in the malls, near malls, on the highways, in the churches, in the Synagogues, in the Mosques, in the theaters, in the homes, in the front yard, in the cities, in the countryside, in the suburbs, in the slums, in the alleys... and everywhere just as it keeps the majority from being able to fix our infrastructures, our streets, our bridges, and keeps us from being able to clean our air, and our rivers and our seas and our lakes... and we continue to define ourselves as a democracy and the most powerful democracy in the world?
I am sorry... I cannot comprehend that at all...
Please explain!
16
@Vittorio You're in error. In the U.S., the average person has NO right to police protection.
The U.S. Supreme Court so held in 1855 (South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 296 (1855)).
In the modern words of a U.S. Appeals Court decision: "But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution.”(Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982)).
This is “good law”, i.e., this decision has not been over-turned. This decision binds only Federal Courts in the Seventh Circuit. But other Courts may cite to Bowers.
The bottom line: if we have no right to protection from the government, it follows that we are responsible for our own protection.
Too many guns and a culture that justifies the existence of 300 million guns. License and register with criminal sanctions for non-compliance.
6
The reason the Police kept it quiet that this latest Texas mass killer was fired hours before he shot at least 28 people (killing 7) is 1) This would show that it is not just the mentally ill who instigate these mass shootings, 2) This would show that the rhetoric of the Governor of Texas (Gregg) and Trump telling people basically their livelihood is at stake if Immigrants are allowed into the country was responsible in the case of Texas both for El Paso, and specifically for the Odessa shootings. And even more importantly, 3) that allowing any person to own guns, especially hundreds as in the case of the El Paso killer, makes absolutely no sense at all. So now the only possibility is to vote these Republican NRA supporters (by default gun sale supporters for one and all, with gun show sales not regulated at all) out of office. And if we do not we may pay with our lives for our inaction.
7
When enough will be enough. How many lifes you need to say stop. One more child, two more, one hundred more? Of course, there is a mental illness problem. But I think it's not unreasonable to limit the possibility of carrying petrol cans into a burning forest.
4
"Urgency" and the term "new gun legislation" don't belong in the same sentence. At least in the United States.
Within a week (at most), the elected officials in Washington will be back to the issuing of new subpoenas, confirming new judges, disaster relief funding for southeastern states and new resignation announcements.
New gun legislation will be assigned to the subcommittee on lost causes.
6
Congress will do nothing as long as the gun dependent Republican Party controls the Senate.
Nothing will change unless or until the Dems gain the Presidency and Congress. Period
9
It is insane that we are still having conversations regarding minimal measures we can take to ensure public safety. Meanwhile each rampage ramps up the number of gun carrying individuals who now feel they must walk around armed to keep themselves safe. I can no longer go anywhere in public without feeling I am the potential victim of gun violence. Greatest nation in the world? We are now the saddest.
9
@RL There is a pathetic irony to the idea that anyone "must walk around armed to keep themselves safe".
Guns don't protect you. No one says "draw" before they fire. No one helped ANYONE in TX EXCEPT the LEOs.
No LEO would know who the "bad guy" is if he/she came upon a scene where armed people were in plain sight.
There was a sound reason that cities and towns enacted "no guns in town" laws in the 19th CENTURY!
Wake up.
1
Trump and his followers don’t care one bit about common sense gun laws to protect fellow citizens from shootings. The second amendment needs to evolve. The amendment should reflect the current time.
6
They are right of, of course, those who say "guns don't kill people, people kill people". But it is an empty, pointless phrase that in no way address the problem that people who want, or feel that they have to, kill people so easily can get their hands on the tools that will help them.
"It's a mental health problem" is the other side of the coin and again it is also true, but again it is an argument that pretends the other problem doesn't exist.
I think it is clear by now that mental health is a problem that will continue to grow drastically in the foreseeable future. Young people grow up without any real hope for the future, they are being filled with conflicting messages and more and more are unable to afford college, to find a job and a home, they fail to fit into the social norms, get diagnosed and a prescription for happy pills and sink deeper and deeper into a silent depression. At some point, they lose their compass. At some point, they no longer care about what is right and wrong. At some point, they start to allow hate to dominate their existence.
Let's pray to the Senate that, at that point, there's no gun in that person's hands.
2
Can we, as a society, pay ransom to the gun manufacturers so they will stop selling assault weapons and other tools of mass murder? It could be a good bargain for both sides. (The only losers will be the losers who insist they need an AR-15 to live happily in these United States.)
Let's put some numbers to it. How much would the gun industry lose if the sale of AR-15 type weapons and ammo/accessories are outlawed? Compare that to the economic impact of mass shootings. It's a fuzzy number, sure, but when you include costs for law enforcement response and ongoing investigations, medical treatment and counseling (including many long-term or lifelong treatments), lost economic activity (both in the area of the shooting and in the lives of the victims), and then multiply it by the average number of mass shootings in a year, then the price on that ransom check will be a bargain for society.
4
No surprise that Trump is now ignoring the universal background checks gun safety law that he seemingly supported after the Dayton and El Paso mass shootings.
More than 80% of NRA members support universal background checks but NRA leadership lobbies politicians to ignore that option. Wayne LaPierre et al care about profits over public safety. So Sad.
3
Let's not make the mistake of assuming that the public has any influence on our current crop of rulers. This is not a democracy. Our votes count for nothing unless they happen to coincide with the likes of McConnell ad Trump. The people do not have a controlling vote on any significant issues. They hear but disregard. Texas local rulers are now ignoring the people of Texas and so are Trump and the gang. Nothing is going to change regardless of a 95% public support for gun control. They will ignore it because we no longer count once they get into office. And since the Republicans cheat during elections, we have even lost the last vestige of voter effect. This dream of democracy may well be falling down around us and it is the likes of the Tea party and Trump that will finish it off. First you create division, then build in a wall of protection against the people's vote and you have effectively destroyed our control of our own destiny.
12
It. Is. Finished.
Let’s change the discussion and not just make it an NRA and Congress issue. The NRA is doing what they have been hired to do by the gun manufacturers and a passionate and vocal segment of society. And much of Congress are afraid for their jobs. Too many of us voters tolerate this. Until Congress and state legislators are more afraid of their voters than they are of the NRA, they will not enact any effective gun legislation.
Rather than focus simply on background checks (which I support) and weapon types, my requirement is that anyone who chooses, and it is a choice, to have a gun, must be able to demonstrate they are competent to use it legally, skillfully, and appropriately; anyone who disagrees with that is probably beyond hope. Then the discussion changes to how to certify such competency.
2
@Bryan Mackinnon - Curious: how does one “demonstrate” they can use a gun legally? Appropriately? Certainly every mass murderer using a high-powered assault weapon has proven that they are adequately “skillful enough.”
No, shooting range tests and written exams are not the panacea. Immediately making illegal the manufacture, sale and ownership of these weapons of mass destruction is the only answer. NO ONE needs these guns for any practical purpose. Hunting? Seriously? Defeating an invading army?! Come on...
2
@Bryan Mackinnon The NRA loves "gun control". If "gun control" were exposed for the cruel fraud that it is, the NRA would implode. It would not need armies of lobbyists. The NRA would revert to its historical focus on training, and would do much valuable work.
Behind "gun control's" dazzling facade - the false promise of "safe streets" is a nasty reality: mountains of corpses. In the 20th Century, "gun control" laws promoted - but did not cause - at least eight major genocides, in which some 50,000,000 were murdered.
Those, who embrace "gun control" promote genocide.
Two things.
1. The headline, "Texas Shooting Brings New Urgency to Gun Debate in Congress" should actually read, "Texas Shooting Brings SAME OLD Urgency to Gun Debate in Congress."
Because there'll be nothing to call "new" until action is taken and laws actually change.
2. The NRA and the legislators it owns argue that the common-sense measures the overwhelming majority of us agree upon "might not have prevented" this particular instance of carnage, and thus deem them pointless. If they're correct, then this only proves that we need measures MORE stringent than those they reflexively oppose. We should not be satisfied until we have laws that measurably reduce, by a large margin, the unacceptable number of mass shootings and other gun crimes that have become too commonplace in this country.
9
Some suggestions. 1. Ban all firearms with detachable magazines, and provide a buy back or tax credit for turning in those already obtained. No exceptions and a one year period before ownership is a felony. 2. Tax ammunition highly, but provide for low cost ammunition for use in regulated shooting ranges. 3. Provide for rigorous background checks. 4. Defeat all politicians who offer empty thoughts and prayers instead of concrete solutions.
34
@Michael Carpet This has too much common sense to pass the bought and paid for GOP. It would also be the will of the majority of people. And it is what the rest of the world wonders - why we cannot pass common sense gun laws on such basic, and sensible controls. well those countries do NOT have the NRA. I find it all hard to explain to my friends in Europe.
5
@Michael Carpet
"1. Ban all firearms with detachable magazines, and provide a buy back or tax credit for turning in those already obtained. No exceptions and a one year period before ownership is a felony. "
Unfortunately this will inflame already unstable gun rights activists. The (unfounded) claim will be that the gubnant is messing with our constitutional rights to bear arms (of any kind).
Smith.
They are already inflamed. They will be, are, bringing violence to bear on ANY perceived loss of White Male "Christian" power. Or hadn't you noticed. Time to stop cowering in fear.
After this and Dayton- I dare anyone to bring up the " good guys with guns will solve this" argument.
36
As with healthcare, the Republicans have nothing to offer.
73
@MerleV
Yes they do, more military weapons in civilian hands, and no background checks.
4
Politicians will never forego big money from the NRA. They care more about their own jobs and their ill-gotten wealth that they are willing to sacrifice the lives of their constituents to maintain their lush lifestyles.
24
Urgency??? Only when they are about to lose their " jobs ".
VOTE them ALL out. It's the only solution.
46
So, Texas a gun loving state, where were all the good guys with guns during this incident and El Paso? Aren't these the situations that supposedly everybody wants to carry a firearm around for?
32
@Bigfrog - cowering behind their Power Stroke diesel pickups. Plinking cans from 100 yd. is very different from a rifle-toting suspect who can shoot as well as you can, and is intent on killing.
7
Our politicians continue to hurt the American public they pretend to love and protect just for their own personal greed.
14
You can't leave out the fact that these people get re-elected again and again. What does that say about the public?
5
@MC - More precisely put, The American public continues to shoot itself in its collective foot by voting these politicians into office. All in the name of party politics... and utter stupidity.
@scrumble Or what does it say about the way our elections are run?
Both the Republicans and the Russians have been cunning enough to get involved in taking over state legislatures, which most of us think of as not important.
But these state legislatures do the redistricting (the Gerrymandering) that's part of what causes one person's vote to be more empowered than another's.
Every system has flaws and loopholes, and the sleazy and unscrupulous find them.
1
If you want gun control (and health care), you must vote so that the Republicans are in the minority.
33
@J Davis
And social security, clean environment, strong economy, strong infrastructure, good education, integrated society ...
3
Please, the idea that Congress will do anything is ludicrous. Republican lawmakers are so beholden to NRA money and their own gun extremist constituents that any attempt at sane gun regulation will die in the Senate. Let's stop pretending that McConnell will allow anything that does not directly benefit him or the GOP.
14
Here's the thing about the question of whether it's mental illness or access to weapons of war: it's both. No one who kills outside of war, other than (maybe) in self defense, is mentally stable. And since the GOP is right, background checks won't identify unstable people who have no criminal records or haven't sought treatment for their conditions, the only solution is to start with banning the sale of weapons of war. Leaving aside that the second amendment right to bear arms is rooted in the need to muster a militia quickly to address enemy threats, before we had a national military, there's also nothing in the second amendment that states that any right to bear arms - even in a well regulated militia - extends to all arms. Such as assault weapons. No one has suggested that the second amendment allows civilians to own personal rocket launchers or ballistic missiles. Therefore, even in the current (incorrect) reading of the second amendment, there is a line, and We, the People, need to elect people who will draw a line that respects the Constitutional (not some amendment's) guarantee to LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS. Because it's not just the death toll that we deal with in the aftermath of these rampages. It is the impact on the injured, their families, their communities, The property damage. The draining of resources from local, state and national economies. Of course we should take steps to address mental illness. But first, get rid of the guns.
31
@Oscar With respect, the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with You.
The US Supreme Court usually upholds its precedents. In US v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects ownership of military-type firearms.
Miller, a career criminal and a fugitive, was not represented. No one told the Court that the weapon at issue - a sawed-off shotgun - was widely used by front-line US troops in World War I. The Germans - outraged by combat use of a "hunting" weapon - protested via the Swiss (neutrals). The US rejected the German protest, see: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp02/d912 .
In 1939, there were many front-line war-fighters, who had found sawed-off shotguns to be very effective for clearing trenches. Our Courts rule based on evidence. The Miller Court had no evidence that sawed-off shotguns had recently been a common combat weapon.
Semi-auto firearms, about which many fulminate, derive from military-issue rifles. Ownership of semi-auto weapons plainly is protected by the Second Amendment.
You should read the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) Supreme Court decisions. Google, Find, and Read!
Every shooting ‘brings new urgency to gun debate,’ and the same equivocating, posturing, sloganeering inaction at the national level. Specious refrains like ‘they’re coming for your guns’ need to be seen for what they are: NRA propaganda. Until governors, lawmakers and others put grifter Wayne LaPierre in his place, these predictable exhortations and headlines will be as empty as ‘thoughts and prayers.’
18
New urgency? I don't think so. The only urgency is how to get this latest off the front page and out of our hearts as quickly as possible.
10
I get sick to my stomach when I see a GOP politician on TV, wringing their hands in anguish and promising prayers for the fallen. Unabashedly two-faced with glitzy American flags unfurled in their lapels they bemoan the senselessness of the massacres, and then blame everything but the unholy proliferation of military weapons by civilians.
In the GOP we have a contemptuous political party of masquerading clowns, wailing and posturing--while their grubby fists are full of NRA money. Some Democrats fit the bill, also.
If the massacre of children in Connecticut didn't demand and instigate sensible gun laws, nothing short of removal of the present GOP senate majority, will.
18
What a great country and what little politicians. Mass shooting after mass shooting. Many innocent victims. Women, children, old people. Fear has penetrated every house, every school, every park. And they, the politicians, do nothing. Nothing. It's time to react. Three hundred million people cannot be held hostage by a hundred politicians.
28
Enough about debate, vote those who stand in the way of gun control out. Now, do you guard against every trucker who got fired from the job for poor behavior? Gun control is the first step to reduce gun violence!
12
Mitch McConnell and his Republican peers have well worn scripted responses to these now frequent mass shootings. “Our hearts are open.” “ Our thoughts and prayers are with you.” “This is not a gun problem. It’s a mental illness problem.”
Actually, this is a Mitch McConnell problem. HE is he problem.
It doesn’t matter if these domestic terrorists have mental issues or not. Why is that even relevant? There is no reason anyone needs an AK47 military assault rifle unless that person is in the military or law enforcement.
National polls indicate that a vast majority of Americans want national gun safety legislation. Mitch refuses to allow it to a vote. He needs to be voted out and replaced by a person who actually represents the best interests of all Americans and not just NRA lobbyists and himself.
18
It must be very profitable to manufacture these mass murder automatic weapons.
How else could the manufacturers afford to funnel so much money to our representatives through the NRA.
If I were ruler of America I would make these manufacturers retool and build bicycles
9
The problem needs to be addressed deeply on the supply side, i.e., reducing dramatically the supply and availability of destructive weapons. Talk of "mental health issues" perpetuates a Manichean view of the world in which supposedly inherently innocent folks are at threat from supposedly inherently messed up people, like on all our moronic cop shows. Anger and frustration runs deeper and more pervasively than such an unsophisticated view would have it. We are a threat to ourselves.
6
"Texas Shooting Brings New Urgency to Gun Debate in Congress"
Really? Nothing at all will change.
15
I thought that governor was more a representative of the NRA than a responsible elected leader. ... And when he referred to his wife as the First Lady, al a Trump, I thought I would throw up. The guy is sitting on his fake laurels. He couldn't care less about the victims.
8
I recommend that gun control advocates start their bargaining position with banning manufacture and sales of all firearms, confiscation of guns from civilians, and removing the 2nd amendment from the constitution. The gun advocates can begin with... never mind, they're already there. Let negotiations begin.
8
A gun purchase ought to be defined by law as 'something you need to have', not as 'something you want to have', let alone as 'something you have the right to have'.
4
Let's face it: from the Liberal Progressive viewpoint, the 2nd Amendment must be abolished and the right to own guns restricted severely or outright banished.
From the Conservative viewpoint, gun ownership is a sacred right that must be defended, because gun ownership is the final line in the sand against a tyrannical government and police state.
Is there a middle ground? No. So, this is going to be a fight to the end. The bad news for Libs is that the bar is set very high to abolish the 2nd amendment and unlikely to happen in the next 30 or 40 years, if ever. The bad news for Conservatives is that the Libs will never stop trying to take our guns from us and so we will have to keep pushing back.
1
Surely the bad news is for Americans who will continue to die needlessly because people like you value guns over lives?
Your guns didn’t stop the government from behaving tyrannically (see NSA illegal bulk domestic spying), nor the militarized police routinely shoot Americans dead because they have to police an armed populace. And people who live in countries with strong gun control are freer than you. Free from the fear of getting shot dead by a random individual at schools, malls, workplaces, churches, night clubs or movie theaters. Time to rethink those justifications you cling to.
5
@Xoxarle
Really? Other than being Dem talking points, what facts do you bring to this discussion?
Tell me: what totalitarian country a) didn't become that way with violence against its citizens, and b) didn't banish private gun control?
Do you realize that car accidents kill far more people than gun violence? So is your solution to banish cars?
Aren't you the same people who think our military and police are dangerous? What happens when the public has no means to fight back? Ask the people of Venezuela and Cuba what happened when they expected a Socialist government, lost their right to have guns, and then became helpless in the face of tyrants?
What gun control country is freer than I think? Name one and back it up. And what is the level of "gun control" that that country practices?
Your naivety is unbelievably dangerous and removing weapons from the public has throughout history proven to be the road to the downfall of freedom; not the way towards it.
Wake up: time to rethink those justifications you cling to.
@Rocky
Maybe if there weren't so many irresponsible people screaming about their Second Amendment rights while shooting other unarmed citizens dead, you'd have a point.
But they do.
And you don't.
The mere mention of Trump and McConnell casts an aura of imminent do-nothing and failure over any gun actions. Neither man gives a hoot. Their records clearly show it to be so.
Apparently, Congress and the many gun owners have forgotten that Americans do have a right to live.
6
I've seen this movie before. I'll only watch it again if it has a far better ending.
9
Really do you believe Trump will do anything? Do you believe Congress will do anything? Do you believe Mitch McConnell and his posse will do anything to stop gun violence? Until one of their loved ones is involved and probably even when their involved nothing will change. Nothing will change until the 90% of Americans DEMAND CHANGE and real change. How can New Zealand have 1 mass shooting and that's enough to prompt the government to buy back all guns immediately. And it happens. The NRA and gun manufacturers and all politicians on city, state, and federal levels need to be discarded, and disregarded if they continue to side with guns and against the very people they are suppose to be representing. Wake-up America. Take back your country!!
12
There isn’t a law that can stop these horrible events. Murder is already illegal. Felons aren't supposed to possess firearms. Criminals don’t follow laws.
More people are shot & killed in Chicago each year than Afghanistan and Chicago has gun control. It doesn’t work.
1
@JOSEPH
Gun control doesn't work?
It works pretty well in every other western nation on earth.
The gun homicide rate in this country is off the scale in comparison to Europe.
6
Let’s continue to do nothing. Don’t you ever wonder why gun massacres only happen in the USA?
6
The Sandy Hook elementary school shooting killed 20 children and 6 adults, 20 very young children, that took place in December 2012.
Here we are 7 years later and nothing has been done.
This brutality has continued regardless of how appalled politicians act in the media.
The carnage will continue, to me it is self evident.
11
@Dave
What chills me every time I read about another mass shooting is the rise of those conspiracy theories that they are all faked. A book was even published about Sandy Hook, claiming it was a FEMA drill designed to promote gun control! And people like Alex Jones and others are allowed to promulgate these lies. It seems saner heads are going to have to prevail to make any change to your gun culture. But with these sorts of tactics rampant, one has to ask if there are saner heads out there.
1
Money. Any one who is assaulted with a gun should receive money from our Federal Government. Millions in fact. Make it so expensive for the federal government that they finally finally finally do something. In this case it would be not to save lives but to save money. Republicans should understand that. Or at least they used to. Let’s make being shot profitable, like wining a lottery. The gun manufacturers would like that too.
3
How "lucky" for the NRA GOP! The hurricane Dorian set to approach the US southeastern shores with it's water and wind destruction has knocked the recent mass shooting in Texas from the top headline.
For the NRA GOP the only "urgency" is to ride out this latest outrage. By the time Congress reconvenes in mid September, Mitch can guide the narrative back to 'mental health issues' because it could never be weapons of mass destruction in our midst.
The NRA GOP is bound and determined to keep their 'right' to bear assault rifles designed for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.
That there is in fact NO urgency in our society for action for gun control legislation of any kind is our shame. Some would say 'but look at all the people commenting here!' how can you say that?
Sane voices for gun control have simply not followed through with action. We do not protest, strike or boycott. We do not vote on this issue alone to get the representatives in our government that will vote for safe gun legislation.
We have abdicated our moral outrage to the NRA GOP. Until such time as the supposed majority of Americans vote our conscience, we can not claim that we are outraged.
9
The most-serious mass shootings lately have been in Texas, a gun-crazed state, and the governor there has not said a word about a response. Let's see whether these events convince Texas folks that a response is necessary and see what they do, and hold off on federal action for a while.
4
It is baffling that in the Unites States, the wealthiest country on the planet, a police officer wounded in the line of duty needs a GoFundMe page to pay for their medical bills.
The US is hopelessly flawed beyond repair and will never be a progressive, modern society so long as it is tethered to an antiquated constitution.
With all this inane talk of mental illness being cause of gun violence, any other modern and reasonable society would conduct a mental health examination for prospective firearm purchasers. Many do, the US does not.
12
Actually this is the Police Officer taking advantage of the moment and being an opportunist. His medical insurance and resultant care is undoubtedly first tier.
I'd like to have to eat my words, but I don't believe anything will happen re: gun control in any form. The implication that mental stability/illness is the cause does not stand up to scrutiny. If it were, it suggests that the USA has 24 times as many mentally unstable people as the Netherlands, 100's of times more than Japan. I don't believe that either. Background checks probably a waste of time and money. Again, I'd would relish having to eat my words
8
I think that this is a horrible act of an insane individual.
Please help me to understand how more legislation will help.
Criminals break the law according to their job description.
Children should be held accountable for their actions as a matter of training instead of it being the teacher's fault or the responsibility of the person who said something while the child was infringing on another person.
Humility should be taught and personal responsibility should always trump hurt feelings.
Guns are capable of tremendous personal injury but they generally require an accomplice, someone has to pull the trigger.
Criminals now have tremendous rights, could that be part of the problem?
People can "self identify" as something they are not and I am required to recognize that as fact. While it may be to them it does not have to be fact to me. I believe that you can be anything you like in your own life, as long as you do not infringe on my doing the same.
It is unpopular to call people crazy, insane , or any other description that might promote a bit of extra scrutiny in encounters with strangers.
In short I fear that our permissive society is at least a major causative agent in this epidemic of callous, immoral, evil behavior.
2
@Ed Sumara: I strongly disagree, sir. It's not the permissive live-and-let-live folks, it's the violent eye-for-an-eye revenge crew that are the problem. That kind of first-reaction aggressive behavior has to be bred out over generations, but the means to act it out can be substantially reduced far more quickly. There will never be "zero guns" just as there will never be "zero unemployment," but we can get light years closer to it than we are now. And if we don't start now - like we didn't after Sandy Hook - then when?
3
@Ed Sumara..."Please help me to understand how more legislation will help.".....How about serious universal back ground checks and a ban on military assault rifles and extended magazines?
"In short I fear that our permissive society is at least a major causative agent in this epidemic of callous, immoral, evil behavior."....And a major part of that permissive society is promulgated by people who refuse to enact firearms regulations. Seriously. What kind of message are you sending when you refuse regulations?
4
@W.A. Spitzer
I thought it was already illegal to kill.
Chicago is a shining example of legal means about controlling guns, don't you think?
Let's look once again to the past times and contemplate what could be gained. When the Lindburgh baby was kidnapped there was a law passed asking for the death penalty for all future kidnapping of children. The law was very effective and may have ended that heinous act. The outrage was large but no larger than that of the murder of the babies in the school recently at Newton. There were 26 little lives of the innocent taken that day and the parents are still grieving. The laws need to be quick and deadly.
4
Nothing will happen as usual. Nothing good will come. Only more carnage. It's hopeless and sad because something could be done and they choose nothing.
4
The "president" has "been consulting with the National Rifle Association" to propose weapons regulations. But when it comes to immigration policy, there are no human rights representatives present, just White nationalists like Stephen Miller; when it comes to environmental policy there are no scientists or environmental advocates present, just oil and mining interests; when it comes to tax-reform, labor, housing, just real estate developers and multi-national corporations.
The "president" treats the American people like background noise, and OUR government is no longer any of our business.
7
background checks could easily have prevented the shooter in the west Virginia massacre from legally purchasing his weapons. and he should have been prevented. he had been declared mentally ill by a judge in public court. 32 people were killed in that shooting. but background checks are justified even if they save only a single life. anyone who says background checks wouldn't work in any case is simply ignoring the facts.
2
Urgency. Congress. Gun debate? Isn't this and oxymoron?
10
The hysterical shriek about so-called assault weapons is mind numbing. I am so tired and disgusted from hearing anti-gunners screaming about black rifles, assault rifles and military type weapons.
Let's set the record straight. Almost any weapon available today could easily be classified as an "Assault Weapon". And they define that as any weapon with a pistol grip, a magazine, flash suppressor, bayonet lug or notch for a grenade launcher. The Clinton ban said any 2 set combination of the above determined if a weapon was an assault weapon. So, gun manufacturers simply removed 2 features and sold the same functioning weapon sans grenade notch and bayonet lug.
In WWII the M1 Garand rifle held only an 8 shot "clip" (not magazine) and it was the finest rifle on the battle field. It was fast, quickly reloaded, semi-auto, and deadly. Many rifles today have the same features of the M1 but use a 5-10 round box magazine and have no bayonet lug but are equally fast and deadly. Are those "assault rifles"? How about semi-auto shotguns, lever actions, and pump rifles/shotguns? Where will the line be drawn?
And pistols, that are responsible annually for at least 7 thousand deaths by criminals, how do we classify pistols? AR type rifles can't even begin to touch the level of crime, death and horror of pistols. Yet we're making the AR/AK pattern rifles the great villains. Don't forget the 20,000 deaths annually with pistols by those committing suicide. Where is the outrage over that?
5
@Jay "Almost any weapon available today could easily be classified as an 'Assault Weapon,'" you say. That's an excellent argument for getting rid of them all--particularly pistols.
And yeah, once upon a time I was in the military and was issued an M-16. But I didn't get to take it home and play with it. That's ridiculous.
3
The debate is controlled by advocates. The mass media does not try to clarify facts asserted by publicists for either side. It allows propaganda to distort issues.
The point is that the assault weapons issue is not reasonable.
37,000 people died in automobile accidents in 2018...let's ban cars.
3
Rather than banning cars, why don’t we treat gun ownership, the same way we treat drivers who own cars?
13
@kerri, save the planet, pedestrians, bicyclists and squirrels as well. Best idea I’ve read here. Not to mention no more need to pump oil anymore and telling the Saudis to keep it and choke on it.
3
@kerri - Cars have a useful purpose. Guns do not.
8
American gun policy panders to the need of emotionally regressed men to feel powerful. Men buy guns because they have a childish compulsion to indulge themselves in juvenile hero fantasies. They find the mythic image of the male protector—a heroic individual who uses deadly force to defend the lives, liberty, and property of himself, his family, and the weak against criminals, terrorists, or an overreaching government—seductive. Our gun policy is driven by the need to pamper these childish men—and horrifically we put these man-children's emotionally regressed needs above the lives even of our innocent (real) children.
9
Urgency? In the US on guns? Don't make me laugh.
8
Oh good, Republicans offer a common sense move like enacting a death penalty for mass shooters. Because that will totally deter these people who usually wind up dying anyways from being shot by law enforcement (and who often want to die in a "blaze of glory"). Also it reinforces the very sane notion that the solution to killing is more killing. Times like these, I'm so glad we have a very stable genius at the helm.
7
I repeat what I wrote two days ago. It is high time to take gory, bloody photos of the victims of mass shootings, make a collage and mail it to Wayne LaPierre,Trump, McConnell, every Republican senator(especially Romney) and congratulate them for capitulating to the NRA.
6
Mitch McConnell is one of the most destructive forces in America.
18
With the exception of the child who was shot, it's hard to feel any sympathy for Texans at all. This is what they want. This is what they vote for. Any attempt to prevent this kind of mass-murder is met with outrage from almost the entire state. At this point, I can't bring myself to feel bad for any adult who gets shot in Texas, because that's what Texas IS.
2
But I fear, reasonably, that this is about to be yesterday’s news and nothing will change. America has a system in which we allow the minority to prioritize care for guns over the care for children (people).
3
Just the opposite of new urgency, this incident has normalized gun violence that much more. It's so predictable that we engage in guessing games as to where the next one will be. Each side of gun rights just shakes their heads and points fingers and blames their opponent. It should be such a simple conclusion: without such easy access to guns, these social misfits/crazy/disgruntled/violent men would not be able to commit these crimes. Period.
1
Dear Reporters,
please ask these politicians why they won't fund the cdc to treat gun violence like the public health crisis that it is. Mass shootings aren't the only time we lose people. Wouldn't it be cool if we had facts to deal with? Maybe we could actually save some lives.
2
Unless and until there is a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic-controlled Congress, nothing of any real, multi-dimensional substance to vigorously address gun safety will occur as these mass slaughters continue to be an every week feature of American life. Tragically, we will, or have, become powerlessly numb to every transient, horrifying new coverage of the carnage as our twisted culture then inescapably moves on to assess the next, assured incident, The grotesque, reoccurring tallies of the casualties of these shootings have become as "routine" as the weekly accounts of NFL players whose bodies have been racked while playing every Sunday in that brutal "sport". At this point, our vaunted "exceptionalism" is merely our inability to keep the general citizenry safe and protected. We have failed. Miserably.
5
Political leaders' repeated emphasis on "Second Amendment rights" has sent a message to those so inclined that they have a "right" to vent any negative feeling, resolve any dispute, by shooting someone. The ready availability of guns makes this possible. I am thinking more and more that the Second Amendment needs to be repealed. Short of that, political leaders need to tone down their rhetoric.
With regard to legislation, one way criminals obtain guns is from gun store robberies. The stolen guns are directly used in crimes or are sold on the black market for use in crimes. There should be legislation requiring gun sellers to heavily secure their merchandise to prevent robberies. It is possible.
1
Trump wants protect the public and the 2nd Amendment, according to him. He can’t do both, only one or the other. He’s chosen the 2nd, and enough Americans support that decision, to shield him politically.
There will be no action and many tens of thousand of Americans will continue to die violently, prematurely and unnecessarily. And attempts to repeal the 2nd and force people to surrender guns will be met by lethal resistance. This is an issue other countries can resolve, but not the USA, burdened with both a belligerent gun culture and a supposed enshrined right to own.
5
How to stop gun violence (gradually)
1. Tax guns heavily so that the price makes casual purchases less likely. Tax aftermarket sales, too. Make sellers in private deals responsible for where the gun goes.
2. Raise the age for the purchase of guns to 28 unless the buyer has extensive, military style training, a course of three to six months for which the buyer pays. During this time, the trainers presumably could detect some of the people with violent tendencies.
3. Older buyers would need less training but it would still be required.
4. Limit handgun sales in the same manner that carrying a handgun is regulated in most states.
5. Investigate putting one way, exit only doors in all school classrooms on the first floor.
6. Investigate and implement all non-lethal means of stopping school shootings and use of new technologies. A coordinated national effort at the highest levels is required. Techniques to temporarily blind a shooter as well as robotic response considered.
7. Install centrally controlled key systems in schools similar to those used in hotels where all rooms can be locked to entrance from a control point.
8. Create a fake website or similar effort to draw potential shooters to share information and face possible arrest.
9. Consider background information that could be helping to drive some shootings. Are we too much of a pressurized society? How we lost connections of family and community?
10. Voluntary gun turn in programs. Pursue peace, not violence.
5
Gun control is a state issue.
It's none of Congress's' business.
@Objectivist - OMG. Really? And here I thought that both the guns used in mass murder, and the killers, freely cross state lines. How is this not a national issues?!
Nothing is going to happen. And nothing is going to change when lawmakers reconvene next week.
Donald Trump will echo the same empty promises from whatever golf course he's on.
Mich McConnell will pretend to agree.
And they'll both go on pushing the N.R.A. agenda and American's second Amendment rights until the next senseless shooting.
The circle is complete.
35
Nothing will change until the Republican party is driven from power.
40
Not to point out the obvious but most mass shooters don't survive a mass shooting. What good is threatening them with the death penalty going to do? They were most probably expecting to die before reaching trial anyway. The same logic extends to prosecuting people who lie on background checks. What does it matter once they have the gun? And anyway, if mass shooters are afraid of failing a background check, they can just go to a gun show. See Columbine.
Red flag laws aren't much better. It's the gun specific equivalent of a domestic violence restraining order. You need someone to identify the risk and then make the effort to get a court order before anything happens. Even then, the outcome is far from certain. Again, see the point about gun shows. It's a non-action.
That's the Republican strategy right now. Look busy doing nothing. They are desperately grasping at anything that sounds effectual but doesn't change the status quo. A Senator shouldn't have to clarify her party is operating in good faith. That's usually a bad sign. When meaningful legislation falls flat on the Senate floor, the GOP will blame Democrats for their own obstruction. "We wanted red flags but..." and the murders continue.
15
One common factor in many shootings is angry, white men using assault weapons to kill innocent people. A good-sized portion of our society have problems with anger. This is not a mental health issue so much as wrong thinking and poor methods of coping with everyday stresses.
People who have anger issues, xenophobic views or hatred of other groups have often had previous encounters with the police, if not a criminal record.
No one change in our gun-crazed society will solve the problem of mass killings, or the far more common killings of fewer than 4 people, or suicide.
But a series of laws would significantly lower the death rate.
Ban assault weapons, high capacity magazines, bullet proof vests, etc. Institute universal background checks for all firearm purchases and include a significant waiting period. Require safety training to purchase a weapon plus a yearly licensing fee for each weapon. Prevent anyone with a violent offense or serious mental health issue from owning a gun.
These are lethal weapons that are destroying lives across the country. The big mental health issue as I see it is with all those who refuse to do anything about it. They deny reality and engage in magical thinking.
12
"New urgency," to "gun debate" with this Congress? In this country? I seriously doubt it. Why now? Nothing has changed. Nothing different has happened. Just another "it's not really news-worthy run of the mill American mass shooting," Why do you continue time after time with this same old formula, the formula that says "Oh, this shooting was a really bad one; therefore, something will change"? Makes as much sense as my deciding, after I've seen the most recent wight-loss spam in my inbox, that I'm really gonna start losing weight, tomorrow....Sigh....
6
"But he earlier appeared to dismiss background checks, telling reporters that “they would not have stopped any of it.”"
At that stage there had been little or no investigation beyond the who and when. I doubt that law enforcement yet know how the weapons were obtained -'legally' or otherwise. this *President's conclusion is simply pre-emptively substituting his wishes for whatever facts might eventually be found.
And as for the "Texas Shooting Brings New Urgency to Gun Debate in Congress" line: oh please. If Sandy Hook and Las Vegas and Orlando and El Paso were not enough, why would anyone think that this is going to change anything in Congress. I'd laugh if I felt like laughing.
8
What urgency? The people in power do NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, to stop mass shootings and general gun violence. They make a couple of excited words, everyone things something will happen, some thoughts, some prayers, and then nothing will happen. GOP (and some Dem) politicians are puppets of the NRA, and as long as that is so we will live in fear. That's it. Get used to it.
4
Yawn.
All said and done before.
Same outcome: NO CHANGE except ever more carnage.
3
What we're still waiting to hear is how our President's opponents will spin this tragic shooting to place the blame at his feet. In the absence of a crazed manifesto - from the right in El Paso or the left in Dayton - this will make cheap tirades difficult. The left, however, has shown incredible creativity in conjuring up snide and malicious stuff, so stay tuned.
I hope that everyone watched the political theater put on by Texas Governor Abbot at yesterday's briefing in Odessa, Texas. He was in his most reverent and hypocritical thoughts and prayers mode, reading a text from a 17-month-old victim's mother about her condition. He then pontificated that something must be done on the very day that Texas put looser gun laws into effect. Governor Abbot counts on gullible Texans and other Americans to buy his act. I am one American who does not. I suspect Congress will not even debate or discuss gun safety on either floor of either chamber. I believe there is a bill lying on non-Leader McConnell's desk already passed by the House months ago. The NRA and the gun manufacturers own mostly Republican in Congress and state legislatures and GOP governors all over America. Obscenely, this domestic terrorism with loss of life will continue until that ownership stops. Until then, we all need to be as careful as we can out there in what are supposed to be our safe public places. In reality, in America today, there are no safe public places.
14
I support comprehensive and universal background checks, assault weapons and high capacity bans and mandatory buybacks, aggressive red flag laws, gun registration and license licensing. required gun and ammunition safe storage requirements (see Switzerland), required gun safety training and testing requirements (if required for drivers license why not gun ownership?), and more. The likelihood of passing any of these in the face of second amendment defenders is slim to none and slim just left for the airport. The Heller Decision was wrongly decided and needs to be overturned but unlikely for decades given current court makeup. So it is time to address the real problem. We need to fix the second amendment. I realize this is a tough and long fight, perhaps even decades long. And I the meantime we should do what we can to pass additional gun safety measures and defend them in court. But the real solution is to fix the second amendment. So to those who constantly complain about concern about the government “coming for our guns,” I say, Yes We Are. And, eventually we will get them. I am done with denying that and apologizing for it. Weapons of war do not belong on our streets in any civilians hands. My suggestion to the NRA and its defenders is to begin to accept reasonable gun safety measures or you will only hasten the day when we get all the dangerous weapons off our streets a Doug of civilian hands.
6
From the first paragraph:
"...has intensified pressure on congressional Republicans to take up gun safety legislation,..."
The message is that Republicans are against gun safety. What Republicans and millions of Americans are against, are feel-good gun control legislation that will not address violence. The use of the phrase "gun-safety" instead of "gun-control", shows how some in the gun-control movement are willing to mislead. Reporters should not participate in the deception
Gun safety refers to the safe handling of firearms and their design, such that when used properly, users and lookers on will not be hurt because flaws.
@Steve Brown
And how about the masses of people that rush to buy these weapons after mass shootings because they fear they will be banned?
How can. Group of people be so heartless to hear of shredded children and all they can think about is their guns?
There is a cult of gun ownership in America. The unwavering allegiance to machines of death over human life is appalling.
3
@Jones: Thanks for your thoughts.
Well, it appears to me that the ones who are responsible for the rush to buy guns are politicians who run to microphones to talk about gun bans.
Consider this. We know that the police show up after a crime. Would a mother of three wanting to protect her children be heartless to run out and buy, say, an AR-15, in response to talks of banning AR-15's? Keep in mind the mother is driven by a need not to have her children become victims. Of course, you may say the mother could buy something else, or that a gun in the home endangers the family. But of course, the mother of three may not share your views. You might say she is ignorant, but then, she might say the same about you.
If someone with a military style assault weapon starts shooting, that woman and her children would be dead before she could turn around.
What "new urgency"?
The Republicans in congress are about as likely to take up effective gun legislation (or any gun legislation) as Lucy is likely to let Charlie Brown kick the football.
One more mass killing won't cause any disruption in the now familiar pattern of events save that the cycle time between events is shortening!
3
How about just enforcing all of the 2nd Amendment? Force gun buyers to provide some proof of membership in a "well regulated militia" in order to buy a gun. And regulate the "militias".
Which we'll regulated militias have these last few guys belonged to?
6
In contrast to the title of the article, the article reads stonewalling by Mitch McConnell and the President backpedaling on any ban on assault weapon or high capacity magazine ban and now hinting that any law enforcing background checks are ineffective shows the opposite. Just more of thoughts and prayers in silence and any discussion is the politicizing of a a tragedy as the real politicizing takes place out of sight of the public.Until and unless there is a major change of leadership in the executive and both branches of the legislative branch, there will not be any change from the status quo.
As another NY Times article points out, the majority of the Democrats are now not endorsed the NRA and the Republicans are almost all endorsed by the NRA, indicating a loss of the previously incredible clout of the NRA. A possible sea change in the 2020 election can bring a President, Senate, and House that are NOT owned by the NRA and make the changes that are necessary.
With the acceptance of the Democrats of non endorsement of the NRA, and still be able to win elections the political landscape may be permanently changed. If the NRA as an irresistible force that can determine who can and cannot run, is mooted as a political power, change is possible. That is where these mass shootings may have an effect, it may motivates voters to elect politicians in line with their personal feeling of gun control rather than if that politician's view on gun control are aligned with the NRA.
2
One definition of insanity is: Repeating the same thing over and over expecting the result to change, but it never does.
Yes, "mental illness" is at the core of the gun issue, i.e. the insanity of the complicit Republicans who won 't even allow any discussion of sensible gun control laws.
11
In another universe background checks, gun registration, a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines would be no-brainers. But this is the USA and the place and time we live in. It takes monthly or even weekly massacres to capture the attention of the press and elected officials.
Over 35,000 of us die here by gunshots each year. But we never hear of the murders, suicides and accidents underlying that figure because they simply are not as newsworthy as the spectacular acts of carnage. I
n our debates over healthcare, we point to other advanced nations and how their systems function well without bankrupting the ill and their families. Similarly, we can look elsewhere for prudent practices that make those same nations safer. Not just safer from massacres but from the daily death tolls that define us as a violent and dangerous place to live and raise families.
6
Based on his waffling on back ground checks, I suspect this merely the addition of a diversionary maneuver. He could say the same thing (e.g. “work with Congress”) regarding his own impeachment; knowing Mitch, and the Senate, will be there to stifle any action.
He is hoping the “show” will earn him points, without changing the outcome.
He could have stood firm on any position of choice, and work from there. This passive “work with/cooperation” implies an opportunity to further delay, as we will again ‘talk more to do less.”
It is now a “mental health” issue, tomorrow it will be due to something else. It is never about amending/clarifying the 2nd amendment.
2
There is no justifications for mass murder and providing the means for mass murder. It really needs to be addressed by society and government before more innocent lives are taken.
3
Don't hold your breath. All Trump and the Republicans are interested in is getting it off the front page. So they make vague noises about action but do nothing.
38
Don’t blame just the current crop of toadies and suck-ups in THIS administration.
This has been going on for DECADES!!!
Washington has been continuously LOUSY with them.
Unfortunately we've all see this movie before. President Trump will act outraged, his attention span will falter and then Mr. Trump will recognize the political reality of re-election. The world's "greatest deliberative body", the Senate, will debate the issue and then do nothing. Until politicians are willing to stand up to the N.R.A., the gun manufacturers will continue to reap profits as more innocent people are killed.
32
Parents are seldom made part of the equation. Yet they are the people shepherding these killers. Raising any child is incredibly challenging if it's done with a consistent rationing of love, boundaries, expectation, compassion and listening. That means staying on top of things, from Internet use to choice of friends. If you're not up to the job, don't do it. It takes talent. This degree of fury does not develop overnight!
8
Wow, blame the parents not the perpetrator. Haven’t heard that one in a while. Which do you think is more doable, the government monitoring who is or is not allowed to become a parent, or outlawing the battlefield weapons which make such mass killing possible?
3
@C Cooper
Oh, for heaven's sake...
Responsibility for these massacres must be shared by a host of people and a host of policies. Parents are part of the equation. It's not either / or, it's "also." No one said not to blame the perpetrator.
Also, no one said the government should monitor parenting. Who said weapons should not be banned? Try reading posts a little more closely.
I'm asking potential parents to assess their own reasons/abilities for having children and whether they are up to the difficult job of being present, exercising appropriate discipline (No, that cell phone does not belong to the child, it belongs to the parent), establishing boundaries, and staying on top of things all the way through teen years.
A number of shooters have come from bad situations. It does not exonerate them; it suggests that they may have been troubled for a long time.
1
Why are we wasting our time with gun control legislation in Congress-unless the Democrats control the White House, House and Senate and remove the filibuster it WILL not happen.
7
This is a broken record…..massacre after massacre and yet nothing is done. The President, politicians and the NRA detract from the real issue of gun violence by blaming the shooter’s mental instability. These killers kill with an assault weapon basically designed for war and what these politicians fail to see, blinded by their lust for money and greed, is that assault weapons should NOT under any circumstances be sold to the public. The insensitivity and the overwhelming callousness of the President, politicians, lobbyist and the NRA to blame everything else but guns is mind boggling, disgusting and frightening. The U.S. is the only country in the world where the guns exceeds entire population and yet according to the President, politicians, NRA and lobbyist…..there is no gun problem; stop drinking the cool-aid and wake up to reality.
14
Mitch McConnell should be charged with murder for each person who is killed in mass shootings. He could prevent this. He is very responsible for the continuation of this scourge on our country.
26
"New" urgency?
This is such an absurd article heading. Wasn't there new urgency after Parkland? If there was no new urgency after Sandy Hook, will there ever be?
There should be urgency, but it is old, weary, and long overdue.
26
We’re doing nothing. No bans of large-capacity weapons, no extensive background checks, no mental health efforts, nothing. We’re allowing the N.R.A. to set policy. Honest to God, when babies and children are being shot and an “oh well” attitude is all we can do, we really have a problem.
27
@Rick
People- gun owners- advocates- fanatics really- do worse than “ oh well” they often go buy weapons after mass shootings out of fear of more restrictive laws. Many people, extended family included, voted for Trump because of his stance on guns.
1
Why didn't any previous mass shooting bring a "new urgency to gun debate?"
10
The favorite line used by gun zealots is that guns don't kill people. people kill people. The simple fact is that GUNS do kill people and they do it faster and from further away than anything else. The republican party is 100% responsible for every mass shooting. It's as clear as day.
14
Nothing will be done until this administration is voted out of office. The NRA has donated 180 million dollars to lawmakers who are their puppets including 30 million to Trump. The greed of these members of congress and of course Mr. Trump knows no bounds.
16
If the Republican party were serious about addressing mental illness, they'd be invoking the 25th Amendment.
44
“It is not known whether a background check would have prevented the gunman from acquiring his weapon.”
Here’s a background check that would guarantee it: If you are a human being and a civilian, you can’t buy or own an assault style weapon. Period.
38
@Richard Frank
What do think about a REMINGTON 750 WOODSMASTER deer rifle?
Semi-automatic .308. Just like a M 14 except with wooden stock.
Why shouldn’t a patriotic American, enraged over an employment (or any other) issue, be empowered take a military weapon and randomly unleash death and terror upon scores of fellow citizens?
As part of a “Well-regulated militia” his right to do so is guaranteed under our Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court and Congress. Right?
9
Nothing is going to happen to tighten restrictions on any guns in the USA. The NRA is too powerful. The NRA has the US president onboard to keep guns in everyone’s hands.
There are so many guns in the USA that background checks will have minimal effect for the next two generations.
The US constitution 2nd Amendment was written in the days when the the US did not have a large and technologically advanced military and when cities and towns did not have robust and highly trained police forces. The right to bear arms has been hijacked for profit.
The NRA is a tool of the gun manufacturers who want Americans to believe that they are being hunted by their neighbours. That they are in constant danger of being murdered by the person next door. The paranoia is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
Republicans are not doing anything to dispel the fear that Americans feel from each other. Arming school teachers will not stop a crazed killer with an assault rifle from murdering school kids. Sadly, the only way that Trump will defy the NRA is if someone shoots up Mar-a-lago or Trump Tower; then Trump will take action to protect his property.
State legislatures can start to take action by passing laws to control the dearth of assault rifles (the chosen weapon of mass killers) and then work to control other weapons.
Do something or get used to being under attack from within. My thoughts and prayers are with you; but thoughts and prayers don’t stop bullets do they.
3
It’s becoming more and more difficult for Republicans to appear to be doing something about gun safety without actually doing anything of substance about gun safety.
The question is; at what point does it become impossible? 200 victims a month? Twice weekly mass shootings? Daily?
2
I believe the only legitimate reasons for owning a gun are for hunting animals and for self-defense at one's own home. And neither of these require many bullets in the magazine.
The first order of business to tackle the mass hysteria of mass shootings is to outlaw high-capacity magazines. That will certainly reduce the number of fatalities when madmen take to the gun.
Other measures to follow. Let reason rule.
We actually don't need to hunt animals. One less reason for owning a gun.
I was ok with this article until I read about the "Lie and Try" laws that would make it a crime for those who lie on a background check. My objection is that some people perhaps unwittingly will omit something such as an expunged criminal record and then find themselves facing a long prison sentence. Also, banning high capacity magazines while seemingly reasonable must not endanger all the millions of gun owners who bought them over the years. And, we must not forget that high capacity magazines are now available for pistols, bolt action rifles and other firearms. So, how do we draw a line? Also, the hodge-podge of state laws when we cross state lines and suddenly find that as a lawful, permitted gun owner, now suddenly we are criminals because we posses a magazine that holds greater than 10 rounds for pistol is outlawed or worse, that a particular type of ammunition, like hollow-points is outlawed too. Hollow points can save lives by not passing through and striking another person. But, anti-gunners don't get that.
So, before we have discussions we need to have rational understanding of both sides and suggestion for reasonable compromise. As for banning AR/AK pattern rifles that leaves more than 5 million known rifles in circulation. A buy back is not reasonable.
Let's start with real background checks at gun stores, on-line transfer sales through a federally licensed dealer, and gun shows. And let's protect existing gun owners. Family transfers need protection too.
1
@Jay My objection is that some people perhaps unwittingly will omit something such as an expunged criminal record and then find themselves facing a long prison sentence. " Really?? I can tell you exactly how many speeding tickets I have: it's not something you forget. And how does banning high capacity magazines 'endanger' those who bought them? State laws matter and you need to be aware when you travel. Fireworks for example which are legal in one state are illegal 20 feet inside the state next door; and you wouldn't try that as a defense. "Hollow points can save lives by not passing through and striking another person. " That's about as true as seat belts causing injury because the victim was not thrown clear. (Hint: it's absurd.)
@Andrew
You many believe it's absurd, however, when young people, usually teenagers are told that their records are sealed and/or expunged they tend to believe that is exactly what it means. Yet, many of those young people often find that the records have opened by police or other agencies and sadly, find they are eliminated from jobs, schools and sometimes face arrest for falsifying affidavits. Sealed records and expungements are not protected. In New Jersey, a young woman, a resident of PA was stopped by a NJ trooper for a minor traffic offense and was asked if he possessed a weapon. She did (PA permitted) but she had crossed the state line into New Jersey and was arrested for having hollow point ammunition. and the hand gun locked in the trunk of her auto. The Governor of NJ Chris Christie intervened to save this young lady from prosecution and long imprisonment. Tell her that the laws are reasonable! Also, under a new law in PA if you were held for observation, but not adjudicated mentally incapacitated, you no longer are banned from purchasing guns, but for years, even though not adjudicated as committed to a mental institution many people were banned from owning firearms. Nothing is as simple or easy as you believe. Bad laws harm people too. You need to be aware of what laws can do to ruin the lives of innocent persons. Making laws to stop gun violence is easy until you consider all the consequences and people affected by those laws. How do we protect innocents?
2
An observations - It's funny, perhaps ironic, in a very sad sort of way - The same Senators and Representatives who have been so concerned (all of a sudden) about the opiod epidemic, and who praised holding the pharmaceutical industry to account for their actions, don't see the NRA and gun manufacturers as equivalent (or worse!) than Perdue Pharmaceuticals, J&J and the lot. The obsession with guns is lots on me, but it seems an addiction, just like opiods. Anything short of full universal background checks, banning the sale of high capacity magazines, banning the sale of assualt type weapons won't do anything to solve the problem. More importantly, and probably unlikely is for gun owners and the gun lobby to realize that. Otherwise, as others have commented in this space, America is broken and this will sadly continue unabated.
1
None of this will change unless a Democratic President and Democrat majority is elected in the Senate. While understanding why the Second Amendment was conceived, it is an albatross around us in a civil society. Yes, mental illness is a problem especially among those with a three "A" mentality of "any gun, anywhere, anytime.
13
It's bad enough that Texas is loosening restrictions on gun laws even further after what's only the most recent mass shooting there. I fear that Congressional Republicans will only try to follow that lead.
But how long do we need to keep hearing about these things before something sensible happens? Will it take a mass shooting at the NRA campus? Or in our legislative buildings?
The "good guy with a gun" theory has already been exposed as a fallacy - there have been armed civilians in the vicinity of some of these shootings. They did not engage the gunmen. They ran. Because at the end of the day, despite their support for these ridiculous concealed carry laws, they are cowards. They're afraid of other people with arms, or the consequences of trying to do something and making a mistake, or the legal consequences that would come from trying to fight in a situation like that. Even if they did take down a gunman, there's still a lengthy legal process that nobody would want to have to deal with. So they run.
It's really too bad that more supporters of these laws can't find themselves in situations like this to see what would really happen if they tried to be the "good guy". They'd likely find themselves in a fluid situation, not knowing who the bad guy is, potentially shooting at other "good guys", and being shot at by police who don't yet know who the bad guy is.
Anyone who's ever been in combat knows that more crossfire is not the answer.
5
In the first place, someone armed with a pistol who runs when confronted by a crazy man with an assault rifle is NOT a coward. S/he is just being sensible. The odds would be overwhelmingly in favor of the crazy man except in very rare cases.
Most people who “carry” do so exclusively for the purpose of SELF-defense (in the most desperate of circumstances) - - - not in anticipation of being a “hero”.
The rest of your comment makes a modicum of sense.
Sadly, though, it is - quite simply - TOO LATE for any gun legislation to have any measurable effect in this country. Pandora’s Box has been open for too many years and what has already spewed forth cannot be put back.
The headline about “new urgency” being brought to the debate over gun violence is a cruel joke.
The U.S. goes through this same anguished charade week after week, month after month, year after year.
An endless soap opera of carnage and hand-wringing, frustrated rage and defiant selfishness—our long running struggle with this fatal flaw in the American worldview—will never end.
Like the Black Plague of the Middle Ages in Europe, our intelligence and our institutions are helpless to understand or alter the cause of our suffering.
So save us the soap-opera headlines, the desperate determination, the declarations of defiant ignorance, and the hope that “our” children will be untouched by the American Nightmare.
7
The "mental health" argument must be put to rest. It has been estimated that 20% of the population (1 in 5) has or has had a mental health diagnosis. If gun violence is only related to mental illness (which it is not), it is important to reduce the prevalence of guns in society. This is no different that reducing the risk of disease transmitted by mosquitos. Would anyone oppose vector control because the bacteria or viruses they carry cause disease, and not the insect vector? Republican Senators oppose sensible public health measures whether mosquito control, or gun control. Why? Who benefits?
3
@et.al.nyc There are mental health issues all over the world, but the US runs second with gun violence. Mental health issues are a part of the problem but not the only part.
1
How much more “urgency” do you need? Mass shootings are a weekly occurrence in the US.
Ban assault weapons, significantly tighten background checks, impose more licensing requirements, undertake a major gun buyback. It’s not rocket science.
3
Our country is broken. The cancer of guns have taken over the body. There are nearly 400 million guns in this country.
Even if we banned all weapons tomorrow, we are stuck with the weapons of death for decades to come. My only hope is that the Parkland generation will demand change. My parents generation and my generation have failed them. These kids have grown up with lock-down drills and terror. I hope they vote. I hope they demand the change that is needed. But I really fear for this country. The toothpaste is out of the tube now.
5
@Raydeohed That defeatist attitude will achieve nothing. Ban assault weapons and undertake a major buyback to get guns off the streets - sure, not all of them, but you can’t just give up.
5
You can make your own guns easily with a 3-D printer today. Plans are readily available and anyone with $1000 can print as many as they want.
1
If I step back for a moment I wonder where this debate – shouting match? – is going? Are efforts toward gaining control over mass shooting going to continue or are we going to shrug our shoulders and say “oh well, shooters will always be with us” and leave it at that? Can we? Americans have always wanted to fix things, must we stop trying?
2
"In its 2015 tax return, the NRA described its mission as 'Firearms safety education and training and advocacy on behalf of safe and responsible gun owners'.” Really? Seems like an argument for universal background checks not against these checks. How else can you ensure that gun owners are safe and responsible? The NRA mantra I hear constantly is: Guns don't kill people; people kill people. So maybe the NRA leadership is just confused and thinks universal background checks are referring to checking the "guns" background? Seems the Republicans in Congress and the President are also under the same misconception. Or are they just lying?? Many of us already know the answer to that question and their real mission.
5
To expect "congressional Republicans to take up gun safety legislation" is akin to expecting a 7 year old to eat and enjoy broccoli. It just ain't gonna happen.
17
Gun rights advocates have the responsibility to figure out something that really works. The fallback plan if they fail is to confiscate all guns in a buyback scheme like Australia.
Probably background checks will be ineffective.
5
@Bruce Thomson They have had plenty of opportunities (not that it's up to them). Bans and buybacks work.
1
Not to diminish what happened, but the situation could have been much worse if the police didn't stop him for a minor traffic infraction. This is why letting people "slide" for minor offenses is a bad idea. He apparently was on his way to doing something awful somewhere that could have been epic. If he wasn't stopped, he wouldn't have immediately been on the police radar.
2
“The House-passed background checks measure, though, is unlikely to pass the Senate. Opponents object to its provision making virtually all gun sales and transfers, including those between family members, subject to background checks.” I am always perplexed at why there is resistance to background checks involving sales to friends and family members. Is there some documentation showing that friends and family of people with no criminal records and no serious mental health issues are inherently law abiding and mentally stable?
13
You have to have a background check to coach youth sports. Even if you are the parent. If you don't do it, you don't coach. Period. What's so hard about universal background checks.
2
America won't change until Americans are willing to protest in the streets for change, just as the people of Hong Kong are doing. Until Americans are willing to do something more disruptive than merely vote, politicians will respond only to the desires of their base voters and their donors. And right now, given the structural advantages that accrue to Republicans, voting will get us only Republican policies or gridlock. The Democrats, while having majority support, are not going to win and hold enough seats long enough to advance any of their policies.
10
Don't restrict guns. Restrict ammunition. Make it difficult, but not impossible, to obtain more than a single box of cartridges or shotgun shells in any single month.
6
In response to "we've got to figure this out":
Our elected representatives can create a panel of experts to outline the needed legislation. The panel should have very active involvement of the military and local police authorities. Could add CDC and even give the NRA a seat.
Legislators could then give the spin that although they may disagree, they will rely on this outside/neutral group and; therefore, absolve themselves of any responsibility and backlash.
It's incredible that we act as if there's no one outside of Congress who knows anything about guns.
9
@CWB
These groups and many like them have tirelessly offered solutions and suggestions for decades on this issue, yet it is Congress itself (left and right) who've turned a deaf ear to this. Giving Congress a way out of the responsibility might reveal how they all look useless and powerless, and they'll have none of that.
4
Now that we know why the (latest) gun incident happened, we shouldn't be alarmed at all. It was the fault of overly aggressive police, who confronted the guy just after he lost his job. Understandably, he was upset, and police stop for an allegedly unsignaled left turn was just the thing that would have made anyone kill a few people in frustration. Just ask yourself: What would President Trump have done had he been fired? Of course, that would never happen because he never had a real job. But if he had, he would be quite upset -- as he was with the stuff President Obama and Democrats tried to do with him. Had the police been more restrained, none of this would have happened. They didn't need to kill the guy. Our president would surely have pardoned him.
6
@Richard Uh, how did the police know before they pulled him over that he lost his job and was upset? Please explain.
1
Ridiculous response. There can be no doubt that anyone who has been fired from a job, whether the firing was deserved or not, would be affected. Jobs are survival.
But, having a rifle that is used in war with its capacity to shoot innumerable bullets in an instance should never be available to anyone. These guns demolish bones and organs. No legitimate hunter would have one.
these guns make mush of bones and We are not at war or and he is not a soldier. No hunter would use such a weapon.
Voters need to feel a new urgency. If they continue to vote for Senators and Representatives, and Governors who are loved by the NRA and the gun manufacturers, nothing will change. Investigate your elected representatives’ NRA ratings. If they are loved by the NRA, vote them out. Turn the NRA into a political liability.
33
Remember we put taxes on cigarettes because smoking killed people. Likewise we should put excessive taxes on ammunition because, guess what, bullets kill people or cause excessive medical expenses. Just ask Rep. Scalise, he can tell you the price he’s paid; though I am certain his medical costs are paid by his excellent government health care package. If we can’t impinge upon the right to own a gun than, at the very least, make it costly to use it. And the taxes collected; they should be used to pay for the medical expenses of victims.
22
@Pmalex
Rep. Scalise doesn't care. His views on gun legislation have not changed one iota.
1
Texas gun laws became even more lax on Sunday, the day after the Odessa-Midland shooting. Until Texans care enough about their own lives to stop, it is difficult to see how the rest of us will be able to help.
There is no urgency in the Republican party to do anything about gun violence and the sooner normal people realize that and banish them from political life, the more quickly we can begin to elect officials who will pass laws designed to prohibit civilian access to WMDs, implement universal background checks for all gun transfers, and require licensing for the purchase of ammunition, including the prohibition of the sale to civilians of some types of ammunition.
14
Even in the unlikely event that Mr. McConnell permits effective legislation to pass in the Senate, he and his allies have been busy packing the courts at all levels with conservatives that are sure to weaken or nullify the result. When we lost the assault weapons ban, we were guaranteed this future and now it is difficult if not impossible to change course.
19
@CynicalObserver
There is a way to change course, place very strict registration requirements on guns, especially assault weapons in a way similar to registration for motor vehicles. Make licensing an assault weapon similar to the requirements to drive a school bus. Make possession of an unregistered gun similar to driving on a revoked license, except with far more jail time.
3
Those who are on staff at the IRA, it's board members, and lobby hires should be tried for mass murder.
10
The GOP is soaked in NRA blood money. Like every issue they respond to who even pays them. In the 1990’s McConnell and the GOP took direct bribes from Big Tobacco and millions dead horrible deaths from smoking. The states took action to regulate and sue the tobacco companies who spent millions telling smoking was not harmful when their own research showed it killed people, slowly.
GOP will not act unless someone pays them off, that is how it works with and they have been very clear about. Look at Newtown, 22 5 year olds are slaughtered and nothing is done. The right media spreads a theory that it was a fake, staged attack and the parents are subjected to death from whack job on the right. This America under Trump and soulless GOP. This is what you get.
60
Not so much money as voters, until congressmen/senators fear a primary challenge from gun control advocates nothing will change.
3
..., even as a foreigner, living abroad - and thus merely observing from afar - one knows that “urgency” does not harmonize with “restricting gun laws” in the United States; unfathomable as that might be given the horrific circumstances.
It clearly takes an act of the people, not of the bought and paid for politicians, remember; they’ve successfully sustained doing nothing following Sandy Hook, which - it would appear - was a turning point for many people.
32
If you want to reduce the killings caused by gun violence, DO NOT vote for any Republicans going forward.
They are causing the log-jam that prevents sensible gun laws from being enacted.
It's that simple.
103
The GOP will wait a week until trump has another twitter tantrum & the news cycle moves on.
34
@Lauren You must add "and the NRA pulls on those puppet strings attached to Trump and McConnell".
2
And if something is finally done with bipartisan support from republicans, it is sure to be much too little and yet another republican roadblock to further action.
These treacherous men stand by while gun owning fanatics continue to kill citizens of this country.
When the madness finally ends, and it will, people will marvel at the immense toll of death and destruction and know that there was blood on every republican politicians hands.
They could have ended the slaughter at any time and chose not too in order to maintain their sources of money and power.
While normal people recoil in disgust and horror republican politicians, and republican Supreme Court Justices, will survey the carnage without blinking their dead, unsympathetic eyes.
13
Reality Check its futile not to be aware whats really going on. The mental ill people are product of our culture an the lack of value we put on life other people. Still we continue on denieing life to unborn 60 million abortions an not one person will call out enough is enough . We fear our leaders we fear to even to witness we believe in god. When will our leaders end the disease ?
1
Trump and Republicans in congress should be thrown out of office for standing by doing nothing but regurgitating NRA propaganda while thousand of Americans get shot every year. It should be a non-brainer for a civilized nation to pass reasonable gun legislation and get assault weapons and other weapons designed for mass killings out of the hands of civilians.
19
Americans love guns. We are prisoners of our myths of rugged individualism and self determination. The gun has become the ultimate symbol of individualism, my life is worth more than yours and my gun proves it. We somehow have deemed it right and honorable to be able to kill our fellow citizens at a moments notice.
Our culture of violence and its glorification through our media has given many of our troubled citizens the idea that they can make a statement through mass murdering others.
We are so enamored of our "rights" that we are powerless to regulate deadly weapons. Too much "me" and not enough "us".
The so called "responsible gun owners" refuse to be part of the solution because they fail to see themselves as part of the problem. We regulate all manner of harmful products but guns are immune because of individualism, the solution is collective and the "responsible gun owners" think it is someone else's problem.
We will never solve this issue until we begin thinking of the common good. We are stuck in the past with our myths, we seem to be a nation of competitors, not citizens.
43
@mike Regarding your comment about your thinking that a gun owner's life is worth more than an unarmed citizen is ludicrous. Legal gun owners assume the responsibility to own and operate deadly weapons to protect themselves and others. Wrongly, the news media such as this paper do not report endless occurrences where armed private citizens help protect others by stopping killers with their weapon. Search "armed citizen stops killer" and see for yourself.
1
@Juergen Granatowski
I highly doubt that many people buy guns with the selfless purpose of protecting others. Further the idea of everyone carrying guns on the off chance they might get to stopping a killer does not make me feel safe in any way.
We have no way of knowing who the responsible gun owners are and one of the responsible ones could easily become irresponsible in a fit of rage or when he catches his wife in bed with the neighbor.
We have police for these purposes, we do not need self appointed "militias".
The Republicans, along with Mr Trump, sing their version of Gee Officer Krupke at every gun incident, and nothing ever happens. They have no interest in addressing this issue, and such will obtain so long as they have the controlling power.
6
This article documents the Senate's refusal to do anything about gun control. McConnell only committed to the issue being "front and center" after the sumner break. Well, that it is.
But as the Senate no longer serves as a check on the Executive, but instead, it's lackey, what sort of law will they produce? The President they obey, after one phone call with Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, following the Dayton and El Paso shootings, dropped his concern over backgtound checks, and the Senate followed suit.
The NRA was Trump's biggest donor in 2016--$30 million--and they give generously to all Republicans, who in turn, consistently support them. I cannot fathom that over 32,000 gun deaths per year in any way validates campaign donations. The Second Amendment, thanks to the National Guard, is obsolete.
The House is doing their job. The Senate has not produced any legislation remotely beneficial to human beings, animals or the environment in recent years, except John McCain's final vote that left the ACA in place.
"Front and center" and promises to "work in good faith" are as meaningless as "wishes and prayers"--just so much empty air.
31
It won’t stop until it’s one of their own. It’s always been this way.
12
We are having mass shootings every two weeks and disgusting paid off politicians deflect and twiddle and provide "condolences." Get those weapons of mass murder off our streets and expand universal background checks and remove Trump from office and LaPierre from the U.S.
16
I live in an area that has a lot of guns. I find myself scanning the crowd at the convenience store, thinking that going there could be the last thing I do. And on nearby, mobs have terrorized dairy farms, targeting migrant workers.
We are not getting "great again." We are moving towards the worst.
After 9/11, I had so much confidence in our country to rebound. Now the bitter, the angry, the fearful, the hopeless are taking over in a violent way. Where will this end? How will we take on this problem?
The bottom line is that guns don't belong in this equation. They don't solve, they only make things worse.
56
All polls seem to indicate that majorities of the electorate want background checks and elimination of guns designed only to kill humans along with large capacity ammunition clips. The simple solution is to make 2020 a single issue election. Look at your local and national representatives, their voting records on gun safety are well known, and vote accordingly.
13
Change will happen the minute a Democrat running on an anti-assault weapon platform defeats a Republican. And not one moment before. This is up to us. Right now money is in control. Same goes for climate, etc., a very long and depressing list.
26
New urgency? You can't be serious. How many variations of this headline has the NYT printed in the past 10 years? The "urgency" always fades, and this time will be no different.
25
If anyone is intent on directing their efforts on the state level, good luck. Here in MN, our leading legislator was quoted ‘I will do everything in my power to stop gun legislation’. He has the singular power to table any bill prior to reaching a full floor vote & has used it to block life saving legislation.
7
Our gun laws are an incomprehensible mosaic of laws which utterly fail in their mission to deter gun violence.
We need FEDERAL GUN CONTROL which requires that all guns be issued Certificates of Title like with cars, that they be Federally registered, and that gun owners be required to maintain liability insurance with high deductibles to indemnify people harmed by their guns. Limit the number of guns that people may own to some reasonable number.
Like with cars, require prospective gun owners to demonstrate proficiency and mental competence plus impose strict, vicarious liability upon gun owners for their direct or otherwise negligent conduct in connection with their guns. Leave a gun lying around unsecured and someone gets access to it, you're in trouble.
As far as bullets go, the eggs I buy are imprinted with a traceable code. Do that with bullets so we know who is buying them and in what quantity.
This will not eliminate all gun violence but it will cut it back and provide at least some compensation for victims. As far as I can see, none of this in any way conflicts with that pesky 2d Amendment which would, of course, stay in full force and effect.
Presently we have a patchwork of gun legislation in 50 states which is ineffectual. You can still get a gun in a state with lax firearms laws and take it anywhere you want. If states, to meet their own needs, want to impose laws that are more stringent than the Feds, like with booze and drugs, fine.
21
@MIKEinNYC
Every checkpoint here is accurate but the biggest fault lay with money and assault weapons themselves.
First, Money from Lobbys such as the NRA and large Corporations needs to be stopped and removed from the hands of our legislators. The fact is that money buys the legislators' votes. There is no moral compass here, it is self-enrichment.
Second, Assault weapons have only one use, that is to kill mass numbers of humans, weapons of war. "Ownership" of these particular weapons is total nonsense and leads directly to our unique American tragedy. All concerned with their rights under the second amendment should own muskets.
3
How can anyone seriously interpret the comments or actions of any public official on the matter of gun control as urgent, much less new? Nothing short of a sweeping electoral change in the makeup of our government is going to bring about a new and constructive response to our national bloodbath. Register and vote.
10
A Federal Tax Stamp on weapons that can accept magazines of ten plus capacity.
Federal Tax Stamps are required to purchase automatic weapons and short barreled rifles. There is little interest in these weapons because of it. The Stamp allows to keep track of ownership and sale of the weapon.
2
When I first saw this, I mistook it for an earlier piece I read about a mass shooting at a high school football game. So many, it's hard to keep track.
In New Zealand they passed stricter gun control laws (their laws were already tougher than U.S. laws) within days of the mass shooting they had there. So many in the U.S. and still no effective gun control. It's hopeless. It's never going to happen I'm afraid.
17
If we accept that guns don't kill people, then let's at least accept that they allow shooters to kill in indiscriminate bulk. To the GOP: these victims' blood is on your hands.
36
...and on the hands of all those who voted to repeal the ban on assault weapons, who've voted to maintain it since, and who've taken campaign funds from the NRA.
2
Americans do not feel safe! There are over 400 million civilian owned guns in the United States- more than one for every man, woman and child and then some.There are thousands of angry or mentally deranged people- this is a toxic and dangerous mix.Congress is doing nothing but thinking and praying and looking at the bottom line of NRA contributions to their campaigns.Anything they do , assuming that they do anything,will just be tinkering around the edges.This is a full blown public health crisis-Congress loves to rail about big Pharma and the devastation they are causing with distribution of opioids which kill thousands.They are silent about gun manufacturers who produce deadly weapons which kill thousands.The result-thousands die needlessly as medical science works feverishly to cure diseases.If the terrible scourge of AIDS can be tamed, gun violence could be diminished by buybacks, background checks and ID of weapons and much more.There is a way-there is no will!
18
So you are afraid that 400,000,000 guns have been sold to homicidal people by gun manufacturers producing guns to sell to homicidal people?
Who said the line ‘new urgency’? If the slaughter of first-graders (and adults) in their elementary school classroom wasn’t enough to create an urgency, nothing will. And in the long list of mass shootings around the country one really can’t say this one was so out of the ordinary. Unless Texas is tiring of being the death by gun capital of the world. It has a notorious distinction after all—e.g, President of the United States (1963), college students (Texas Sniper,1966), etc., etc., and etc up to Aug 30 2019.
29
Sensible gun laws, of course. But we need to stop people before they kill. Any website that caters to white supremacists, radical Islamists, or any other hateful ideology, should be monitored, with the FBI allowed to question or arrest anyone who seems potentially dangerous or is openly threatening others. Terrorists, domestic or foreign, should not be entitled to the First Amendment rights of free speech.
10
@Pragmatist in Ct. You’re looking in the wrong direction. Or limiting the directions in which you look. This latest one apparently had nothing to do with white supremacy. He had just been fired from his job. So now what law could be made to address this issue?
4
@Em How about a law that would have limited his access to a AR [or AK]; limited his access to bullets for such weapons and limited his access to high capacity magazines [although i have not read whether he had such a magazine or not]
That might have limited his ability to kill and wound almost 30 innocents; regardless of ideology.
1
@JA Herrera yes, as I said, sensible gun laws of course: background checks, magazine limits, biometric sensors, registration, mandatory safety classes, etc. But, my point is that many of these killers are motivated by a warped ideology and are either influenced by these websites, or they want to brag about their exploits on them.
2
“New urgency” to “debate”, perhaps, but to actually do anything that will reduce the numbers killed & maimed by America’s addiction to ‘Constitutionally guaranteed’ mass shootings? I doubt it.
23
How many times have we seen this headline, “A New Urgency...”? Call me a cynic, but I have no doubt you’re going to seeing it again and again.
57
New urgency? Intensified pressure? On the GOP for rational gun legislation to save American lives? Under President Trump?
Save the headline, you will, sadly, likely need it again.
27
The only thing that will prompt Senate Republicans to take up gun safety legislation is incontrovertible evidence that their failure to do so would endanger their reelections and control of the Senate. That free and easy availability of any and all sorts of guns has been increasingly proven to cost an untold number of lives of innocent Americans seems to be of little, if any, concern to them.
It has become clear that their preferred path of Republicans is to do nothing, while continuing to virtually inhale money from the NRA and gun lobby, while securing votes from those who twist the meaning of the Second Amendment to guarantee the rights of anyone and everyone to buy automatic and semi-automatic weapons, the only purpose of which is to kill people.
Because of the coming 2020 election, there actually might be a chance that Republicans will do something, But it's equally clear that if they do, their "thoughts and prayers" will directed at the preservation of their own sinecures and not at preventing senseless deaths, and saving the lives of already born innocents.
28
We need backgroud checks on all purchases AND we need background checks on everyone who currently owns a firearm. All assault weapons must be banned and Congress should allocate money to buy them back.
The question for all of us is "what will McConnell do?"
8
Opponents of gun laws will twist themselves into irreconcilable nonsense as they try to defend the indefensible. Politicians are afraid of the NRA and gun advocates who respond with more fervor than gun opponents to any proposed firearm restrictions. It is past time for debate or a willingness to hear the other side out. Every poll shows that a majority of Americans favor sensible gun laws. That’s not true in every state or congressional district of course, but the answer is to defeat the elected officials at the voting booth wherever possible. Until there are demonstrable consequences for politicians for yielding to the demands of a screaming minority, this insanity of gun violence will continue.
8
ban assault weapons. institute licensing and insurance requirements. offer buybacks. stop future manufacturing.
problem addressed.
18
Serious action on guns will be driven by one group and one group only. U.S. Citizens.
Don’t blame Congress or the media or the President or the NRA or the Supreme Court. If the people want change, it will happen. But not until or unless the people seriously want change.
7
I agree, no more urgency, unfortunately, because the bullets have flown, the next victims down and out. The course and cause of these shootings and their aftermath are so grotesquely predictable. It's hard to watch.
The following example may be gruesome but it's like telling young parents who live in upper-floor apartments to keep their windows shut when their kids are present, supervised or not, because they may climb onto the window sill and fall out. If the parents don't heed the warning, because they say they can't go without fresh air and their child tragically dies because it fell out of the window, it's heart-wrenching but incomprehensible at the same time. In the case of America and its guns, this same situation happens repeatedly. It's sick and grotesque. And I can't harbor concern or empathy for a society that knowingly and willingly allows such things to take place repeatedly. There are obvious solutions that aren't being chosen - i.e. prohibit, refrain from and/or restrict guns/weapons drastically; or "keep windows shut when children are present".
6
America needs to reinterpret the Second Amendment and treat gun violence as a public health emergency and epidemic. It must be investigated thoroughly by health professionals who should offer recommendations to deal with this emergency. Assault weapons must be banned and given up. All guns must be licensed and strict gun ownership licensing exams must be required to own a gun. These should be the equivalent of motor vehicle examinations and include actual testing of the firearms owned and they should be confiscated if inappropriate for its use. There are 390 million guns in America and that number is extraordinary and the principal reason why America is the leader by far in gun violence. It is time to be more concerned with the freedom to live safely and without fear than in the anachronistic right to bear arms in a modern society. It is not 1789 and modern weapons are not muskets.
9
They are saying "we've got to figure this out". Unbelievable! Why don't they confer with other nations who simply don't have this problem thanks to the lack of a constitutionally protected right to bear arms and mind-numbing restrictions and hurdles preventing ownership? They have the answers. The answers exist!!!
But of course, they don't really want to do anything about this, and they won't. They absolutely WON'T!
The slaughter at Sandy Hook didn't get us there. Nor all the others. God what a feckless country and people we are!!!
53
@Barry Moyer
Amen!! Sad but true.
5
@barry moyer
you are so right: the solution to america’s problem with gun violence exists and it is pretty simple... the fact that the obvious solution way it is not followed shows that there is something fundamentally wrong with american culture... there is the wrong believe that guns guaranty personal freedom & safety... quite the opposite is true...
7
What's the point of a law in a human society if it protects a tool of destruction's right to be manufactured, bought, sold, and owned over the human beings' right to live?
15
By the NRA’s logic, Texas should be the safest state in America since it’s awash with guns and it has very lax gun laws.
What happened?
39
@Chris New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont do not require a license for concealed carry of firearms. Vermont never has. New Hampshire and Maine ended licensure in 2017 and 2015. These states have relatively few laws relating to firearms.
At least since 2001 - with a single year exception - these three states had the lowest incidence of violent crime in the U.S. See: FBI, "Crime in the United States, 2001-2018".
More widely, since 1980, the number of firearms in the U.S. has doubled, but the murder rate has halved. In 1980, the murder rate was 10.2 per 100,000 residents (Dept. of Justice, "Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008", p.2). In 2017, the homicide rate was 5.2 per 100,000 residents (FBI, "Crime in the United States", 2017. Table 1).
If firearms drove the incidence of criminality, the murder rate should have doubled. It didn't. The murder rate halved.
In short, what You posit - that "gun control" somehow promotes public safety - is balderdash.
And, in the 20th Century, "gun control" laws have promoted genocides wherein some 50,000,000 were murdered, including millions of children.
Still think "gun control" is a good idea?
2
@Jay E. Simkin I think repealing the 2nd amendment is a great idea.
Wow! Actual facts. How refreshing.
Wait. Is this headline a joke? Yes, yes. Urgency! I'm sure now something will be done. Thank goodness THIS is the shooting that finally lit the fire under Congress.
81
How many times have we seen this headline? A new urgency?
Until the phone calls start coming in from everyone's favorite domestic terror organization, the NRA and precisely nothing is done once again.
A truly disgusting and embarrassing state of affairs.
86
All of this is nonsense, none of this is common sense. It’s simply an egregious offense designed to line the pockets of greedy, hypocritical and irresponsible lawmakers who are beholden first to themselves, next to the gun lobby who threatens their extinction and finally to the countless Americans who become innocent victims of a parasitic relationship that causes such national carnage to occur on a daily basis.
Vote them out.
5
Please. This is America. Half the country thinks the 2nd Amendment was ordained by the creator. Nothing will be done.
14
One doesn’t need to wait for 20 to vote on gun regulation. Write or call your senator now. Write or call Mitch McConnel at his government website now.
Join Mom’s for Action Now.
The administration, the Senate and the NRA are not moving to solve the problem of assault weapons in our community’s. They need to be held accountable for the citizen’s demand change.
1
i won't hold my breath, nothing is going to change
3
New urgency? We've had a parade of demonstrations of this urgent need for decades. Good grief, we're sending children to school with bullet shields in their bookbags!!! After this latest TX crime you can bet on increased sales of bullet-proofed cars.
But, there is no "event", however tragic, that will ever force a substantive change in Congressional attitudes toward guns … until the public throws out all those in thrall to the NRA and replaces them with common-sense, truly anti guns-for everyone and anti-guns-everywhere leaders.
17
“We’ve got to figure this out,” Mr. Scott said on the NBC program “Meet the Press.” “We’ve got to figure out how we get guns away from mentally ill people who want to harm others or themselves.”
How do you separate the identifiable from the not identifiable? This is like watching a sloth take an IQ test.
4
Every shooting should have been an urgency for gun debate in Congress. But little, if any change is ever really done.
As long as Trump continues to side and support Wayne LaPierre, any REAL gun safety legislation will merely be cheap, hollow talk . . . for a few days, at best.
12
".....much would depend on whether the president, who has been consulting with the National Rifle Association,...."
Exactly the wrong group to be getting advice from. They're the catalyst that keep life saving laws from being passed.
Until the NRA is sidelined in these discussions, nothing meaningful will happen. And the only way to sideline them is, elect Democrats across the board. The Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.
8
There is no such thing as a constitutional right to possess weapons of mass destruction like atom bombs or AK-47s.
There is, however, a constitutional right to be stupid, corrupt, immoral and uncaring about the future of this country and Mitch McConnell and his Republican Party are enjoying every minute of it.
151
“Fill-in-the-blank” Shooting Brings New Urgency to Gun Debate in Congress.
17
We were promised that the American Carnage would stop on Jan 20 2017
Instead it has gotten far worse and there are no solutions being offered, just the same tired scapegoating and finger pointing that has become a calling card of this White House
This administration has failed and should give way to new leadership - Democrat or Republican
4
A national ABC platform on guns: In the wake of the latest mass shooting in El Paso, Texas and elsewhere, it occurs to me that a central 2020 Democratic presidential and congressional election platform should be a straight-forward, catchy, and easy to deliver and remember 3-point agenda. I suggest naming it the “ABC” policy on guns.
1. Mandatory background checks and waiting periods to buy any guns.
2. A ban on possession or sale of automatic assault weapons, with a grace period to "sell back" current weapons of this type for destruction, after which it will be a felony to possess such weapons punishable by steep fines.
3. A clear, pro-Second Amendment right to bear and sell non-automatic guns, combined with mandatory licensing of all such guns in circulation.
And please don't fall into the NRA trap of saying "but this is just the start of the slippery slope to take away all guns." See point #3. Nor say something like "people use guns to kill; it's not the guns." No, it's both. And the country demands it.
6
Has it occurred to anyone else that those in power (the GOP contingent, primarily) will do nothing whatsoever to protect American lives? Apparently American gun rights are much more important than our citizens and children.
How did we get here?
5
There's always a "renewed urgency" after mass shootings. It lasts 2-3 weeks, politicians give it some lip service, then they let the furor die down and pretend nothing ever happened. Voting blue is the only thing that will finally effect change.
17
Like everything else, until this affects the president directly, which it won’t, nothing will be done.
He cancelled a trip to Poland because he was worried about Mar-A-Lago in the storm. When it was seen to avoid the storm, he played golf.
Unless someone he claims to love is shot, probably only Ivanka, he will do what he does best- nothing.
16
I am all in favor of gun restrictions but I have no basis for believing that would cut down on mass shootings. You can ban alcohol, drugs, sexual abuse, and all sorts of bad things but you cannot stop them from occurring. Look at the Ten Commandments: everything thou shalt not do was done with spades and still is.
2
@n1789 There are studies which contradict your view. Simply look at countries that have banned firearms after mass shootings. Places like Australia. Or in places where firearms are very restricted. No where near the level of gun violence as America. The one thing that separates the U.S. from all other developed countries is the level of gun ownership. This will continue until guns (which in and of themselves are not protected by the constitution) are extremely regulated or anyone who MIGHT commit mass murder or suicide is locked up (that idea would never get past the constitution). Any other ideas out there.....the country is all ears.
4
" no basis " ?
How about looking how virtually every other country dealt with the issue?
This or looking at the stats, or simply using common sense while trying to free yourself of this particuliar and irrational brand of gun fetish which seems to permeate american culture.
5
The only solution is gun confiscation. Then, those who wish to own guns for sport would be required to house them in gun clubs or equivalent places. The problem is the quid pro quo relationship $$$ between the Republican Party, the NRA and the gun manufacturers, this would no doubt lead to violence but at the end of the day I see no other solution.
2
Suppose manufacturers unleashed a deadly technology that caused so much mayhem, death and destruction. A technology that caused so much political, social and cultural division. A technology that tests the bounds of freedom. A technology out of the control. A technology that somehow allows the manufacturers to remain unaccountable and untouchable. A technology that begs the question: what is democratic government really for? Is it just a guise, cover and shield for the untouchable nihilists to wreak such havoc and suffering?
When will our representatives pull the trigger on the trigger makers?
9
@vole Be advised that "gun control" is a concept alien to U.S. jurisprudence. In the U.S., police forces have no duty to protect the average person. The U.S. Supreme Court so held in 1855 (South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 296 (1855)).
In the modern words of a U.S. Appeals Court decision: "But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution.”(Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982)).
This is “good law”, i.e., this decision has not been over-turned. This decision binds only Federal Courts in the Seventh Circuit. But other Courts may cite to Bowers. The bottom line: if we have no right to protection from the government, it follows that we are responsible for our own protection.
Victims of criminal violence can sue a police force. The suit will be dismissed, unless a State specifically creates a right to protection. Few states have done this.
1
Debating the effectiveness of background checks is like arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
The elephant in the room that spineless Republicans don’t dare discuss is the insanity of allowing legal access to assault-style semiautomatic weapons and accessories.
Until that changes, “thoughts and prayers” is going to continue to be the lame response to the inevitable carnage, with nothing to slow it down.
4
The Republicans are right; these deaths are a result of mental illness. It is the mental illness of our nation that we could keep the current policies in place and expect different results, that we could encourage a culture of violence and expect that all would realize it is just fantasy or games, and that we could elect government officials beholden to special interests and expect them to care for us just because they urge us to keep victims in our thoughts and prayers.
7
No amount of mass shootings will ever persuade Republican cowards to stand up to the NRA. Commonsense gun safety measures easily pass the Democratic controlled House, only to languish in the Senate, where "Massacre Mitch" dutifully does his masters' bidding in exchange for millions of in NRA campaign contributions to support his members' re-election.
The Second Amendment begins "A well regulated militia ...". Hence, the original intent of the Founding Fathers was to permit arms to be borne by those who are part of a well organized fighting force in order to protect the nation from British efforts to re-establish control over the newly independent colonies. The weapons authorized therein consist of a single shot flintlock musket, capable of firing 1 or at most 2 shots per minute.
Well, in 2019, we have the well organized militia which should be the ones entitled to bear arms. This well organized militia goes by various names- the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, US Marines Corps, US National Guard, et. al. There is no need for private citizens to possess weapons of war. There is no need for military style assault weapons or high capacity magazines in the home of average Americans.
Even a vast majority of NRA members support universal background checks, assault weapon bans, & a limit on magazine capacity. Proponents of gun safety must fight the NRA & its lackeys like McConnell at every turn. Only when they see gun safety as a winning political issue will anything change.
12
I don’t think Americans will ever do anything about gun violence. We see it as the cost of doing business for the liberty granted by the second amendment.
3
"Texas Shooting Brings New Urgency to Gun Debate in Congress"
Why would this mass shooting cause Mitch McConnell or anyone else in congress to move when others haven't. Unless one of these 'leaders' in congress personally knows someone shot they are not going to change their minds. And as was predicted before, it is almost a mathematical certainty that it will happen again.
2
There will be the usual rhetoric and finger pointing and maybe some bill may be presented, which will be totally toothless in solving the problem and in the end no one will support it and it will die in Congress or on Trump's desk and will be forgotten about.
4
The only solution will be when the Democrats win the Presidency, House and Senate. They may have to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices as well. Let's get to work.
6
@logic Your comment brings to mind a situation where the Progressive ideas of Wilson, and FDR would be at the forefront and our liberties and freedom would be on the wain.
@The SGM With respect, the framers of our Constitution didn't envision a weapon of proven mass destruction which recently killed 9 people and wounded 23 in literally 20 seconds. If such was their intent, can we now interpret the right to bear "arms" to include bazookas? Kind of an extreme example right? So is an AK-47.
1
There won't be very much change until people trust the Government to enact sensible reforms, which they don't now.
1
Even if thousands die from gun shots, Trump and Republicans will do nothing to stop gun violence. They are "owned" by the NRA who dictates what they want and what they want is more guns.
172
@Elizabeth Wong which is a result of their greed for #1 power and #2 money. That is their modus operendi and will remain so.
13
You are correct.
Our government is totally corrupt.
1
I listened to current Senator and former Governor Rick Scott of Florida yesterday on Meet the Press.
Predictably, he repeated the tired old platitude that ‘mental illness’ is behind these shootings and that it is ‘mental illness’ that must be screened for.
To that, I ask this question. Why are American men and boys more susceptible, proportionately, to ‘mental illness’ than, say, Canadian men and boys? British men and boys? French men and boys? Even Russian men and boys? In all of those countries, and many more, mass shootings are extremely rare.
I’ll ask the same question to those who claim it is violent video games that are the root cause of these types of shootings. Why are Canadians, Brits, the French and even Russians less susceptible to the effects of ‘violent video games?’ Surely that’s the question that must be answered. Can the answer possibly be that in these countries rigorous checks are in place to control who will buy a gun and that AK-style weapons of war cannot be owned?
And to anyone whose reply is the equally tired “Americans are inherently more free,” I ask this question. Free for what? Free for you, or your kids, to be shot at Walmart, the movie theater, a concert or nightclub? Or even worse, if that’s possible, at school?
Polls show that a majority of Americans want sensible restrictions on gun ownership. Next time you cast a ballot for anyone, ask yourself if the person you are voting for wants what you want. Or are they just taking money from the NRA.
478
@celia
Good comment, and helpful. Surely any candidates policy
toward the ownership (and selling) of guns and policies to counter climate change will play a major role in whom I vote for. Not promises...but serious proposals fully explained in detail. And no money from the NRA or affiliated groups!
40
@celia
Well, if it’s determined that violent video games are the cause of our mass shooting, I don’t care.
If they want my PlayStation, they’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands
11
What is different between us and the Canadians? Culture. We have a maybe unique culture of violence. Read our history. “Violence is as American as cherry pie.”
14
It's time that people who kill others bring a sense of urgency to those that spawned this society of killers and that parents, educators, politicians and leaders solved the root cause - which lies in the individual and not some inanimate object. They need to look at how they are raising a society that has turned to mass killing. Where are their voices and action? Blaming a gun instead of themselves for creating this monster. Though much easier, it doesn't solve the mess they have made.
Urgency is not the word I would use given the history here. Selective-Ignorance will prevail here, as usual. This is America after all the land fake truths that it's citizenry swallows, hook, line and sinker. This country is on the brink across the board.
36
Does it bring new urgency? Democrats already seemed to be treating the matter with urgency. And republicans are dug in, if Trump's behavior doesn't shame them then a few more killings won't either.
61
The inability of Congress to pass laws that will protect the citizens of the United States from gun violence will persist as long as the Republican Party maintains control of the Senate.
Moscowphile "Massacre Mitch" McConnell will continue to block any reasonable legislation that might prevent this slaughter, just as he is continuing to block legislation that would benefit our citizens' healthcare; work on fixing our infrastructure; defend the freedom and security of our elections; and countless other pieces of legislation collecting dust on his desk.
Our great (and, indeed, our only) hope lies in an across-the-board defeat of the Republican Party in the 2020 elections. Throw Donald Trump out; consign the Republicans to minority status in the Senate; and maintain the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives.
123
@Jimbo some timely passings would be great too.....
Lets see if the death toll from this hurricane just in the Bahamas is less than the 29 killed in mass shootings in Texas in one month. This is a monster storm and islanders have few if no places to shelter. I bet it will be. The comparison is apples to oranges, but the one is nature beyond our control and the other a manmade disaster.
4
What the GOP wants is to tinker around the edges. A death penalty for mass shooters? Many of them die, even intend to die, in their act of carnage. What difference does lying on the background check form if you assume you will die in your actions?
As to red flag, well it might be worth something, but many families of these shooters never saw it coming. Background checks requirements which exclude sales to family & friends leaves a hole big enough to drive a truck through. Who is a friend? Someone you met at a gun show last week? Someone you met over a beer last night & chatted about hunting with?
Who thinks that good old cousin Bob, whom you have known since you were a kid, might shoot up the Target some Saturday morning?
We need a ban on assault weapons and large magazines, solid background checks, licensing, red flags, registration. The right to own guns is not a license to kill. Like the right to free speech, it also cannot be unfettered.
161
@Anne-Marie Hislop
Perhaps we need to look into serious regulations on ammunition. Perhaps liability requirements, taxes, limits on available calibers, magazines, gun powder, etc.
Of course there will still be those who load their own but they still would have to buy the raw materials.
We regulate all manner of harmful products and materials. Guns should be no different.
6
"... has intensified pressure on congressional Republicans to take up gun safety legislation, giving fresh urgency to a debate ..."
The Times is kidding, right? What evidence is there that Republicans feel any sense of a need to act? They are doing the usual – uttering platitudes until the public's attention moves on.
78
I find it impossible to understand how police departments and fraternal and union organizations of police do not speak boldly against the proliferation of guns, especially military weapons, in the USA without background checks. As in this instance, they are the first line of defense and often suffer part of the consequences against wanton shooters.
67
Absurd! Now we need a new debate in Congress for gun control? Based on what, another shooting? The worst this nation needs is for Congress and Trump to be involved in debating how to control the sale and use of weapons. None of them are qualified. What they have done in previous decades is what created the problems we have toay. Look at the number of years we plead for stronger gun controls, print the same thing over and over in the papers, we have the same killings over, and over. No one in D.C. is trustworthy, that simple. Congress and courts are responsible for the deaths of every person who died from these meaningless killings. And do you think for one moment our liberal laws, upheld by the stupidity of the SCOTUS had anything to do with it. Pitiful.
3
Let me look into my crystal ball. OK, here's what I see happening regarding the "gun debate": absolutely nothing, nada, nix, niente. My crystal ball shows even more carnage in the future as Americans stockpile more guns.
161
If a bunch of children can get gunned down ( Sandy Hook) and all we can come up with is strengthening mental health access and background checks. There is no hope of change . I agree nada, nada, nada
23
If the heinous slaughter of little children didn’t “move” America to action, nothing will.
It is hopeless.
And now, thanks to military assault weapons, mass shootings are increasing to more than one a day in this country.
We all need to be prepared that in our lifetime a family member or friend is likely to be gunned down at work or in some public place.
“America the Beautiful”?
No longer.
15
If America wants to do something about assault rifle massacres they need to vote next year for senators who will follow through on banning owning such weapons of war. Set a period of amnesty for ownership during which the federal government buys them back and destroys them. Ownership after that period is over will result in serious legal consequences.
Between now and the 2020 elections the House can work on legislation to implement the buy back as well as the background checks that an overwhelming majority of Americans want.
Ultimately we need to find a way to run the political machinery of our country without being under control of special interest groups with money.
Just who does the “leadership” of this country serve? You the voter, but only if you vote.
38
if Democrats ban assault style weapons, what is preventing the next Republican president from reversing that ban via executive order or getting a Republican controlled Congress to overturn the legislation? They will most likely overturn Roe vs. Wade first chance they get.
4
ONLY vote for Candidates with F ratings by the NRA.
First question for every candidate...
Do you support banning assault weapons and large capacity magazine rounds?
8
It’s tragic and ironic.
While innocent people are being pelted with bullets from high powered machine guns, in shopping malls, on street corners, in churches and bars, just going about their daily lives, the whole nation is held hostage at the point of the gun lobby.
Their argument? We must honor and protect the right to own a gun, for some personal purpose of enjoyment, hunting, safety or other private right, while at the same time someone, deranged or not, angry, terrorist or part both, can go out and kill you.
That’s real nice! Thanks republicans and other gun right proponents, for thinking of everyone’s safety and peace of mind, while thinking mostly of your own desire to own, handle and sometimes use a fire arm.
35
@Andrew B
Who elected the “gun right proponents”?
5
Clearly America’s 18thC right to bear arms is more important to NRA-supporters than 21stC America’s right to go about their daily lives in peace and safety.
If nothing changed after Stoneman Douglas High and the subsequent impassioned pleas of surviving students, then I fear for you all - for every last one of you is vulnerable to a random nutbag with a semi-automatic.
Here in Australia we have had 3 mass shootings since 1996, with 2 of those by gun-licensed males slaughtering their own family.
It is possible for change, if Americans just have to have the will to vote out those enabling these draconian “Rights” to continue.
12
We somehow lost two Kennedys, Dr. King, and almost Reagan a few decades ago without lawmakers coming around to make any changes to constrain killing weapons, even though they continue to become targets. Why can’t they work any harder than “prayerful hopeful thoughts” when the situation becomes ever more dire? Lazy? Bought off? Terrified? Greedy? God has not saved us; the time for prayers is over.
Legislators and would-be leaders: it’s time to make some reasonable and sweeping changes to install fair but functional partial gun restrictions - NOW!
6
Ain't going to happen. There's an impenetrable barrier to all common sense measures, namely McConnell.
Do we Americans really know how many bills are languishing before the Senate since he became the Majority Leader?
Wikipedia has the answer. It's mind boggling...
129
The 2nd amendment gives the right to keep and bear arms for a well regulated militia. It does not prevent the government from banning certain types of weapons or implementing intense background checks. Congress could do it if they had the courage and common sense to do so.
The people of the United States of America have the right to live free of the fear from being gunned down while going about their daily activities. Congress has deemed the right to kill as being more important than our right to live, that is simply not acceptable. Lawmakers with this mindset, with no humanity in their hearts, and no common sense within their heads, must be voted out of office and replaced with ones that put life over guns.
24
@Canewielder
The 2nd Amendment does not grant individual Americans the right to bear arms of any kind.
4
Wishful thinking. All the innocent lives lost because of guns has no impact on the politicians desire to control guns. The only thing that might change a politicians inactivity on gun control is a threat to their own security by way of losing their seat or experiencing the horror of gun voilence against them or their families. Ego centric personalities are only concerned about others when it has a negative affect on their own welfare.
9
Agree. They have to feel threatened.
5
@Nick Australia
Their welfare is the gun lobby.
Is it just a matter of background check or simple good sense. Why would someone bye an automatic war machine gun ? For what purpose ?
17
@George Washington absolutely - it should not be possible to legally buy either an automatic or even semi-automatic. As you say - to what purpose?
9
Ask your Senators and House Rep (if you can get them to stop taking vacations, recesses and time away from their daily 2 hour fundraising schedule when the do grace us with their brief appearances in Washington DC).
2
Automatic weapons may not be bought nor possessed legally without a special federal license and may only be sold by those with similar licensees. Semi-automatics load reload automatically by cannot be fired automatically. Military assault weapons are not sold to civilians.
1