I am one of those terrible liberals who has long-since given up on gun control and mass shootings. The pro-gun sentiment in America—even if it's not a majority—is far too strong to permit any meaningful firearm legislation. Combine that with a pro-gun Supreme Court and I'm unable to see even the slim possibility of any serious regulation in the near or medium-term future. I've never been interested in pie-in-the-sky activism, which is why I don't write much about gun control and don't even think very highly of other liberals wasting their time on it.
But short of serious gun control, are there ways to rein in mass shootings, especially in schools? Yes, but they're minimally useful and all of them are fraught with problems. In this case, it's us liberals who (rightfully) resist conservative proposals because of our concerns over constitutional rights.
So that's my counsel of despair on mass shootings. For the record, though, my own personal proposal for gun regulation is to ban civilian ownership and use of (a) semi-automatic weapons and (b) magazines with a capacity greater than six rounds. This would still permit anyone to own not just a gun, but a genuinely useful gun that can kill people and animals just as well as today's weapons. The only difference is that they're inherently slower unless you're very highly trained. Permitted guns would include things like bolt-action rifles, shotguns, single-action revolvers, and so forth. The gun experts can work out the details, but basically all legal guns would require a separate human action to load a round into the chamber before firing. This wouldn't end mass shootings, but it would cut down the death toll considerably. At the same time, hunters could still hunt and suburban parents could still put guns under their pillows for self defense.
Needless to say, this won't happen. And even if it did, can you imagine how long it would take to confiscate 300 million semi-automatic firearms? The mind reels.
POSTSCRIPT: One of the things I hate most about American gun worship is that it can be kept going only by a campaign of relentless fear about crime. NRA pamphlets and PR campaigns are bursting at the seams with images and statistics designed to convince urban dads that they need plenty of guns along with constant vigilance to keep their families safe from the thugs who stalk our streets and the protesters who threaten to burn our cities down.
Life could be much more pleasant for all us—and less dangerous for many of us—if everyone could get it through their heads that America is a far, far safer place than it was 30 years ago. There's simply no need for the kind of fear that was at least moderately justified back in the '70s and '80s.
Unfortunately, there's a powerful lobby whose very existence depends on making sure everyone believes just the opposite. And they have a media megaphone in the form of Fox News that makes sure their message is spread relentlessly.
In a nutshell, I hate guns for much more than the actual damage they do on their own. But that doesn't change the fact that I can't see any effective way to change things.
"One of the things I hate most about American gun worship is that it can be kept going only by a campaign of relentless fear about crime. NRA pamphlets and PR campaigns are bursting at the seams with images and statistics designed to convince
...
Unfortunately, there's a powerful lobby whose very existence depends on making sure everyone believes just the opposite. And they have a media megaphone in the form of ...
"
It cuts both ways of course.
How about a deal whereby the right admit that crime is no longer at 70s levels, and the left admits that racism and misogyny are no longer at 50s levels? And that therefore neither require a constant stream of scare stories and exaggeration?
And if you're unwilling to accept such a deal because reasons, well, now you understand why the other side behaves the way they do.
And why some of us are so irritated with both sides.
You mean 80's levels.
+1
Who signs that deal for ‘the left’? Who signs for ‘the right’? Even among those who agree on the facts, there is a wider range of opinion than just two sides.
Yep.
I'm so ashamed to be a part of this sick, idiotic country!
I’ve given up on trusting police accounts on anything:
>>She came back out while on her phone, she heard someone yell, ‘He has a gun!’, she saw him jump the fence and that he had a gun, so she ran back inside,” removing the rock when she did, Considine said.
He continued: “We did verify she closed the door. The door did not lock. We know that much and now investigators are looking into why it did not lock.”
San Antonio attorney Don Flanery told the San Antonio Express-News that the Robb Elementary School employee, whom he’s not naming, closed the door shut after realizing that a gunman was on the loose.
“She saw the wreck,” Flanary told the newspaper. “She ran back inside to get her phone to report the accident. She came back out while on the phone with 911. The men at the funeral home yelled, ‘He has a gun!’ She saw him jump the fence, and he had a gun so she ran back inside.
“She kicked the rock away when she went back in. She remembers pulling the door closed while telling 911 that he was shooting. She thought the door would lock because that door is always supposed to be locked.”
Flavory told the newspaper that the employee had initially propped open the door to carry food from a car to the classroom.<<
https://www.wafb.com/2022/05/31/texas-police-teacher-closed-propped-open-door-before-attack/
The only reason that this has come out is that the teacher is pushing back on the phony police story. I’m not sure I believe that the door didn’t lock. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if we later learn the gunman entered another way. It’s my understanding that the police are no longer cooperating with the investigation. That doesn’t surprise me either.
We shouldn't focus on every little detail of everyone's accounts of what happened. During a scary crisis with many things happening quickly there are bound to be different stories that have to be reconciled with careful police work. They call it the "fog of war," which I think is an apt description. There lies the problem. The police obviously did not follow established protocol or their own training, and then that was compounded by clueless and cowardly leadership. It is hard to imagine this same outfit can conduct a thorough and illuminating investigation of what happened. We have to hope that the state and/or federal investigations can find out what really happened.
Liberals should follow the anti-abortion mob's strategy. The initial goal should not be to 'control guns', but to convince five Supreme Court justices that Scalia's reasons for decision in Heller were flawed, and Stevens' were correct. Once it has been established that there is in fact no constitutional right for individuals to bear arms, states can resume making sensible laws regulating the use and ownership of guns.
This is obviously not going to happen with the current bench, but Alito and Thomas will almost certainly be replaced within the next 10-15 years. Accelerating levels of gun violence will create pressure for change, and the Trump-appointed judges are possibly less wedded to keeping Heller than they were to reversing Roe.
The problem there is that the Second Amendment is actually in the Constituion. js
At no point does this post suggest overturning the Second Amendment.
It's not time to give up.
There are no short term solutions, but it took more then a generation to turn us into the gun-soaked swamp we are today. It will take another generation of concerted effort to fix it.
Don't give up.
Interesting article here about gun control in early US history: https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364
Apparently a number of measures were not particularly controversial. Given how ridiculously vague the Second Amendment is*, I would have thought the courts would continue to defer to elected representatives in almost all matters of regulation of weapons.
*What is ‘well-regulated’? What is included and what excluded in ‘arms’?
Did you read that thing? It wouldn't have passed muster in AP History.
"NRA pamphlets and PR campaigns are bursting at the seams with images and statistics designed to convince urban dads that they need plenty of guns along with constant vigilance to keep their families safe from the thugs who stalk our streets and the protesters who threaten to burn our cities down."
Brown people, Jews, and hairy-legged women.
https://boingboing.net/images/NR-F8_PERILFINAL.pdf
Haha. Kevin Drum referred to himself as a liberal.
At best, he's a Rockefeller Republiqan with a curiosity about the Bernie Left's reinvigoration & reimagining of Lestermaddoxian Democrat policy. Guess that explains why KD favored his fellow Adult Republiqan Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 primary.
So, here's what we do.
First, we start a giant charity appeal to raise money and buy as many guns -- as many assault weapons -- as possible.
Then, we give those guns to Black men across America.
Then, we support those same Black men as they open carry their AR-15s into WalMart every Saturday and Sunday. Also on small town high streets in the South and Midwest. To Cracker Barrell and Hobby Lobby and Denny's.
Then we post photos of all those assault weapon-toting Black men on every social media channel we can think of.
Our national enthusiasm for an absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment would wane quite quickly, I suspect.