There will be no catastrophe so ghastly that America will reform it's gun laws

[Borstalboy]

Brilliant, painful essay

[fingerlakessinger]

This essay is absolutely terrifying. Simply because of the fact that we really do value the Second Amendment (which most pro-gun fanatics misuse anyway) more than lives.

[madbrian]

When Newtown changed nothing, I gave up on any real progress happening. Despite the fact that most Americans favor reasonable gun control, we're still willing to vote for politicians from both parties who live in fear of the NRA.

[Jane2]

Those of you who don't live in NYC, may not hear on your local news almost EVERY single day, that there was at least one shooting the night before. it's become routine. Nothing will ever be done.

[PalJoey]

America will reform its gun laws when WE persuade THEM that the Second Amendment is not as important as the First Amendment.

We have a lot of work to do. We have to convince them to repeal or amend one of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights. This is an obstacle that faces no other gun-control advocates anywhere in the world. Only we have an amendment to our Constitution making the right to own firearms equal to the freedoms of speech, assembly and religion.

The first thing that has to happen is that someone has to propose a Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, repealing the Second Amendment and rephrasing it. Then it needs 2/3 of the Senate and 2/3 of the House.

Why no Democratic politician has started this process seriously yet is astonishing to me.

[madbrian]

PJ, you're proposing a radical change, one that I would totally support. However, there are numerous substantial changes that most Americas, even most gun owners support. But we've settled for politicians who cower at the NRA.

[Jane2]

This makes me sick. Tons of people are walking around the city armed with a gun as if it's their wallet. Shootings every day. Innocent people dying. And nothing is done because politicians are afraid of a lobby?

I"m so sick of this government.

[HorseTears]

I get it - these mass shootings put us all on edge. Do I personally support tougher restrictions on gun ownership in this country? Of course. And I certainly don't think there is any legitimate reason for a private citizen to own a semi automatic weapon. But, does anyone really think tougher gun laws are going to prevent random acts of mass violence like the Santa Barbara shootings? When a deranged person is hell bent on causing violence to others, I really don't think an act of Congress is going to prevent someone that determined to kill. Not in a country in which there are already millions of guns in the homes of private citizens.

Anyway, at the end of the day, the majority of murder victims in this country are not innocent white upper middle class people gunned down in mass shootings in normally idyllic settings like Santa Barbara. As horrifying as these types of events are, they are isolated incidents of random violence committed by mentally ill or deranged people. I think it's ridiculous to allow 24 hour news cycles to convince you these events are happening practically everyday.

Rather, the majority of homicide victims in the US are victims of street violence in inner city neighborhoods where there IS actually a pattern. And a depressingly disproportionate number of those killed are young, black men. And, unless "gun control" also includes some kind of genius program to capture most of the guns already on the street, that will continue to be the case. Is gun control a part of the puzzle? Of course. But it's only part. This issue is largely a socio-economic one. Where there is abject poverty, alarming inequality, poor education and social injustice, there will continue to be young men turning to violence to survive.

Bloomberg is now pledging to spend 10s of millions of his own money over the next few years battling the NRA's messages. While I certainly don't object to that, I think his money would be much better spent in investing in under-served, forgotten ghettos and inner city neighborhoods. But that would cost far too much and would be much more complicated than this simple "guns bad" "ban guns" stuff that we can all pat ourselves on the backs for. At the end of the day, violent crime is actually at historic lows in the US -- the lowest violent crime rates since the 1960s, but if we want to reduce homicide rates further, we're going to have to consider the root causes of these crimes.

[candydog2]

It always strikes me as odd that people always use the defence that "banning guns will not prevent gun crime" because "criminals will always find a way to get them". Look at other countries such as the UK, Canada or Australia: the evidence to the contrary is OVERWHELMING.

Banning guns will help to stamp out one of the worst things: GUN CULTURE. We need to ban guns so that they are no longer a part of people's daily lives. What kind of civilised country has citizens who need to walk around with a personal death machine in their pocket in order to "feel safe"?

Growing up in the UK, I never came in contact with guns. Ever. My parents didn't own one, my friends' parents didn't own one. No one I knew owned one. The thought of owning a gun in the UK to the average person on the street is ridiculous. Do shootings ever happen in the UK? Yes. Is it anywhere near the scale of what happens in the US? NO!

And I hate people referring to the constitution. Many laws have been rewritten in the years since in order to adjust to the times. Don't get me wrong, I loved living in the US, but to me the fact that the average person could go out and buy a gun was just crazy.

I also hate the "well knives can kill, why not ban them?" argument. A knife is not a projectile. You can threaten someone with a knife, maybe hold up a store or something, but you can't just walk into crowded room and go on a major killing spree as knives require force behind them. If someone pulls a knife on you, you can still run, you can still fight. And stab victims also have a higher chance of survival. If someone pulls a gun on you and decides to kill you that's it. Game over. One slight finger movement and anyone they wish to kill is dead in an instant.

Does the media make it seem like gun crime is more frequent then it is? Probably yes. I'm glad they do. I hope that they continue to exaggerate these occurrences. Maybe scaring the crap out of people will eventually make people see sense.

It is said that "guns don't kill people. People kill people". That's true, but guns make it far too easy.

[paradox_error]

"But, does anyone really think tougher gun laws are going to prevent random acts of mass violence like the Santa Barbara shootings? When a deranged person is hell bent on causing violence to others, I really don't think an act of Congress is going to prevent someone that determined to kill."

Except the experience of Australia says otherwise. The Port Arthur massacre was gruesome enough to make a right-wing Prime Minister, supported by our own gun lobby, stare them down and pass comprehensive gun control, including a massive gun buy-back. We had a strong gun culture, and in the 17 years preceding the massacre at least one mass shooting per year. Since gun control passed in 1997, we have had none...

[Liza's Headband]

"Why no Democratic politician has started this process seriously yet is astonishing to me."

Because MANY Democratic politicians are supported by pro-firearm organizations and, believe it or not, there are many Democrats (mostly southern) who fiercely believe in the second amendment. The corrupt, greedy pigs of Washington D.C. need votes to carry out their cronyism, so they propose smaller measures that might look good to the public but will not get them in hot water with the pro-gun lobby... and then count on the jackass Republicans to block it.

[ErikJ972]

Horsetears...if you look at every other country that has passed tough gun laws you'll find those predictions aren't really true.
Will guns disappear in inner cities overnight? Of course not. But as access is limited, guns become harder to get and that will effect the supply on the street.
I live in Jersey City and work in a high school here. It's shocking how easy a kid can get a gun. And the guns here come from out of state. States with lax gun laws. Easy access to guns plus high poverty (and the poverty rate in NJ is at a 50 year high) is a recepe for disaster.
And it is a national disaster. I've lost count of how many student funerals I've had to sit through. Our how many kids I've had in my office with PTSD from gun violence. Honestly I would say about 80% of the staff and students of my school are walking around with PTSD.
I know sometimes it seems hopeless but PJ is right We have to keep making noise and holding politicians accountable. And not just on gun control. Poverty is the other piece of this puzzle no one really talks about. This country needs to take a serious look at it's poverty problem.
Something has to change. I don't know how many more funerals I can take.

[Jane2]

I'm tired of hearing that if a person is hellbent, etc etc. and that gun laws won't help. Yes they will. Don't compare the ability to stand still and murder lots of people with a gun, to running around stabbing people with a knife, or strangling them, or whatever other less efficient way they choose to mass murder.

Forget mass murder for a minute. I repeat that a VERY LARGE number of people in the city are casually walking around with guns on them and when the mood suits them, they just as casually shoot someone. It's no longer a random freak occurrence. It's a way of life. Wake up people.

[PalJoey]

Beware of getting stuck in the "Banning guns will not prevent crime" quicksand.

There are actually two separate problems that get mushed together here: the first is that there are too many guns manufactured and sold and owned without regulation. This has happened here because the NRA has become a wing of the munitions industry, which wasn't the case when it was founded. And the contemporary NRA has twisted the meaning of the Second Amendment to justify the possession of any and all weapons, which obviously the Founders never could have imagined.

So if we want there to be fewer weapons, the way Paradox says they did in Australia, we have to all be very be honest and admit that, yes, we DO want to amend the Constitution. Yes, we DO want to remove one tenth of the Bill of Rights. And then we have to make a case for why that is the right thing to do.

We have to prepare for them to say "How would you feel if we repealed the First Amendment and took away your freedom of speech?" Because to them, all ten of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are equally sacrosanct. We have to "get" this and be prepared to combat the inevitable "slippery-slope" arguments.

The second issue is deeper and more complex: Why are there so many killings? Why is there so much violence, both among people facing poverty and in the (mostly white) school shootings? These questions involve so many deeper issues of race, poverty, education, opportunity, mental health, drugs (both illegal and prescribed) and the overall culture that lumping the two questions together only serves to make the issue of gun control feel overwhelming.

So first thing first: If you want to control the number of weapons in America, start a movement to develop a Twenty-Eight Amendment to the Constitution.

Suggestions start here: How would you want this now-ambiguous eighteenth-century prose re-worded? There are basically two different version existing, which differ in terms of punctuation and capitalization:

The version passed by Congress and preserved in the National Archives:

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.

And the version ratified by the states and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, who was then the Secretary of State:

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.

[Jane2]

" Why are the so many killings? Why is there so much violence, both among people facing poverty and in the (mostly white) school shootings? "

My answer to that is mental illness. There will always be mental illness. It can't be outlawed nor stopped. It will go on forever. So, if someone wants to kill as a result of mental illness, at least prevent them from using guns.

[PalJoey]

So how do you propose amending the Constitution?

[Jane2]

I agree with everything you said about that. I was only answering a question you asked.

[Liza's Headband]

That's BS, Jane. No.. you cannot "prevent" mental illness but you can reform the system to open up communication between agencies, to better educate and inform law enforcement, and to lax certain privacy rules and detainment regulations for the better of public safety.

The new default argument is "we need to fix mental health!" but to the government that just means throwing more money at the problem, or gathering a bunch of self-righteous psychologists with personal agendas in a room to make a 'recommendation.' NO ONE ACTUALLY WANTS REFORM... THEY JUST WANT TO TALK AND TALK AND TALK. AND THEN RAISE MONEY WITH THAT TALK TO STAY IN D.C. FOR ANOTHER FIFTY YEARS.

The government is corrupt. We, the people, need to speak up and demand reform. I f*cking hate D.C.

[Jane2]

"That's BS, Jane. No.. you cannot "prevent" mental illness but you can reform the system to open up communication between agencies, to better educate and inform law enforcement, and to lax certain privacy rules and detainment regulations for the better of public safety. "

Your above statement is just so much bull$****ty double-talk. Do you even know what you're talking about?

And clarify to you and PJ - I've already stated several times on this topic-I AM AGAINST GUNS. TOTALLY. I SAID MENTAL ILLNESS IS A PROBLEM THAT CAN'T BE SOLVED BUT AT LEAST PREVENT THEM. ANYONE- FROM GETTING GUNS.

[Jane2]

LH, you seem to think that all mentally ill people are registered with a doctor, or who are receiving treatment, or that are known to the public in any capacity. Or are even known to their parents. You can't regulate or open up communications to something unknown.

[Kad]

The thing is, most of these mass killers TELL people they are going to do what they do. They write lengthy manifestos. They make videos. They literally tell people, often to their faces, what they are going to do.

And then... oh, they do it.

They don't suddenly snap, yank the rifle off the wall, and go on a spree.

They're very premeditated and often meticulously planned.

But for some reason, no one listens. Or if they're reported, they get disregarded. No one pays attention to the warnings or takes them seriously, despite the fact that, time after time, a massacre could have been averted and lives could've been saved.

The access to weapons is just icing on the cake.

[PalJoey]

So let's stop talking, talking, talking (to quote Dory Previn) and re-word the Second Amendment.

I'll start it out by adding the words "no longer," someone else continue it or finish it. (JUST like in the musical 1776!)

TWENTY-EIGHTH AMENDMENT: The Second Amendment shall be reworded to state: A well-regulated militia NO LONGER being necessary to the security of a free state...

[FindingNamo]

After the most recent massacre (as of May 31) in California and after watching The Normal Heart together, my dear, sweet boyfriend said we need a sort of ACT UP response to the terrible gun problem in the US. We need loud protests and disruptions of business as usual.

I told him the thing back then was, none of the authority and establishment figures we were protesting actually had the capability to shoot AIDS at us. Now we've got these weird open gun-toting gatherings happening in the public sphere and even a mellow anti-gun culture protest would likely become a die-in.

[PalJoey]

Okay, I'll finish it.

A well-regulated militia NO LONGER being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall henceforth be considered a privilege and no longer a right. This privilege shall be limited to licensed possession, ownership, carrying and use of small firearms including revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, but excluding assault rifles, submachine guns and light machine guns. Also excluded from the civilian privilege shall be heavy machine guns; hand-held grenade launchers; portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns; recoilless rifles; portable launchers of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missile systems.

[Taryn]

My answer to that is mental illness. There will always be mental illness. It can't be outlawed nor stopped. It will go on forever. So, if someone wants to kill as a result of mental illness, at least prevent them from using guns.

The mentally ill have a lower rate of violence than the mentally healthy.

[Mister Matt]

To me, the biggest problem seems to be that Congress refuses to admit that our gun laws really have nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The hypocrisy already exists that certain weapons ARE illegal to own privately.