We were considering a lot of different options for our Midweek Question. But then Atlanta.... But then Boulder....
Once again we are awash in the bloody aftermath of mass shootings. Once again we see the comparisons between the United States and other countries —how much more we have this scourge, this wanton death. We are truly an exceptional nation, when measured along this gruesome metric.
There are of course numerous questions you could ask in the wake of yet another tragedy. They are the same questions you could have asked after the last, and you will ask after next one that invariably will come. With that in mind, our question this week is a question of a question.
What questions do we need to be asking around gun violence that might help and that we may not be asking?
This is one topic that leaves the world shaking their heads.
Most mass shootings were predictable and are committed by persons who should not have been able obtain a gun due to having mental illness or dangerous thoughts and behaviors.
We have too many loopholes in current laws set up to prevent this very thing from happening.
Question: Would campaign finance reform prevent these types of problems in our legislative bodies and can you think of what types of problems might result from eliminating or reducing lobby power?
I like the idea of gun banks, where personal guns are stored in lockers without ammunition. This is for people who do not have safes in the home or who have persons living in the home that may pose a danger if they were able to access a gun. You need to have ID to get your guns out and you choose who can access them. Mandatory in some cases; minors in the home with no safe storage, persons with mental illness/dementia, depression, etc.
This would be a free service through tax funds in each US county.
Why do so many of our children know more information, some erroneous, about firearms than they know about the miracle of life and how precious each life is.
Friends and I debated this issue for almost 2 hours with friends from Australia who remember the incident there that led to the Australian gun legislation. This was during the Obama years.
I have tried to make sense of what is happening for a while now. I grew up hunting a little bit, and my family owned guns. More than half a dozen. No semi automatics that I recall. I currently own two guns. A pump action shotgun and a bolt action rifle.
I have done hunter safety twice in my life where the same idea is taught: if you need more than 5 rounds to take your quarry, you probably shouldn’t be in the field hunting to begin with. In other words, spend more time training first.
I went and shot an AR-15 for the first time after the tragedy at Sandy Hook. What is not mentioned by the gun lobby, a dirty little secret, is: that type of weapon is super fun and easy to use and be effective with at the gun range. A ton of fun. Most folks feel that way after the experience.
I have tried to see what folks that defend the firearm of all stripes are trying to say. They would be the last line of defense against a tyrannical force looking to take over the country. The idea being their guns and willingness to use them against this type of invasion/hostile take over makes America safer. Easily refuted by what happened in Japan during WW2. We dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan rather than risk the ground invasion and its terrible prospects. Japan surrendered. Some version of that would happen here if such a terrible war were to break out again, this time on American soil.
Other advocates say they are in an arms race with whomsoever might come after them and their loved ones. Be it the police, a home intruder, or... you name it. Take away their access to all weaponry, and they are left at a disadvantage. They would take flame throwers, tanks, tanks, and any other weapon of war if you let them have them.
I sat around a table with gentlemen older than me who really like guns in a place where big D Democratic Party types are “libtards” etc. etc. they simply said, “ah, it’s just gonna happen.” (Meaning these tragedies) In that same person’s household, years later, my wife found my two year old son playing with an unaccounted for, fully loaded clip of live 9mm ammunition.
Frankly, this is clearly a man problem. Men need to start taking responsibility.
Why do men, when their youth, strength, and/or physical fitness fades get so scared that they feel the need to own a gun?
Why do men lose faith so quickly in their fellow Americans that they feel the need to arm themselves rather than reach out and build community?
Why do many of these gun owners seem more likely to be defeated by a run up some flights of stairs rather than any gun fight?
Why isn’t it glaringly obvious that these guns they purchase and maybe train with are pea shooters compared to any national army’s fire power which would rather carpet bomb these “defenders” into dust rather than bother to engage them in symmetrical warfare?
Why are we men such idiots at times?
Figure that out, and then maybe we will be getting somewhere?
Our children need to hear from their family members at an early age.
1. The United States Constitution needs to be talked about all the time, as we work, play, and around the dinner table, so as to keep the Constitution fresh in our and our children’s minds and remind us all what our forefathers fought and died for over the past 240 plus years. Amendment 2 of the Bill of Rights gives every American the right to bear arms to protect their families against violent adversaries who wish to cause harm to them or their home. It is important that our children hear and understand the Rights awarded to all Americans by the United States Constitution, and most importantly they need to know and understand the responsibilities that are put on one’s shoulder to bear when one decides to place a firearm in their hands. Those responsibilities are heavy to carry and by observing them one shows their respect to their family, friends, and to their society. If we use and respect our very special Rights awarded to us by the U. S. Constitution, all Americans can prosper.
2. Our children may be the young Americans that may understand the responsibilities of owning a firearm if their parents talk with their children and answer their many questions at an early age, removing any wrongful imaginary thoughts they may have in their inquisitive head. Parents, we also need to talk with our children about how wonderful and delicate life is. A bird, a bee, an ant, flower, rabbit, cow, tsetse fly, deer, dung beetle, elk, a human . . . life is dear and precious to all life forms and all life forms have a specific job to perform on Earth that benefits other life forms living on Earth, including humans. It is a valuable asset for our children to learn at an early age how important preserving all life forms are, and how, preserving life, is a very important responsibility of owning a firearm.
As retired military, I see as aspect that is all too common. During a time of war, people are all for being prepared. During a time of peace, they forget about this and preparation is thought of as a foolish thing that is not necessary. It is very strange how these swing to extremes instead of finding a comfortable middle ground. This same mentality is found with guns owned by civilians. In the tense times of COVID, even millions of liberals ran out to buy guns for protection.
I'm all for requiring safety training or minimal certification before a civilian is allowed to carry a weapon in public. I am even good with strict limitations on long guns in public (defined as anywhere not on your private property). The background check system is already getting better and I think it will take very little to refine it to a better system. My personal purchase of functional weapons at gun shows has still involved on site background checks, so I find no loophole, in my experience. Person to person sales or gifts could be a weak area to look at, but I think personal accountability is more the way to go.
Most responsible gun owners that carry invest in a form of insurance that will help them with legal assistance, should they be involved in a defensive shooting. If you take it seriously, you understand the appropriate use of force and the consequences of needing to account for every bullet you fire in public. While I understand this, I also see that there are many people out there without a clue. Ignorance is the danger. An ignorant soldier is a danger to himself and others. The same goes for a person with any deadly weapon in a public setting.
Not all "gun nuts" out there are a danger. Not all gun owners are responsible. Most have families and want to keep them safe. Safety is a good place to start. Respect also goes a long way on both sides of the table. If you're going to regulate and legislate something, then learn about it and talk the same language. If lawyers can write corporate law that can be several hundred pages and go into great detail of exact terms and conditions of every possible situation, then we can do this with weapons as well. Very few people are killed with an AR-15, or even all long guns combined in any given year. Like switch blade knives, they look scary to the uneducated and people react to their fears, often in irrational ways. We can do this, but we need to do it together. Differences between open carry and conceal carry can be a huge thing. Deal with real statistics and understand them from common ground. This shouldn't be so hard.
How is disallowing citizens to own an assault rifle any different from not allowing citizens to have anti-aircraft guns, nukes, biological weapons, tanks, and so on? Yeah, if you pass a background check and have a farm with a ton of feral hogs then maybe you need an assault rifle, but this is getting ridiculous. Also, why are we not making it illegal to own a gun without first passing a background check, a mental health screening, and a gun safety and marksmanship course? These are commonsense things.
The shooter in Boulder purchased his gun days after a court struck down a case that would have outlawed unlimited ammunition magazines, on the basis that to find otherwise would supersede state law.
Since at least 2018, Democrats have controlled the house, the senate and the governorship of Colorado. And there is no analog in the legislature for the filibuster, or requirement for a supermajority in order to pass legislation.
And yet, a man with a long gun (potentially open-carried, perfectly legally, with an unlimited magazine) just killed AT LEAST ten people in Colorado, including a peace officer.
A better question is why only the multiple murders getting attention? There have been 103 deaths by guns in Philadelphia PA as of 3/17 up 30% from this time last year. We the people need to get the illegal guns off the streets. We can't wait two years to get more Senate seats.
The US is not the only country where its citizens own weapons. And nobody should be questioning the right of reasonable gun owners to continue to own and operate their weapons responsibly. But as you point out, no other peaceful developed country on the planet suffers the level of per capita violence that we do.
So the big question that we need to ask is, what is different in the US whereby we have so many incidents of irresponsible, and seemingly random and unrelated, gun violence? Is there some condition endemic to our society that is at cause?
And as a corollary, I would love to ask why so many American citizens feel the need to carry their weapons with them on a daily basis. In no other place on Earth where I have been, and I have spent significant stretches of time in 2 dozen countries on 4 continents including both developed and developing nations, have I encountered everyday people carrying weapons.
I believe that until we get to the root of those two questions, we will not be able to make significant progress against this tide of near-daily massacres.
My question would be: What is being done to deal with the anger that is running rampant through America? Are there classes in place for early school-age kids (pre-school, kindergarten and 1-3 grades) to teach our children better ways of dealing with their anger than guns and murder?
I sense that Dan is looking for a little out of the box thinking with this week's question. On the surface it appears to be a constitutional right and its associated responsibilities issue. When do we as US citizens discuss with children the responsibilities that are associated with gun ownership?
What struck me in the context of gun control is Biddulph's recommendation of a right of passage class at the age of 14/15. This is common in Australia for both boys and girls. This is how he describes it for boys:
"Involve them where possible in a specific rite of passage programme with teachers around the age of 15, where boys talk through many topics of adult life – purpose, identity, emotional intelligence as well as how to treat the opposite sex. And where there are discussions about how to protect girls and women from rape by other boys or men."
(Obviously the topics for girls would be slightly different.)
In addition to civics classes this would be a great place to discuss responsibility regarding gun ownership.
It seems to me that we are always returning to the symptoms or end results of this problem and that of opioids, which is the senseless death that shatters us. So we grieve almost every day, and pray and send loving thoughts, and yet take no action. We keep going over the same possible solutions, but we rarely look at the source of the problems...the gun and opioid manufacturers. Every personal firearms company has its own version of an AR rifle. The free reign these companies have to profit off the deaths they make so easy to happen must be talked about and addressed. In my opinion, they must be stopped. Why put all kinds of limits on the gun buyers, when as many will say, the real criminals will get these guns anyway. Well, in my mind, the real criminals are the corporations selling them and the politicians who protect those corporations.
There is always debate specifically about firearms but never what is absolutely one of the root problems. And that is the United States ranking in a base level of quality of life. It actually kind of sucks. There are far too many people that spend their lives full of stress. We are worried about bills and medical care and a place to live and bankruptcy's. All we do is yell and scream at each other. Sure someone could say that they are stressed too and haven't shot anyone but that's not the point. You could get rid of all the guns and people are still going to be miserable. People bring up that countries with fewer guns have fewer deaths by God but if you look at those same countries they are happier than US citizens. As a whole. And that has been proven.
Gee. It's NOT the guns we should be worrying about! When it comes to auto accidents that have so many victims? It's not the cars that should be regulated. It's the NUTS behind the wheels. IMHO, with fire arms, the same thing applies. By the way, at least some of these modern "mass shootings" may have been "staged." Yeah. We now have THAT kind of government!
Coming from a suburb of Chicago, we are increasingly numb to the violence that has claimed so many innocent lives, lives of children or bystanders are more times than not the victims, not the intended target. We have had mass shooting after mass shooting, sometimes at the hands of off-duty cops shooting into crowds after feeling threatened. While the city is a gun-free zone, the penalties are rarely enforced and shooters are released before trial. When these offenders commit other crimes while out it becomes a talking point for a day. There needs to be a change in several areas that I can see: 1) Close the loopholes allowing for these illegal gun purchases in neighboring states (yes, I'm talking to you, Indiana!) pipelining straight to the criminals. 2) Mandate a minimum no-bargaining 15 years for every crime committed with a gun or similar consequence as a deterrent. 3) Address the economic wasteland on the South and West neighborhoods that affects everything from family structure to school funding. And overall for the sake of the entire land, establish a national mental health program to prevent the anguish that pushes these poor souls to thinking violence with a gun is the only way out. How is this thought even acceptable in a healthy organism? It isn't. We are so busy treating the loss of blood, we do not recognize the disease is in the guts.
When any human, and in many cases a young person, begins to feel so overwhelmed with life, that they are prone to rage and vengeful thoughts, what are the ways that all of us can be reminded, on a fairly consistent basis, to express their thoughts in a relatively safe space. The little that I've read about the "alleged" shooter in Colorado, suggests that he was unraveling. More than likely stigma, fear, embarrassment, and anger prevented him from seeking help. If he did seek help, was it of any benefit? Nicholas Cruz had evaluations in which he was already demonstrating severe illness (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/social-media-post-led-florida-agency-investigate-nikolas-cruz-2016-n849221), but in this country, and probably rightfully so, the tendency to hold someone against their will until they are truly stable, is diminishing. But how many mental health providers are putting together a timeline of struggle together in a coherent way and then presenting their findings to the appropriate authorities. can they even do that legally? How many of them, instead, overburdened with the multitude of abject illness, perform just brief checklists and get the long-standing suffering individual out the door quickly. How many of us would stomach "our RIGHTS" being limited like that, especially if the majority of disturbance is essentially related to destruction of property, cutting their own skin, or an occasional fist fight. "Who doesn't get mad once in a while?!" people will say. "Those mental health providers are a bunch of jokes". In some cases that last statement might be true, if the assessment essentially states "cry for help" and then leaves the onus on follow up care to the ill individual and there resistant family (or possibly exhausted family) members with the subsequent act being killing a number of people in a short period of time. Unfortunately, some "rights" are going to have to be redefined if we want to curb this senseless violence; either the rights to own and/or mass produce weapons where any limited person can take out so many in such a short period of time, or limiting, at least briefly, the rights of those whom clearly are not able to control their emotional well enough. We should be able to find some common ground that anyone whose peers state, "People chose not to mess with him because of his temper, people chose not to really talk to him because of all -- how he acted and things like that. So yeah, he was very alone" and whom was becoming "increasingly paranoid" for 7 years, and was "cold-cocking" people for unknown precipitants, should not have access to weapons.
The question to ask is why America votes for high office, nasty, unqualified, men and women. Anyone can become senator, congress person or president. This must change or America's slide will continue.
How about an extremely high tax on bullets to limit these killings? Congress could probably pass it through budget reconciliation. It wouldn't be interfering with owning the guns themselves, and they put all sorts of restrictions on our other rights, especially for the female half of the population.
You know how in training, cops are often tased with a taser to know what it feels like? Gun buyers should have to do the same with their guns before they can own them. That might reduce gun violence and mass shootings.
Why can't the the United States have similar gun laws to the UK or Japan? Why must our children and ordinary citizens be a weekly sacrifice to the gun culture? This has been going on for over 20 years, and it needs to STOP!
The question that should be asked is, "Who is profiting from the fear generated by gun violence?" That is how we begin to fix the issue (remove the profit and repace it with a monetary cost).
Don’t be mislead concerning background checks. Checks no matter how comprehensive do not cover mental health issues. They only cover criminal issues. There are laws (HHIPA) that prohibit access to any medical records. These must be changed first. There’s a lot of folks running around with a clean criminal record who are way off the chart.
Several people REALLY believe under the 2nd amendment they really have the right to guns. The questions we need to ask are about the 1st four words. A well regulated milita. Let’s start with why people have a problem with gun laws when the constitution’s 2nd amendment begins with a well regulated. Also are these people milita? If so what definition of milita do they classify themselves? Are they in the military ( not retired or former), are you an able bodied person that’s able to serve? That’s right. Under the constitution you may not own a firearm if you have bone Spurs. Or are you an individual that was asked to supplement our military service? If not the only other type of milita is an army raised to oppose our military by terrorism or rebellion. Therefore not who most people want to have a gun.
As I understand it the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow people to have guns so they could serve in "well regulated" militias because the federal government didn't have the resources for a sufficient military to protect the fledgling nation. It's clear there is a need to define what "arms" mean today and if the SCOTUS and all its originalist justices are called on to decide they would have to limit arms to muzzle loading pistols and rifles. They's also have to settle the well regulated militia question the same way.
No civilian should have an automatic weapon or semi automatic weapon EVER. It always seems to come down to economics and companies making money . Also language matters . The media has played a key role in perpetuating the “gun problem” . Headlines portray mass murderers especially when they are white men as victims - of mental illness- sex addiction - “a bad day”- Where did personal responsibility go in our society ?
One statistic needed for refuting the “guns in the hands of good guys making people safer” is to know how many times that has been the case, how many times it happened but the person wasn’t able to respond before a lot of people were killed and how much time law enforcement wastes trying to sort out the “good” shooters from criminals. Are there times a “good” shooter has shot someone other than the criminal?
How long will a Congress that is supposed to represent the American people continue to vote against the preferences of the people? How long will we put up with it? Alas, the solution is up to congress to pass election reform regulation. But can we count on that? Get rid of the filibuster. Pass election reform. Pass gun control regulation. While we can.
Because the will of the people is being thwarted by the machinations of the political system, could a popular vote by referendum be posible. As in local governments some questions are legally put to the electorate during a general election. I submit this idea in the spirit of thinking outside the box, which seems to be the only way to approach issues that have been attempted time and again ((without success/progress). Our democracy is STUCK, and we need SOMETHING to grease the gears (if that's what you do to gears!). We can go through the same facts of the problems of gun control, reach the same conclusions, and suffer the same inaction of past noble attempts. Let majority decide, as scary as that may be. Diane
I will be brief.....The question of gun control has been discussed for a generation but nothing has been done to get assault weapons banned nor background checks put into place for sales. Mental health issues complicate the situation more. Both need to be addressed without making them a political issue.
Gun violence has multifactorial causation. It will require both short term and long term National solutions that will require funding that Congress will have to pass. Gun rights advocates object to most of the short term solutions. Why not several time-limited (10 year? 20 year?) short term solutions while the long term solutions are implemented and allowed the time needed to have an impact?
When law enforcement officers, including park rangers, go through Post training they are put through extensive background checks. They go through a Psychological evaluation which includes home visits and interviews with family members. Why do agencies require this level of scrutiny before allowing officers to carry weapons but citizens can legally obtain and carry guns with minimal background checks? Shouldn’t members of the general population be held to similar standards in order to own and operate a firearm?
Here's a question: What is the connection between toxic gun culture and the fear-mongering propaganda of the NRA? My impression is that many gun owners have been scared into buying more and more guns by the NRA and their allies.
I agree with the right to bear arms. We should have the right to legally purchase an appropriate gun. Yet it seems to me there is no reason anyone other than active military should have any type of assault weapon. We also need to consider appropriate back round checks; past illegal activity; mental illness. And check out how other countries handle gun violence and what their success rate is in keeping mass shootings/murders under control. No matter what we do, it will never be a complete answer to the problem, yet I feel we need to do something rather than just sit and wait for the next tragedy.
Mass shootings are horrible and so is the death rate from criminal use of guns. That needs to be part of the conversation as well. My question is what has been done elsewhere? Does it work? Why or why not? How can we adapt what works to fit our own needs? How can we get beyond rehashing the same old arguments? How do we get people to accept the responsibility that goes with gun ownership? How do we keep gun violence from destroying neighborhoods as well as preventing mass shootings?
It seems the shooting happens, everyone pays attention and wants change, no change happens and then the issue disappears completely and the pressure for change disappears. Gun violence and changing gun laws needs to be at the top of every email you send Dan until change actually happens. We've grown numb. This carnage had become expected in our every day lives. Keep the pressure on Dan EVERY SINGLE DAY. Remind us every day that mass killings are not the norm and change needs must happen today. I have little hope because if Sandy Hook and the massacre of our babies wasn't enough what will it take? Please and thank you.
I would ask why some of our elected officials are so dependent on the pac money from the NRA that they can’t get re-elected without it and must refuse to consider common sense legislation for bringing this crisis under control
Since multiple repeated surveys have shown that a vast majority of Americans are in favor of banning assault & multi repeating weapons why hasn’t it happened? I thought we were a nation where the majority rules. Why can’t we have a National vote on this?
The only effective way to have meaningful gun laws to have ready access to the ballot box and electing individuals that support reasonable gun laws. Gun ownership needs to parallel vehicle ownership and licensing.
1. What’s an assault weapon? Wow! As I understand it, unless specifically licensed and permitted by Uncle Sammy, any fully automatic weapon (one pull on the trigger and it just keeps on spittin’ lead until empty or the barrel melts and it has a “bad day”) are “illegal” in all states and territories.
a. Is it a semi-automatic weapon a weapon that has that military vibe going, irregardless of being single, semi-auto, or full auto.
b. Is it a weapon with a big magazine; i.e. ten, twenty, thirty plus rounds?
c. Is it any semi-automatic weapon, pistol, shotgun, or rifle?
d. Is it anything used to assault a person?
2. How do you envision enforcement of a law removing specific guns from a person? I “heard on the internet” that we have more guns in circulation than citizens in the country. I heard it on the internet, so it must be true.
3. Is it the ammo or the gun? Should ammo be controlled? Kinda hard to “shoot” a gun without it. After awhile, you have to yell bang-bang, you’re dead. I’ld prefer that.
4. Should reloading supplies and tools be included in this ban?
5. Should any machine shop be monitored in case a gun is made there? Should anyone with “machine shop” types of equipment in the garage or shop get the stink-eye, just in case they go rogue and start cranking out assault weapons?
6. Should we monitor supplies used to make “assault weapons”?
7. Should we monitor all 3-D printers to ensure they don’t print off an “assault weapon”?
8. Are these killers catchable? If they really wanted to, couldn’t anything be weaponized and used to kill?
9. Why are these in incidents occurring? Is it part of human nature that some people are just incapable of operating within the norms of our society? Where does that thinking leave us?
10. Do you support a constitutional convention to change the 2nd Amendment, and would you vote positively to change our constitution? Remember, the ERA never made it, but prohibition did twice - once for, and once to repeal; sorry ladies, you lost out to alcohol.
11. Do we have a national definition on weapons to enforce, or “states righty” do we have at least fifty different definitions, all over the map? California and Texas, don’t feel like you are being singled out, every state is “doing” it.
12. Why are these discussions limited about “assault looking weapons”? Wouldn’t a semi-automatic pistol or shotgun be just as dangerous with a hacking large magazine? Is it just that the average person is equating looks with use?
13. Is hunting an acceptable method of predator and prey control? Is hunting even an acceptable argument on this issue? I admit that a semi-auto is nice to have hunting, but not required.
These are just a few of many questions that quickly spring to my mind, which is admittedly a bit twisted. My wondering mind didn’t reveal any easy answers. Often left me wondering where we stop, or if we could we stop with going the next step for a better solution, for whatever reason that makes your political bell ring. I would have to think long and hard about voting yes on any proposed solution, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and it is on a slippery slope.
I wonder why one of the first comments after mass shootings is, "What should the President be doing..." or "Why can't they enact more laws to..." IF, (and that is deliberately in all caps), IF the rules and laws we currently have were properly enforced about background checks, and reporting things you see when you see them instead of the "I don't want to get involved," attitude "but I'll certainly sell my story to the news after something horrible happens." When every man, woman and child are prepared to be responsible and act responsibly, and law enforcement actually enforces the laws equally and across the board, and instead of giving instant fame to the law breakers ... allow NO photographs (do we really need to see more dead bodies?) and don't give the names of the law breakers in any press. Instead publish information about the victims, report that they are just mothers, fathers, children, siblings and grandparents trying to live their lives. Give the victims voice, not the perpetrators. As a family, we own guns. But none of us have ever used them to break the law in any way. Do not punish law abiding citizens for others' misdeeds.
I have read through pages and pages of responses to Dan’s question. Rarely has anyone addressed the issue of mental instability and the need to “regulate guns” based on a database of mentally ill people. And yet nearly all human killings are done by people in some state of instability. Rage, revenge, robbery, and downright insanity all are driving factors among others. Who decides a potential killer is mentally unstable? Today’s world is harsh for many Americans. But rarely are those folks considered potential killers. So, yes, better mental health facilities would help many, many people. But I put forth the suggestion that that is not going to stop the killing. Stopping the availability of guns would help. But the internet would quickly take over in making guns available (and without any form of regulations). But we could end gun shows. End the sale of guns to anyone and everyone. Put the sellers out of business. Provide anger management in some form or other to our youth before the need for a gun seems like a solution. I have no answer to Dan’s question anymore then anyone else on this thread. Which is why the killing continues. . . . .
My question is this: how do we heal the lack of community and connection that allows sick, sad, hurting people to believe that killing is ok? Our country has been on a war footing somewhere in the world for most of our existence. Have we normalized selfishness and murder?
First, I also am tired of hearing the same things over & over with no action behind the words. As per usual these days, the lawmakers are not listening to their constituents. The question is: What do we need to do to get them to listen to the people by the people and for the people rather than making comments about Gun control equaling authoritarianism and calling mentally ill people (or any people) idiots? Is this really helpful? How about we focus on the fact that less military type weapons equals less deaths by said weapons? I know a lot of hunters and not a single one has ever fed themselves by using a weapon designed only for killing great numbers of people in a short period of time.
This must never become acceptable. I am just as horrified by recent incidents as I was by the first one, and every time we let this happen again unchecked we are killing all of them all over again.
One more thing we can ask - if you saw something, did you say something????
This is one topic that leaves the world shaking their heads.
Most mass shootings were predictable and are committed by persons who should not have been able obtain a gun due to having mental illness or dangerous thoughts and behaviors.
We have too many loopholes in current laws set up to prevent this very thing from happening.
Question: Would campaign finance reform prevent these types of problems in our legislative bodies and can you think of what types of problems might result from eliminating or reducing lobby power?
I like the idea of gun banks, where personal guns are stored in lockers without ammunition. This is for people who do not have safes in the home or who have persons living in the home that may pose a danger if they were able to access a gun. You need to have ID to get your guns out and you choose who can access them. Mandatory in some cases; minors in the home with no safe storage, persons with mental illness/dementia, depression, etc.
This would be a free service through tax funds in each US county.
Why do so many of our children know more information, some erroneous, about firearms than they know about the miracle of life and how precious each life is.
Friends and I debated this issue for almost 2 hours with friends from Australia who remember the incident there that led to the Australian gun legislation. This was during the Obama years.
I have tried to make sense of what is happening for a while now. I grew up hunting a little bit, and my family owned guns. More than half a dozen. No semi automatics that I recall. I currently own two guns. A pump action shotgun and a bolt action rifle.
I have done hunter safety twice in my life where the same idea is taught: if you need more than 5 rounds to take your quarry, you probably shouldn’t be in the field hunting to begin with. In other words, spend more time training first.
I went and shot an AR-15 for the first time after the tragedy at Sandy Hook. What is not mentioned by the gun lobby, a dirty little secret, is: that type of weapon is super fun and easy to use and be effective with at the gun range. A ton of fun. Most folks feel that way after the experience.
I have tried to see what folks that defend the firearm of all stripes are trying to say. They would be the last line of defense against a tyrannical force looking to take over the country. The idea being their guns and willingness to use them against this type of invasion/hostile take over makes America safer. Easily refuted by what happened in Japan during WW2. We dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan rather than risk the ground invasion and its terrible prospects. Japan surrendered. Some version of that would happen here if such a terrible war were to break out again, this time on American soil.
Other advocates say they are in an arms race with whomsoever might come after them and their loved ones. Be it the police, a home intruder, or... you name it. Take away their access to all weaponry, and they are left at a disadvantage. They would take flame throwers, tanks, tanks, and any other weapon of war if you let them have them.
I sat around a table with gentlemen older than me who really like guns in a place where big D Democratic Party types are “libtards” etc. etc. they simply said, “ah, it’s just gonna happen.” (Meaning these tragedies) In that same person’s household, years later, my wife found my two year old son playing with an unaccounted for, fully loaded clip of live 9mm ammunition.
Frankly, this is clearly a man problem. Men need to start taking responsibility.
Why do men, when their youth, strength, and/or physical fitness fades get so scared that they feel the need to own a gun?
Why do men lose faith so quickly in their fellow Americans that they feel the need to arm themselves rather than reach out and build community?
Why do many of these gun owners seem more likely to be defeated by a run up some flights of stairs rather than any gun fight?
Why isn’t it glaringly obvious that these guns they purchase and maybe train with are pea shooters compared to any national army’s fire power which would rather carpet bomb these “defenders” into dust rather than bother to engage them in symmetrical warfare?
Why are we men such idiots at times?
Figure that out, and then maybe we will be getting somewhere?
Our children need to hear from their family members at an early age.
1. The United States Constitution needs to be talked about all the time, as we work, play, and around the dinner table, so as to keep the Constitution fresh in our and our children’s minds and remind us all what our forefathers fought and died for over the past 240 plus years. Amendment 2 of the Bill of Rights gives every American the right to bear arms to protect their families against violent adversaries who wish to cause harm to them or their home. It is important that our children hear and understand the Rights awarded to all Americans by the United States Constitution, and most importantly they need to know and understand the responsibilities that are put on one’s shoulder to bear when one decides to place a firearm in their hands. Those responsibilities are heavy to carry and by observing them one shows their respect to their family, friends, and to their society. If we use and respect our very special Rights awarded to us by the U. S. Constitution, all Americans can prosper.
2. Our children may be the young Americans that may understand the responsibilities of owning a firearm if their parents talk with their children and answer their many questions at an early age, removing any wrongful imaginary thoughts they may have in their inquisitive head. Parents, we also need to talk with our children about how wonderful and delicate life is. A bird, a bee, an ant, flower, rabbit, cow, tsetse fly, deer, dung beetle, elk, a human . . . life is dear and precious to all life forms and all life forms have a specific job to perform on Earth that benefits other life forms living on Earth, including humans. It is a valuable asset for our children to learn at an early age how important preserving all life forms are, and how, preserving life, is a very important responsibility of owning a firearm.
As retired military, I see as aspect that is all too common. During a time of war, people are all for being prepared. During a time of peace, they forget about this and preparation is thought of as a foolish thing that is not necessary. It is very strange how these swing to extremes instead of finding a comfortable middle ground. This same mentality is found with guns owned by civilians. In the tense times of COVID, even millions of liberals ran out to buy guns for protection.
I'm all for requiring safety training or minimal certification before a civilian is allowed to carry a weapon in public. I am even good with strict limitations on long guns in public (defined as anywhere not on your private property). The background check system is already getting better and I think it will take very little to refine it to a better system. My personal purchase of functional weapons at gun shows has still involved on site background checks, so I find no loophole, in my experience. Person to person sales or gifts could be a weak area to look at, but I think personal accountability is more the way to go.
Most responsible gun owners that carry invest in a form of insurance that will help them with legal assistance, should they be involved in a defensive shooting. If you take it seriously, you understand the appropriate use of force and the consequences of needing to account for every bullet you fire in public. While I understand this, I also see that there are many people out there without a clue. Ignorance is the danger. An ignorant soldier is a danger to himself and others. The same goes for a person with any deadly weapon in a public setting.
Not all "gun nuts" out there are a danger. Not all gun owners are responsible. Most have families and want to keep them safe. Safety is a good place to start. Respect also goes a long way on both sides of the table. If you're going to regulate and legislate something, then learn about it and talk the same language. If lawyers can write corporate law that can be several hundred pages and go into great detail of exact terms and conditions of every possible situation, then we can do this with weapons as well. Very few people are killed with an AR-15, or even all long guns combined in any given year. Like switch blade knives, they look scary to the uneducated and people react to their fears, often in irrational ways. We can do this, but we need to do it together. Differences between open carry and conceal carry can be a huge thing. Deal with real statistics and understand them from common ground. This shouldn't be so hard.
How is disallowing citizens to own an assault rifle any different from not allowing citizens to have anti-aircraft guns, nukes, biological weapons, tanks, and so on? Yeah, if you pass a background check and have a farm with a ton of feral hogs then maybe you need an assault rifle, but this is getting ridiculous. Also, why are we not making it illegal to own a gun without first passing a background check, a mental health screening, and a gun safety and marksmanship course? These are commonsense things.
The shooter in Boulder purchased his gun days after a court struck down a case that would have outlawed unlimited ammunition magazines, on the basis that to find otherwise would supersede state law.
Since at least 2018, Democrats have controlled the house, the senate and the governorship of Colorado. And there is no analog in the legislature for the filibuster, or requirement for a supermajority in order to pass legislation.
And yet, a man with a long gun (potentially open-carried, perfectly legally, with an unlimited magazine) just killed AT LEAST ten people in Colorado, including a peace officer.
Why hasn’t the STATE changed the law?
A better question is why only the multiple murders getting attention? There have been 103 deaths by guns in Philadelphia PA as of 3/17 up 30% from this time last year. We the people need to get the illegal guns off the streets. We can't wait two years to get more Senate seats.
The US is not the only country where its citizens own weapons. And nobody should be questioning the right of reasonable gun owners to continue to own and operate their weapons responsibly. But as you point out, no other peaceful developed country on the planet suffers the level of per capita violence that we do.
So the big question that we need to ask is, what is different in the US whereby we have so many incidents of irresponsible, and seemingly random and unrelated, gun violence? Is there some condition endemic to our society that is at cause?
And as a corollary, I would love to ask why so many American citizens feel the need to carry their weapons with them on a daily basis. In no other place on Earth where I have been, and I have spent significant stretches of time in 2 dozen countries on 4 continents including both developed and developing nations, have I encountered everyday people carrying weapons.
I believe that until we get to the root of those two questions, we will not be able to make significant progress against this tide of near-daily massacres.
My question would be: What is being done to deal with the anger that is running rampant through America? Are there classes in place for early school-age kids (pre-school, kindergarten and 1-3 grades) to teach our children better ways of dealing with their anger than guns and murder?
I sense that Dan is looking for a little out of the box thinking with this week's question. On the surface it appears to be a constitutional right and its associated responsibilities issue. When do we as US citizens discuss with children the responsibilities that are associated with gun ownership?
Today I read an article in The Telegraph, a UK newspaper, regarding raising boys. The author is Steve Biddulph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/parenting/science-tells-us-raising-boys-affluent-could-spell-trouble/
What struck me in the context of gun control is Biddulph's recommendation of a right of passage class at the age of 14/15. This is common in Australia for both boys and girls. This is how he describes it for boys:
"Involve them where possible in a specific rite of passage programme with teachers around the age of 15, where boys talk through many topics of adult life – purpose, identity, emotional intelligence as well as how to treat the opposite sex. And where there are discussions about how to protect girls and women from rape by other boys or men."
(Obviously the topics for girls would be slightly different.)
In addition to civics classes this would be a great place to discuss responsibility regarding gun ownership.
It seems to me that we are always returning to the symptoms or end results of this problem and that of opioids, which is the senseless death that shatters us. So we grieve almost every day, and pray and send loving thoughts, and yet take no action. We keep going over the same possible solutions, but we rarely look at the source of the problems...the gun and opioid manufacturers. Every personal firearms company has its own version of an AR rifle. The free reign these companies have to profit off the deaths they make so easy to happen must be talked about and addressed. In my opinion, they must be stopped. Why put all kinds of limits on the gun buyers, when as many will say, the real criminals will get these guns anyway. Well, in my mind, the real criminals are the corporations selling them and the politicians who protect those corporations.
There is always debate specifically about firearms but never what is absolutely one of the root problems. And that is the United States ranking in a base level of quality of life. It actually kind of sucks. There are far too many people that spend their lives full of stress. We are worried about bills and medical care and a place to live and bankruptcy's. All we do is yell and scream at each other. Sure someone could say that they are stressed too and haven't shot anyone but that's not the point. You could get rid of all the guns and people are still going to be miserable. People bring up that countries with fewer guns have fewer deaths by God but if you look at those same countries they are happier than US citizens. As a whole. And that has been proven.
Gee. It's NOT the guns we should be worrying about! When it comes to auto accidents that have so many victims? It's not the cars that should be regulated. It's the NUTS behind the wheels. IMHO, with fire arms, the same thing applies. By the way, at least some of these modern "mass shootings" may have been "staged." Yeah. We now have THAT kind of government!
Coming from a suburb of Chicago, we are increasingly numb to the violence that has claimed so many innocent lives, lives of children or bystanders are more times than not the victims, not the intended target. We have had mass shooting after mass shooting, sometimes at the hands of off-duty cops shooting into crowds after feeling threatened. While the city is a gun-free zone, the penalties are rarely enforced and shooters are released before trial. When these offenders commit other crimes while out it becomes a talking point for a day. There needs to be a change in several areas that I can see: 1) Close the loopholes allowing for these illegal gun purchases in neighboring states (yes, I'm talking to you, Indiana!) pipelining straight to the criminals. 2) Mandate a minimum no-bargaining 15 years for every crime committed with a gun or similar consequence as a deterrent. 3) Address the economic wasteland on the South and West neighborhoods that affects everything from family structure to school funding. And overall for the sake of the entire land, establish a national mental health program to prevent the anguish that pushes these poor souls to thinking violence with a gun is the only way out. How is this thought even acceptable in a healthy organism? It isn't. We are so busy treating the loss of blood, we do not recognize the disease is in the guts.
When any human, and in many cases a young person, begins to feel so overwhelmed with life, that they are prone to rage and vengeful thoughts, what are the ways that all of us can be reminded, on a fairly consistent basis, to express their thoughts in a relatively safe space. The little that I've read about the "alleged" shooter in Colorado, suggests that he was unraveling. More than likely stigma, fear, embarrassment, and anger prevented him from seeking help. If he did seek help, was it of any benefit? Nicholas Cruz had evaluations in which he was already demonstrating severe illness (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/social-media-post-led-florida-agency-investigate-nikolas-cruz-2016-n849221), but in this country, and probably rightfully so, the tendency to hold someone against their will until they are truly stable, is diminishing. But how many mental health providers are putting together a timeline of struggle together in a coherent way and then presenting their findings to the appropriate authorities. can they even do that legally? How many of them, instead, overburdened with the multitude of abject illness, perform just brief checklists and get the long-standing suffering individual out the door quickly. How many of us would stomach "our RIGHTS" being limited like that, especially if the majority of disturbance is essentially related to destruction of property, cutting their own skin, or an occasional fist fight. "Who doesn't get mad once in a while?!" people will say. "Those mental health providers are a bunch of jokes". In some cases that last statement might be true, if the assessment essentially states "cry for help" and then leaves the onus on follow up care to the ill individual and there resistant family (or possibly exhausted family) members with the subsequent act being killing a number of people in a short period of time. Unfortunately, some "rights" are going to have to be redefined if we want to curb this senseless violence; either the rights to own and/or mass produce weapons where any limited person can take out so many in such a short period of time, or limiting, at least briefly, the rights of those whom clearly are not able to control their emotional well enough. We should be able to find some common ground that anyone whose peers state, "People chose not to mess with him because of his temper, people chose not to really talk to him because of all -- how he acted and things like that. So yeah, he was very alone" and whom was becoming "increasingly paranoid" for 7 years, and was "cold-cocking" people for unknown precipitants, should not have access to weapons.
The question to ask is why America votes for high office, nasty, unqualified, men and women. Anyone can become senator, congress person or president. This must change or America's slide will continue.
How about an extremely high tax on bullets to limit these killings? Congress could probably pass it through budget reconciliation. It wouldn't be interfering with owning the guns themselves, and they put all sorts of restrictions on our other rights, especially for the female half of the population.
Chris Rock used to say that each bullet should cost $10,000. That way, there would be no innocent bystanders or mass shootings.
You know how in training, cops are often tased with a taser to know what it feels like? Gun buyers should have to do the same with their guns before they can own them. That might reduce gun violence and mass shootings.
Why can't the the United States have similar gun laws to the UK or Japan? Why must our children and ordinary citizens be a weekly sacrifice to the gun culture? This has been going on for over 20 years, and it needs to STOP!
The question that should be asked is, "Who is profiting from the fear generated by gun violence?" That is how we begin to fix the issue (remove the profit and repace it with a monetary cost).
Is it possible to make changes to ammunition laws? Limit the amount of ammo you can buy?
Don’t be mislead concerning background checks. Checks no matter how comprehensive do not cover mental health issues. They only cover criminal issues. There are laws (HHIPA) that prohibit access to any medical records. These must be changed first. There’s a lot of folks running around with a clean criminal record who are way off the chart.
Several people REALLY believe under the 2nd amendment they really have the right to guns. The questions we need to ask are about the 1st four words. A well regulated milita. Let’s start with why people have a problem with gun laws when the constitution’s 2nd amendment begins with a well regulated. Also are these people milita? If so what definition of milita do they classify themselves? Are they in the military ( not retired or former), are you an able bodied person that’s able to serve? That’s right. Under the constitution you may not own a firearm if you have bone Spurs. Or are you an individual that was asked to supplement our military service? If not the only other type of milita is an army raised to oppose our military by terrorism or rebellion. Therefore not who most people want to have a gun.
As I understand it the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow people to have guns so they could serve in "well regulated" militias because the federal government didn't have the resources for a sufficient military to protect the fledgling nation. It's clear there is a need to define what "arms" mean today and if the SCOTUS and all its originalist justices are called on to decide they would have to limit arms to muzzle loading pistols and rifles. They's also have to settle the well regulated militia question the same way.
No civilian should have an automatic weapon or semi automatic weapon EVER. It always seems to come down to economics and companies making money . Also language matters . The media has played a key role in perpetuating the “gun problem” . Headlines portray mass murderers especially when they are white men as victims - of mental illness- sex addiction - “a bad day”- Where did personal responsibility go in our society ?
And of course
One statistic needed for refuting the “guns in the hands of good guys making people safer” is to know how many times that has been the case, how many times it happened but the person wasn’t able to respond before a lot of people were killed and how much time law enforcement wastes trying to sort out the “good” shooters from criminals. Are there times a “good” shooter has shot someone other than the criminal?
How long will a Congress that is supposed to represent the American people continue to vote against the preferences of the people? How long will we put up with it? Alas, the solution is up to congress to pass election reform regulation. But can we count on that? Get rid of the filibuster. Pass election reform. Pass gun control regulation. While we can.
Of course, the previous statement supposes an unfettered voting system!
Because the will of the people is being thwarted by the machinations of the political system, could a popular vote by referendum be posible. As in local governments some questions are legally put to the electorate during a general election. I submit this idea in the spirit of thinking outside the box, which seems to be the only way to approach issues that have been attempted time and again ((without success/progress). Our democracy is STUCK, and we need SOMETHING to grease the gears (if that's what you do to gears!). We can go through the same facts of the problems of gun control, reach the same conclusions, and suffer the same inaction of past noble attempts. Let majority decide, as scary as that may be. Diane
I will be brief.....The question of gun control has been discussed for a generation but nothing has been done to get assault weapons banned nor background checks put into place for sales. Mental health issues complicate the situation more. Both need to be addressed without making them a political issue.
Gun violence has multifactorial causation. It will require both short term and long term National solutions that will require funding that Congress will have to pass. Gun rights advocates object to most of the short term solutions. Why not several time-limited (10 year? 20 year?) short term solutions while the long term solutions are implemented and allowed the time needed to have an impact?
When law enforcement officers, including park rangers, go through Post training they are put through extensive background checks. They go through a Psychological evaluation which includes home visits and interviews with family members. Why do agencies require this level of scrutiny before allowing officers to carry weapons but citizens can legally obtain and carry guns with minimal background checks? Shouldn’t members of the general population be held to similar standards in order to own and operate a firearm?
Here's a question: What is the connection between toxic gun culture and the fear-mongering propaganda of the NRA? My impression is that many gun owners have been scared into buying more and more guns by the NRA and their allies.
I agree with the right to bear arms. We should have the right to legally purchase an appropriate gun. Yet it seems to me there is no reason anyone other than active military should have any type of assault weapon. We also need to consider appropriate back round checks; past illegal activity; mental illness. And check out how other countries handle gun violence and what their success rate is in keeping mass shootings/murders under control. No matter what we do, it will never be a complete answer to the problem, yet I feel we need to do something rather than just sit and wait for the next tragedy.
What, exactly are gun afficianados afraid of? Surely, fear or maybe paranoia must lie at the root of the need to possess a lethal tool.
The only use for a handgun is, actually, homicide. Do all of those who "need" their guns recognize and accept this?
Mass shootings are horrible and so is the death rate from criminal use of guns. That needs to be part of the conversation as well. My question is what has been done elsewhere? Does it work? Why or why not? How can we adapt what works to fit our own needs? How can we get beyond rehashing the same old arguments? How do we get people to accept the responsibility that goes with gun ownership? How do we keep gun violence from destroying neighborhoods as well as preventing mass shootings?
It seems the shooting happens, everyone pays attention and wants change, no change happens and then the issue disappears completely and the pressure for change disappears. Gun violence and changing gun laws needs to be at the top of every email you send Dan until change actually happens. We've grown numb. This carnage had become expected in our every day lives. Keep the pressure on Dan EVERY SINGLE DAY. Remind us every day that mass killings are not the norm and change needs must happen today. I have little hope because if Sandy Hook and the massacre of our babies wasn't enough what will it take? Please and thank you.
I would ask why some of our elected officials are so dependent on the pac money from the NRA that they can’t get re-elected without it and must refuse to consider common sense legislation for bringing this crisis under control
Since multiple repeated surveys have shown that a vast majority of Americans are in favor of banning assault & multi repeating weapons why hasn’t it happened? I thought we were a nation where the majority rules. Why can’t we have a National vote on this?
The only effective way to have meaningful gun laws to have ready access to the ballot box and electing individuals that support reasonable gun laws. Gun ownership needs to parallel vehicle ownership and licensing.
Are assault weapons used for hunting? If not then why should private citizens have them?
1. What’s an assault weapon? Wow! As I understand it, unless specifically licensed and permitted by Uncle Sammy, any fully automatic weapon (one pull on the trigger and it just keeps on spittin’ lead until empty or the barrel melts and it has a “bad day”) are “illegal” in all states and territories.
a. Is it a semi-automatic weapon a weapon that has that military vibe going, irregardless of being single, semi-auto, or full auto.
b. Is it a weapon with a big magazine; i.e. ten, twenty, thirty plus rounds?
c. Is it any semi-automatic weapon, pistol, shotgun, or rifle?
d. Is it anything used to assault a person?
2. How do you envision enforcement of a law removing specific guns from a person? I “heard on the internet” that we have more guns in circulation than citizens in the country. I heard it on the internet, so it must be true.
3. Is it the ammo or the gun? Should ammo be controlled? Kinda hard to “shoot” a gun without it. After awhile, you have to yell bang-bang, you’re dead. I’ld prefer that.
4. Should reloading supplies and tools be included in this ban?
5. Should any machine shop be monitored in case a gun is made there? Should anyone with “machine shop” types of equipment in the garage or shop get the stink-eye, just in case they go rogue and start cranking out assault weapons?
6. Should we monitor supplies used to make “assault weapons”?
7. Should we monitor all 3-D printers to ensure they don’t print off an “assault weapon”?
8. Are these killers catchable? If they really wanted to, couldn’t anything be weaponized and used to kill?
9. Why are these in incidents occurring? Is it part of human nature that some people are just incapable of operating within the norms of our society? Where does that thinking leave us?
10. Do you support a constitutional convention to change the 2nd Amendment, and would you vote positively to change our constitution? Remember, the ERA never made it, but prohibition did twice - once for, and once to repeal; sorry ladies, you lost out to alcohol.
11. Do we have a national definition on weapons to enforce, or “states righty” do we have at least fifty different definitions, all over the map? California and Texas, don’t feel like you are being singled out, every state is “doing” it.
12. Why are these discussions limited about “assault looking weapons”? Wouldn’t a semi-automatic pistol or shotgun be just as dangerous with a hacking large magazine? Is it just that the average person is equating looks with use?
13. Is hunting an acceptable method of predator and prey control? Is hunting even an acceptable argument on this issue? I admit that a semi-auto is nice to have hunting, but not required.
These are just a few of many questions that quickly spring to my mind, which is admittedly a bit twisted. My wondering mind didn’t reveal any easy answers. Often left me wondering where we stop, or if we could we stop with going the next step for a better solution, for whatever reason that makes your political bell ring. I would have to think long and hard about voting yes on any proposed solution, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and it is on a slippery slope.
I wonder why one of the first comments after mass shootings is, "What should the President be doing..." or "Why can't they enact more laws to..." IF, (and that is deliberately in all caps), IF the rules and laws we currently have were properly enforced about background checks, and reporting things you see when you see them instead of the "I don't want to get involved," attitude "but I'll certainly sell my story to the news after something horrible happens." When every man, woman and child are prepared to be responsible and act responsibly, and law enforcement actually enforces the laws equally and across the board, and instead of giving instant fame to the law breakers ... allow NO photographs (do we really need to see more dead bodies?) and don't give the names of the law breakers in any press. Instead publish information about the victims, report that they are just mothers, fathers, children, siblings and grandparents trying to live their lives. Give the victims voice, not the perpetrators. As a family, we own guns. But none of us have ever used them to break the law in any way. Do not punish law abiding citizens for others' misdeeds.
I have read through pages and pages of responses to Dan’s question. Rarely has anyone addressed the issue of mental instability and the need to “regulate guns” based on a database of mentally ill people. And yet nearly all human killings are done by people in some state of instability. Rage, revenge, robbery, and downright insanity all are driving factors among others. Who decides a potential killer is mentally unstable? Today’s world is harsh for many Americans. But rarely are those folks considered potential killers. So, yes, better mental health facilities would help many, many people. But I put forth the suggestion that that is not going to stop the killing. Stopping the availability of guns would help. But the internet would quickly take over in making guns available (and without any form of regulations). But we could end gun shows. End the sale of guns to anyone and everyone. Put the sellers out of business. Provide anger management in some form or other to our youth before the need for a gun seems like a solution. I have no answer to Dan’s question anymore then anyone else on this thread. Which is why the killing continues. . . . .
My question is "Why won't Congress enact laws that will protect the citizenry?"
Can we regulate gun ownership the way we regulate uteruses?
My question is this: how do we heal the lack of community and connection that allows sick, sad, hurting people to believe that killing is ok? Our country has been on a war footing somewhere in the world for most of our existence. Have we normalized selfishness and murder?
First, I also am tired of hearing the same things over & over with no action behind the words. As per usual these days, the lawmakers are not listening to their constituents. The question is: What do we need to do to get them to listen to the people by the people and for the people rather than making comments about Gun control equaling authoritarianism and calling mentally ill people (or any people) idiots? Is this really helpful? How about we focus on the fact that less military type weapons equals less deaths by said weapons? I know a lot of hunters and not a single one has ever fed themselves by using a weapon designed only for killing great numbers of people in a short period of time.
This must never become acceptable. I am just as horrified by recent incidents as I was by the first one, and every time we let this happen again unchecked we are killing all of them all over again.
One more thing we can ask - if you saw something, did you say something????