Danny Cardwell's picture

    Welcome To #Amurdica

    When it comes mass shootings, the gun is the tool of the coward. Their individual weaknesses are over compensated for by hatred and semiautomatic weapons. A profound lack of courage is at the center of these attacks. For some, it's easier to shoot innocent people than it is to address the unfulfilled areas of their lives. They often leave manifestos behind detailing their desire for cultural relevance. These perpetrators are often the products of a culture obsessed with fame and instant gratification. The socioeconomic factors facing our country must be addressed, but we have to accept the fact that some people don't value life. There's not an economic metric we could improve that can make another person's life valuable to someone who's decided it's worthless. 

    For years, I incorrectly thought the greatest danger associated with hate TV and radio was the habitual misinformation that's made political dialogue almost impossible. I've been forced to admit my mistake. The greatest danger this medium has given us is hatred as a socially acceptable virtue. The vitriol found in the comments sections of political websites and blogs is a reflection of what passes for cogent arguments. This cycle keeps repeating itself. In order to get ratings: the pundit class makes hyperbolic claims that play to the fears of their listeners. In order to gain or maintain a national platform elected officials and candidates frequent these shows- thus adding legitimacy to their animus . This cycle has spiraled out of control. The need to be more outrageous and outlandish than the competition never ends. I'm not blaming the spike in mass shooting on radio and television alone, but I won't deny the reality that there are media figures who have manipulated the fears of others for personal gain with no regard for any potential consequences of their rhetoric. 

    We have a generation of young men who grew up playing video games where the simulated images of death are just as real as any dash cam footage. These same men have been bombarded with movies and music that glorify killing. Now, combine all of these underlying factors with easy access to guns, and a hatred for "others" that's validated by their source of news. It's a wonder we don't have more mass shootings. The genius of right-wing media is how they have walled off a segment of our country from any information that challenges their agenda. When almost 50% of the country trusts the guy who hooked up their router more than the scientists and engineers who developed the technology there's a problem.

    (5×3=15) isn't controversial because arguing its validity makes you look like an idiot. Yet, Conservative media outlets consistently refute factually accurate claims. Ignorance has at least two forms: unknown and unchecked. As a culture, our collective ignorance often goes unchecked. When cable television pundits are more trusted than academia and journalist: ignorance flourishes. The right-wing's denial of scientific evidence supporting man-made global warming, and the hysteria during the 2014 Ebola scare are the fruits of this perverted tree. We had citizens who trusted Fox news more than the CDC and the doctors treating Ebola. When a lawyer argues a case they don't present facts that counter their arguments. This is the foundation of politically slanted news. So, when we point out statistics about gun violence we fall into the trap of thinking facts are enough. Every argument we make has to pierce a thick layer of defense that's designed to dismiss any information that comes from untrustworthy sources. We are actually powerless to those entrenched in their ideology. There's not a set of facts in the world that can't be refuted or reduced to liberal bias

    I believe we can reduce some of these tragedies through community mental health services and common sense legislation, but we also need to force people to admit that Ahmed, Manuel, and Jamal aren't the only threats our country face. We don't watch little Billy and Timmy until they make noise. We shouldn't shame people for their personal fears, but we should be brutal in our criticisms of individuals and institutions who manipulate those feelings and encourage people to act on them. Passing any meaningful legislation on semiautomatic weapons and magazine sizes seems impossible, but we have to create an atmosphere where opposing such legislation is an embarrassment. No reasonable person believes we can stop every mass shooting, but that can't stop us from making it more difficult.


    So much garbage here I don't know where to begin.

    There's millions of introverts in America that ignorant extroverts call loners. I'm one of them. I even own guns. The vast majority of "loners" aren't violent. This is as bigoted as claiming "we" should watch all Muslims because a few have engaged in terrorism. You should know better than this since this same type of ignorant stereotyping of young black males as violent is one of the causes of police abuse.

    While it's logical to hypothesize that violent video games are a cause of violence the evidence doesn't support it. European nations play the same video games as much as Americans but don't have equivalent levels of violence. The same with violent movies. American movies are watched world wide but it doesn't provoke mass shootings in other countries.

    I don't know whether there's a fox news equivalent or hate radio in Europe. But there are right wing parties that are as anti immigrant as Trump with comments as hateful and vile. In fact in a recent election Le Pen's Front National extreme-right party came top in France's European elections with 25.41% of the vote. So there must be media outlets that cater to that demographic and spread extreme right wing views.

    Look I'm a gun owner that supports gun control legislation but most of your post is nonsense, and your stereotyping of "loners" as those who need to be collectively watched is particularly vile.

    You don't understand - it's not the bullet that kills, it's the people who talk violently (except if they're talking about bombing the Mideast into glass, then they're the adults in the room). Even Chris Christie understands the importance of choosing the 2nd Amendment over the 1st/freedom of speech. 

    “Let’s make involuntary commitment of people who speak violently easier for doctors.”

    Oh, but wait - what if they're the silent type? Maybe we can torture them into speaking their suppressed violent speech and then commit them. Yeah, that works. Watcha think?

    Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on this post. I admit that I could have articulated my phrasing better as far as watching loners. But, we can't deny the fact that the young men who commit these acts have similar backgrounds. I'm not arguing that we should profile or stop-and-frisk every kid who exists on the margins, but there's a qualitative difference between introverted behavior and sociopathic behavior. I refuse to accept the default position that we are powerless. I live in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. People hunt and shoot for sport here. With that said, there are a lot of people who hold your position on gun control. I freely admit that there isn't one factor that can be isolated as the sole cause for mass shootings, but I don't pretend like in-group out-group bias and a generation of kids desensitized to death aren't part of some witch's brew. Thanks for the comment. Sorry if I offended you; it wasn't my intention to do so.

    Passing any meaningful legislation on semiautomatic weapons and magazine sizes seems impossible, but we have to create an atmosphere where opposing such legislation is an embarrassment.

    How is this atmosphere to be created?

    There is no shortage of denouncements. The Conservative Movement that built up from the Sixties has thrived on the moral condemnation directed toward them as proof that Liberals want to make everybody conform to their values. I don't see how the call for more peer pressure won't be yet another log thrown on to the fire.

    Maybe we have to shift from macro-shame to micro-shame. When whole groups of people are the target it's easier to dismiss the criticism, but when individuals are held to account for their actions there's nowhere to hide. I could be wrong, but thanks for commenting.

    Thank you for not treating my question as a rhetorical one.

    I see what you are saying about the micro versus macro scale of change. All the things I see as an advance in our society would not have happened if ideas of the good weren't taken up as the responsibility of individuals to work out with other individuals. I recognize that shame plays a part in people becoming responsible for things. But it is also a fulcrum of partition. There is a dark side to the freedom to establish religion: Groups can shame each other inside of a collective while abrogating obligations from outside.

    The incentive to move beyond that kind of closure is one of the better things in life and one of the most difficult to bring about as well. I suspect there is a connection between the two qualities.


    I don't think peer pressure is the right approach. It has to be political pressure. Politicians don't care about finger wagging; they care about votes.

    The NRA figured out how to pressure politicians very effectively by spinning a narrative about tyrannical federal authority that dovetailed with conservative small-government ideology and the religious right. Politicians who vote for gun control get tarred as handmaidens or henchmen of some nightmarish secularist totalitarian state.

    Gun control proponents desperately need a counter-narrative. I suggest a theme that has always worked well for the left, most recently in the anti-smoking initiative: big business vs. average Americans. The amoral, out-of-control gun industry is killing people for profit. Politicians who vote against gun control are stooges for the gunmakers. In addition to a compelling story, it also happens to be true, sadly.

    Agree with all you said.  It seems to me that the crux of the problem is that responsible gun owners, who intellectually agree with the concept that those who are a danger to the public should not be able to have assault weapons willy-nilly -- have been brainwashed into thinking that ANY regulation will result in taking guns away from everyone else, and most particularly from responsible gun owners.  

    That is the "success" of the NRA, and it is so ingrained in the gun-owners psyche that even the most intelligent have fallen prey to this insidious and false narrative.  




    That is the toxic message.  Good luck on appealing to anyone's good sense in getting rid of this ridiculous meme.



    That's not true CVille. Most gun owners support many of the gun control proposals especially expanded background checks. Responsible gun owners do the same thing that non gun owners do when they vote. They don't prioritize a politician's position on gun control. Most people vote on the economy or foreign policy issues or a host of other issues with gun control being low priority. So it's also a low priority issue for the politician.

    The NRA spun a narrative that:

    (1) If you don't have a gun you will be dead, shot by scary people not like you who the Democrats let loose on you from ghettoes or from across the border.

    (2) you cannot depend on the government to protect you, quite the opposite they want your guns to facilitate a UN socialist world takeover as nearly happened with Jade Helm.

    (3) the Founding Fathers knew all this which is why they wrote that having guns is the First Freedom, forget the line about  'well-regulated militia' or that flintlocks were the norm in the 18th century.

    (4) If you buy the above, and buy fifteen guns like Laurel Harper, the Oregon shooters Mom, you are a smart cookie and you are a 'responsible gun owner' by definition, because everyone with a gun is a responsible gun owner, because they have guns and are ready for anything.

    (5) Ancillary point:  'stuff that happens' like massacres are the price others pay for your fetish, 'stuff' could never happen to you, or 'stuff' could be Obama faking dead 5 years olds so he can take your guns.

    The "killing people for profit" narrative rests on the belief and the apparent truth, that American voters are so easily exploited by the gun lobby and so covet their guns, that they will never vote for a candidate who seeks changes in gun laws with the objective and intent to reduce the slaughter of their fellow citizens.

    The profit motive would have some chance if points 1 and 2 were at the same time exposed as false manipulative propaganda. If that isn't possible or accomplished you would get nowhere.

    NCD, I like your point #4. In my conversation with friends, they regard as sensible the ownership of guns to prevent a takeover by the government, or anybody else. Who doesn't think differently?

    Can't find the source, recent article decries condemnation of mentally ill as responsible---rather than the carrying guns around in public and seeing them as solutions to problems is now the "new normal" for regular folks.

    I've been curious about our use of the term "the shooter" as in my recollection it came into use about 15-20 years ago---instead of "killer", perp, guy with the gun. IOW we've objectified the people who use guns to perform expected acts---hey, it's the baker, candlestick maker and the shooter.  So we have a play now repeated just about once a week, a mass shooting---the shooter, the victims, the hero, the follow up comments---fill in the blanks. Probably in earlier societies the people who threw stones and killed someone were known as the "stoners"----"...did you hear about that poor whore who was killed in the public square yesterday---say, who were the stoners?"



    Good critique on 'the shooter'. There is also the 'why did he do it' question? It never really matters but it fills pages of print. Also many have a 'manifesto', and years of internet posts presaging possible trouble..... dissatisfaction with their life.

    On my point 4, all gun owners think they are responsible, and ready for anything, because they purchased a gun. And more often than not keep it loaded. If it's not loaded, you're not ready you see.

    They have taken no courses on gun safety, read nothing about the subject, do not lock or secure it in any way because they have to 'be ready' right?

    They may leave it loaded on the night table, or in the closet with the ammo, they may let the kids shoot it and the kids know where it is, with no lock of any kind, ready...ready for what? For a thief to find it and blow them away?

    To stop Obama and the guvment from taking it?

    Ready when it accidentally discharges and injures a family member? Ready when some kid visiting finds it and points it at somebody and pulls the trigger? Ready when your 3 year old pulls it out of your purse at Wal-Mart and blows you off? Ready when you shoot your own kid at the makeshift shooting range by accident? Ready when your 11 year old murders the 8 year old next door over a dog? When your psycho son goes on a rampage at the local school?

    The responsible gun owner set is, in fact, a very small fraction of gun owners, and the NRA could care less. The only way to increase that small segment of gun owners would require some form of action/education/test/license which would delay the acquisition of the gun, or even scare people into a more sane state resulting in them not buying one.

    Your description of many gun owners is correct for a large percentage of them, I believe, but none of what you describe is grounds to prevent any of them from legally owning a gun. None of the proposed legislation that I have heard would prevent almost any whacko, psycho, or potential mad man from getting a gun legally. Laws which actually made it difficult for the average person, of which category the whackos fall into until they prove themselves otherwise by going whacko, to legally get a gun would create a huge black market. I think that people screaming for gun legislation should admit that what they really want ultimately is a ban on guns which I am afraid is just as unworkable as it is unlikely to ever happen in the foreseeable future. It is too late to ban guns in America. And, because the whackos and the otherwise criminals will always be able to get guns it is not a completely unreasonable conclusion of many people to believe that they should protect their right to legally own a gun and for those people to think they know a slippery slope when they see it getting greased. 

    I was just describing 'responsible gun owners', not proposing anything can be done about them. Thousands of them would be better off without guns kicking around waiting to injure or kill one of the immediate family, or stolen, etc.

    Our policy was if any of our kids spotted or was shown a gun in a friends home, call us immediately to leave, and never go back.

    The responsible gun owner set is, in fact, a very small fraction of gun owners

    In fact, really? How about you verify the "fact" with a link. Imo the majority of gun owners behave responsibly. I base that opinion on the small number of gun shootings or accidents compared to the number of gun owners. In fact, guns owners support some of the proposed gun control legislation.

    I don't know about NCD, but "responsibility" is in the eye of the beholder and my rule #1 is that guns be locked in gun safes. You don't want to know the rest of my rules but I'll eat my hat if more than 10% of gun owners have their firearms in safes.

    270 million guns, 89 guns per 100 people in U.S.

    At least, according to my research, 35 million households have guns. Actually, the number of households with guns appears to be going down.

    115,000,000 households in U.S.

    Number of NRA members, about 5 million.

    The Luntz poll therefore focusing on a small percentage of households with guns.

    I think many NRA members are responsible, especially hunters, as most of my friends in rural Texas are. I would eat my other hat if they didn't consistently vote for politicians who are in the tank for the NRA's crusade against what they say they believe about more restrictions.

    I have some guys who shoot guns pretty close to my property line and its an irritation. They are within their rights and I've decided not to make an issue out of it. If it gets any worse I'm going to blast Met Opera at them at 4:00 a.m.




    My idea of responsibility is the same as yours. Responsibility means recognizing how dangerous a gun is, ensuring it can only be used in a proscribed fashion, in a safe area by a person familiar with its operation. And it is not stored loaded, preferably is locked up.

    As to folks shooting near your home, we had a home on 4 acres in a part of the Tucson Mts within the city of Tucson, and yahoos would come up to an area nearby to plunk off rounds.

    One time we called the police and, through binoculars, we saw the cops approach them with guns drawn and aimed, and had the idiots spread eagled on the ground while the cops recovered the guns. Illegal to shoot in city limits.

    The level of ignorance displayed here is astonishing. The reality is that accidental poisonings kill more people every year than all the homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. Accidental poisonings also kill more people than motor vehicle accidents. By your standards it would save more lives and make more sense to require all households to keep all household chemicals in a secured locked storage container. The truth is that most gun owners store their guns much more responsibly than people store their poisonous chemicals. Children that accidentally kill or injure someone with a gun is a fraction of children that kill or injure themselves with household chemicals.

    I'm not worried that you'll succeed in banning guns. That will never happen. What worries me as a responsible gun owner that favors strict gun control legislation is that your nonsensical ranting will alienate other responsible gun owners from supporting reasonable gun control laws by convincing them the myth that democrats want to ban guns is true.

    Of course you are a responsible gun owner. Being a gun owner proves it.

    And no one is going to take away your guns, so relax.

    Another totally asinine post. Being a gun owner doesn't prove one is a responsible gun owner except in your mind where being a gun owner proves one is irresponsible. And since I clearly posted that I have no worries that you and others like you will ever ban guns I'm already relaxed. So this was a completely unresponsive and ignorant post.

    You're consistently like a rat hanging onto a chunk of cheese. When confronted by inconvenient facts you not only refuse to let go, most often you refuse to even attempt to make a rational rebuttal or any counter argument at all.

    I note in the CDC links from the bibliography of your link shows unintentional injury due to guns is higher than poisoning in multiple age groups, from 1-4, 5-9 and 10-14 for the US in 2013.

    I didn't bother to check them for all ages and years but your deft use of statistics fails there.

    Anyway, hanging onto a statistic that a given cause of injury or death is not so bad as another cause of death or injury and death, and thereby trying to demean safety measures related to the former, is, frankly, as asinine a form of half wit reasoning one is likely to encounter on the internet. Like "The wife and me don't worry 'bout the kids drowning in the lake cuz statistics say more kids die in car accidents'.

    And BTW you might mention why my points of (1) treating a gun as a lethal weapon (2) using it for proscribed uses (like target practice, hunting) (3) in an area safe for that use and (4) by persons familiar with its operation and concluding with (5) storing it unloaded, preferably locked up (not mandatory if no kids around) somehow transforms in your mind to taking your guns away, or saying all gun owners are irresponsible when I am sure millions follow those very steps in securing or using their weapons.

    Apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension. I've never claimed nor even implied that we don't need to worry about gun injuries or deaths because more people die in motor vehicle accidents or accidental poisonings. In fact I've repeatedly said the complete opposite. Over and over again for years I've posted that I support strict gun control legislation. Creating strawmen to knock down is easy so I can see why you prefer it but it doesn't constitute an actual debate.

    Let's look at what the debate really is about. You posted just a few posts above, "The responsible gun owner set is, in fact, a very small fraction of gun owners"  This is the issue I disagreed with. Statistics can help us find what is "in fact" most likely. When motor vehicle accidents and accidental poisonings exceed the total number of gun deaths including suicides and homicides and even people dying from slipping and falling is so nearly equal that it some years exceeds gun deaths it seems clear that the evidence supports the conclusion that the vast majority of gun owners responsibly store and handle their guns.

    Again I'll ask: Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that "in fact" the responsible gun owner is a very small fraction of gun owners. Because it seems to me that  when you say "in fact" what you really mean is shit I made up then pulled out of my ass.

    The profit motive would have some chance if points 1 and 2 were at the same time exposed as false manipulative propaganda. 

    Yes, exposing the manipulation is an essential part of the profit story. But you can't effectively persuade the public by simply negating. You have to offer an alternative that is more compelling than your opponents' story.

    I think you may be on to something. The right is so much better than us at maintaining a narrative. Your idea would work if we, on the left, could present a unified front on which to fight this ideological battle. The right will go down with the ship, if it mean ,

    Sadly, if an organization composed of blacks and Latinos brandished weapons like the Oath Keepers, there would be calls for background checks by many on the right. Ronald Reagan fought for gun control when he was Governor of California to keep the Black Panthers from openly carrying weapons.

    Maintaining is a good word. Also harnessing. We've had the narrative for years, presented most elegantly by Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbia. But we haven't done much with it. We need more articles about the sources of the NRA's funding, need to stop moaning about how Congress won't pass gun control bills and start pounding politicians who benefit from NRA campaigning, need to run ads (to use barefoot's suggestion) about how gun manufacturers are responsible for children's deaths, need to protest outside gun dealers (the way conservatives protest outside abortion clinics), need to find a Bernie Sanders of gun control who singlemindedly and sensationally drives the issue in Congress. And so on.

    The biggest distraction, as I think about it, is the shooter. The killers are so fascinating and disturbing that they invariably draw the spotlight while the industry that enabled them skates by in the shadows. We should try to talk less about the killers and maintain focus on gun dealers and makers.

    As Rm notes gun dealers are already protected by law. There is a federal law protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from any liability passed with Democrat support in 2006.

    As long the gun culture wants guns they will be for sale, and they will get them, demonstrators will just encourage sales.

    And you can't create a narrative to top 'guns are necessary to save your life/the government not only can't protect you, it wants you enslaved by socialist creeps' unless you prove it's not true, which has been tried a hundred times and hasn't work yet.

    The elephants in the room are our fellow citizens and is succinctly expressed in the words yesterday of Ben Carson, speaking for the gun obsessed GOP Base:

    "the Second Amendment is ('our guns are") more sacred than (your) spilled blood."

    Thanks, NCD, I'm well aware of the law and argued down thread that it should be the first thing that gun control advocates go after.

    Americans have not always been as gun obsessed as they are today, and there is no reason to sigh sadly and resign ourselves to a permanent state of gun-rights hysteria. The NRA created gun rights paranoia as a national movement. With the right strategy and enough commitment, we can destroy that movement.

    Does anyone have a theory on why Americans are more gun obsessed today than say during the 'Assault Weapons Ban' Clinton years? Kenyan Usurper? ??

    More stupid people easily exploited and controlled by Fox News Hate radio GOP propaganda?

    More paranoid for the same reason?

    Cling to guns as it gives a sense of control in their lives?

    I believe the national crime rate is actually lower now than the 80's or 90's, (and it's not because people now have 14 guns instead of one or two.)

    Comment at NYT:

    The very fact that people feel the need to further arm themselves to the teeth is a characteristic of a failing society. Think Afghanistan, South Sudan, Somalia, Central African Republic as the worst examples and some of the banana republics to the south of us.

    If we truly believe that we need to be armed to the teeth to conduct our daily lives, we have no right to call ourselves a civilized society.

    As to narratives and profits, perhaps:

    "Gun dealers like mass killings because these incidents frighten people, and many then go out and buy more guns earning the dealer more profits"

    "if you own a gun, statistics show you or someone in your family is most likely to get shot by it, so store it safely."

    "In most mass shootings, someone having a gun didn't stop the shooter, in fact having a gun can make you a target of the responding police.  Whether you own a gun or not, think carefully before spending your money on guns,  gun dealers are merchants of death".

    A shame we let Michael Moore get sidelined as our too-crazy-to-go-out-in-public liberal. He was one of the few voices who knew how to cut through against the right-wing money media machine. Wonder what we got in return for knee-capping him.

    What made the anti-smoking movement work? What worked for the movement against drunk driving? In part, great advertising. It's still working because the work (and advertising) is still ongoing, and you can see the same now regarding texting, etc. while driving. In many states it's illegal to use a cell phone if not hands-free while behind the wheel.

    Maybe we need a well funded, national group to put out some truly horrifying ads promoting gun control. But there needs to be current legislation for them to reference and endorse.

    That's a great point, barefoot. It would be so easy to make heart-wrenching ads about the impact of our horrific gun policies. I think there's some squeamishness about "exploiting" victims, which is odd because we don't have the same squeamishness about highlighting the victims of drunk driving accidents and long-term smoking.

    I don't think we need to wait for legislation. We have to change the mindset in order to create the movement for legislation. And we already have a well-funded national group, Mike Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety. I think it's not scrappy enough though.

    My vote for the first law to target: The so-called Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields the gun industry from liability lawsuits. A repeal effort for this law would focus squarely on the gun industry as opposed to gun owners or criminals, it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, and it would help expose the NRA as a cynical tool of gun industry. Moreover, the impact of repealing the law would go far beyond the financial pain applied to gun makers and dealers. Big lawsuits would force the industry to reveal details of its shady practices and lobbying efforts, draw media attention and outrage, discourage gun dealers from selling to criminals, and provide funds for additional gun control initiatives, all of which happened to the tobacco industry recently.

    Colorado has a state law that forces plaintiffs to pay the legal fees when they sue gun and ammo manufacturers. The parents of a woman killed by the gunman in the Aurora, Colorado massacre who purchased guns and ammo online sued the companies for negligence in selling weapons and ammo without actually seeing the person making the purchase. The parents lost the case and Colorado law has them on the hook for nearly a quarter million in legal fees.


    Jeez louise, I can't believe that law holds up. I hope they're able to appeal.

    A glaringly obvious place to start would be a focus on the existing Brady law and its ridiculous lack of data - specifically state data - needed for comprehensive background checks. A few ads pointedly aimed at some particularly slow-moving-but-well-paid states wouldn't hurt. And since gun manufacturers and lobbys love to say we don't need more laws when the ones we have aren't working/enforced, who would argue?

    Speaking of enforcement, President Obama made the oft-quoted statement in early 2013 that since the passage of the Brady law background checks had prevented 1.5 million people from legally purchasing a gun. True enough, and that was over 2 years ago. Even considering the easy assumption that a majority still managed to get one, it also means at least a measurable minority were stopped. Unfortunately, when the check uncovers someone potentially dangerous, very little happens.

    So. Let's start where we are. Strengthen the hard fought laws we have, find areas to firm them up and do it and then follow up when a "bad guy" gives him/herself away.

    It's a very old fight, even if sometimes the places converge in chilling ways. The attention must move away from the question of "why" to the importance of "how" - or at least toward making it secondary. The primary issue is guns; who gets them, how they get them and what they do with them. All that's left is when and where. Obama is right, until it's more politically dangerous to vote with gun lobbyists (the NRA is not alone) than against them nothing will change.

    It's clear that the public consensus is on the side of reasonable regulation, yet Congress won't budge. It's often asked what more than Sandy Hook or Gabby Giffords will it possibly take? I don't know. But it makes me wonder when Bernie Sanders' supporters insist that monumental change can happen when citizens rise up ... tell me what else we can do? Families of lost loved ones have bound together and are constantly lobbying, groups all over the country are raising awareness and funds to defeat legislators large and small - fights are going on every day, everywhere. And have been for years. It's insanely maddening.

    Latest Comments