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

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

"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...

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.

Updated On: 5/31/14 at 09:02 AM

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.

---

Updated On: 5/31/14 at 09:47 AM

So how do you propose amending the Constitution?

---

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.

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.

---

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...

---

Updated On: 5/31/14 at 11:01 AM

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.

---