A great editorial in the San Jose Mercury News:
What will it take? Sandy Hook massacre elicits strong opinions on changing gun laws
America faces a defining moment.
Twenty innocent children slaughtered. Six brave educators killed trying to save them. The immediate outcry has been unprecedented. But will anything change? Will America finally cast aside the unhinged ideas of the National Rifle Association and begin to place utterly obvious regulations on guns that can, over time, make it harder for madmen like Adam Lanza to wreak mayhem? And can prevent at least some of the 30,000 deaths every year that result from this nation’s gun-mad culture?
Our laws aren’t just do’s and don’ts to keep order. They define our values. If we allow this moment to pass without insisting on common-sense restrictions on weapons designed for war, we will be saying that what happened in Newtown is an acceptable price to pay for the Second Amendment.
Unequivocally, it is not.
President Barack Obama has seized the moment. Vice President Joe Biden is leading a task force that will recommend policy changes in January. The new Congress may need time to consider some of them — in many ways, this serious discussion is just beginning — but there are three things that must be done right away:
Pass a comprehensive, permanent assault weapons ban. The ban authored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein that expired in 2004 was ineffective, but that’s because it was riddled with exemptions needed to win passage, as The New York Times detailed last week. Many experts believe California’s ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could be a model. Lanza’s weapon, legally purchased by his mother in Connecticut, is not legal here.
Restrict ammunition purchases — require licenses and track sales, for example — and ban high-capacity magazines outright. Newtown, Tucson, Aurora and Oak Creek make it clear that high-capacity magazines have no place in civilian life. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat endorsed by the NRA, said last week: “I never had more than three rounds in my gun. I don’t know any people who go hunting with assault rifles with 30 rounds in their guns.”
Close the gun show loophole. Forty percent of guns are bought at gun shows, where buyers don’t need background checks. States like California have closed the loophole within their borders, but it’s easy to cross state lines to shop.
These are the simple matters. Congress will need time for the more complex ones — particularly improving access to mental health care. And the country needs to grapple with the impact of violence in popular culture.
The Newtown tragedy hit us hard because of the visceral horror of classrooms full of first-graders systematically mowed down. But the daily drumbeat of gun violence is hardly less horrifying: On Wednesday, a 49-year-old woman was killed by a stray bullet in Oakland, the city’s 124th homicide this year. Twenty-six of San Jose’s 45 homicides in 2012 have been from gunfire.
Nothing will change unless law-abiding supporters of gun rights continue to raise their voices, as they have for the past week. That is the only hope of neutralizing a too-powerful gun lobby whose answer to this tragedy is more guns, everywhere.
Larry Alan Burns is the gun-owning, Fox News-watching judge who in November sentenced Jared Loughner — the man who killed six people while trying to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords — to life in prison without parole. Last week, he wrote an op-ed with this plea to the nation: “Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don’t let people who already have them keep them. Don’t let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don’t care whether it’s called gun control or a gun ban. I’m for it.”
The coming weeks will tell us a lot about our nation. Today, we have 5 percent of the world’s population and 50 percent of its guns. That is insane.
It must change.

Two separate issues: Mental Health as well as too many overpowered guns. Blocking the sale of guns will not stop the slaughters.
BUT there really are WAYYYY too many high capacity guns. Your suggestions fit that bill perfectly though I favor MH exams as well as strict requirements for gun ownership. Jail time needs to pursue those who possessed and then let weapons be passed along to the person doing the shooting. LOTS of jail time for those who fail to lock them up or check on their status once per week. If a gun is used in a crime and then it turns out it was stolen but not reported months earlier that last person with control over it as well as anyone else needs to do jail time.
The mental health issues also need addressing. Every neighborhood has its share of crazies… we know who they are yet we can do nothing. those issues need addressing as well.
People forget that counting law vilations re guns do not count the threats and intimidations occurring in intimate partnership relations.
LikeLike
Wow, you’re an expert in a lot of fields – very impressive. Could you perhaps tell me, O expert, exactly what psychological/psychiatric tools should be used to assess who can and who can’t have a gun? Psychological tests? (Can you recommend specific ones?) Actuarial factors? (Again, what, specifically?) Clinical judgment?
LikeLike
Dienne: The best thing to do is just ignore his posts. As my grandmother used to say, “consider the source.”
LikeLike
As always, Diane, thank you for posting these editorials. I was shocked but not surprised by the pushback on the item you posted about national gun day.
My question is: Where are the sensible, responsible, common sense gun owners and NRA members? There must be NRA members and others who are not about to give up their guns and their rights to carry, but who also get it that assault rifles are unnecessary and this sole defensive response about the 2nd amendment (and arming teachers…) is just putting their head in the sand.
This is a systems issue where we all have a responsibility. Why can’t the level headed NRAers convince their organization to take a balanced approach – be part of the solution – maybe even be a leader in common sense?
What will it take?
Do those with guns lock them up appropriately?
Do those with guns and someone in the household with the potential to be violent get rid of those guns?
Do parents of a child with a violent tendency monitor actions, video games, and seek help?
Does the government (FBI?) know what local terrorist chatter (and these acts are terrorist attacks) is taking place the same as they do for international terrorism or monitoring pornography?
Does the community have sufficient mental health facilities for schools, police, parents, and other to refer potentially violent individuals for serious help, not just a drop in visit?
Where is the faith community in all of this?
Where are the other professional organizations that have a voice in legislation locally, state, and nationally?
Of course, what are those leading schools doing with the school plant, technology, training, and other measures for both prevention and response?
Do schools and parents do everything they can to reinforce that it’s “ok to tell” if something really bad is going to happen especially to counter the messages some notable sports and music fame share otherwise about snitching?
Do the police and schools work cooperatively in prevention and response?
Does the media know when to just back off the story?
All of these folks are taking responsibility. Why can’t legislators and the NRA do their part and own up that no one in America except the military needs an assault weapon?
LikeLike
” If we allow this moment to pass without insisting on common-sense restrictions on weapons designed for war, we will be saying that what happened in Newtown is an acceptable price to pay for the Second Amendment.”
I don’t believe that Newtown can be seen as an “acceptable price” for an established constitutional right. There is no price on that.
“on weapons designed for war” And until all those who believe that we need to ban certain weapons understand and decide that as a society we will refuse to sanction the daily death and destruction our government showers on many innocents abroad continue to expect death and destruction here in this country.
Just as some guilty may walk so that we insure that only the guilty pay for their crimes (unless they are wealthy, banksters, politicos, etc. . . ) we have to insist that if the government has a type of weapon we, the citizens should have access to the same weapon. Yeah, that’s real radical. The second amendment is meant to be a brake on the government.
LikeLike
No price on that — This sounds like a mass-suicide plan. Has
“I don’t believe that Newtown can be seen as an ‘acceptable price’ for an established constitutional right. There is no price on that.”
LikeLike
In my regular column today in the Athens Banner-Herald, I
offered an explanation of why test scores shouldn’t be the sole
basis for teacher evaluation. http://bit.ly/Xvx8Ns
LikeLike
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but what qualifies you to be writing opinion pieces about education? How long, what ages and/or what subject(s) have you taught? How many teachers did you interview for this piece? What sources did you read? Y’know, opinions are like as-, er, backsides, remember – what makes yours worth paying attention to?
“Should test results be part of teacher evaluation? Absolutely.”
Why? You give several reasons why test scores aren’t good indicators. The statistical problems, teaching to the test, your illustration about the child who can describe a circuit vs. one who can build one, etc. (although you neglect two of the best reasons, which are (a) that the test manufacturers themselves say that it is unethical to use standardized tests for any but their stated purpose, which is definitely NOT teacher evaluation, and (b) that teachers have no control over what their students actually do on a test).
Therefore, it seems that it should be incumbent on you to give reasons why tests are a good indicator of teacher “performance”. And you can’t do that because there are no reasons. Standardized tests are completely unreliable and invalid measures of teacher “performance” and no amount of tweaking the test is going to change that. Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether the test counts for 100%, 50% or even just 10% of a teacher’s evaluation – it’s still invalid. Furthermore, you’re crazy if you think that the allegedly “objective” assessment won’t completely overshadow the “subjective” assessment, even if test scores only count for 10% of a teacher’s evaluation.
I’m sorry to be harsh on you. I get the feeling you think you’re supporting teachers. But frankly, that was some pretty shoddy writing and I’m surprised (well, no, not really) that it made it past your editors. Please do some actual research, talk to some actual teachers, perhaps hang out on this blog more often and maybe even do some soul searching before attempting to write about education again.
LikeLike
Why should someone’s right to own an assault weapon infringe on my right to live safe from the violence perpetuated by those who cling to their guns? There is no place here for the kinds of guns that can do that much damage so quickly. I grew up in a family of hunters and hunted myself. Those weapons serve no useful purpose to regular citizens. When teachers on my campus are allowed to bring guns to work, I will quit my job. It creates a false sense of security at the price of great danger to our children.
LikeLike
Good point Bridget. I was thinking along the same lines this morning. Since the NRA is so obsessed with the Second Amendment and the Constitution, I would assume every NRA member is also a fervent supporter of the ACLU – right? I mean if one believes so much in one of the Amendments, wouldn’t you think they would believe in all of them? Also, if they believe so much in the government staying out of their ownership and use of guns, then wouldn’t you also think they would be just as supportive of the government staying out of a woman’s right to have an abortion? Just to be consistent in their beliefs that is.
LikeLike
You are right. The consistent libertarian stance is that women should be able to do with their bodies as they wish and government should not regulate that and that the government should not regulate gun ownership either. That is my position, but I speak only for myself. One wag, however, did say, “Guns don’t kill people; abortions do.”
But that still doesn’t change my position. The federal law, Roe v. Wade does protect a woman’s right to an abortion, absolutely in the first trimester, conditionally in the second, but in the third the fetus is protected. That seems a reasonable compromise. Recently some states have attempted to regulate the Planned Parenthood abortion providers, but a true libertarian would not be for that. Such regulation seems to me to be a transparent effort by government to gain more control over abortion, and I do not support it, nor do I suspect most libertarians.
Libertarians might disagree among themselves about whether government is obligated to PAY for abortions, which are normally elective medical procedures. I’m not sure I’d want my wife, or daughter, or my son’s girlfriend to kill their child, but really it is not MY business, nor should the government intrude to protect the life of the child until it is viable outside the womb. In a way, I suppose, women who have had abortions must think of it as a kind of self-defense of their lives. I couldn’t say, but it isn’t my business to judge any woman who decides to kill her child (at least before the third trimester begins).
I will grant you that abortion is the killing of a person, yet under current law it is a permitted killing, just as executions of killers (in some states) is a permitted killing by an executioner, just as killings by soldiers in combat are protected by law, and just as killings in self-defense are protected. These, including abortion, are all protected homicides, and should remain so.
LikeLike
I get in trouble in Louisiana for standing up for gun bans. This state LOVES its guns. And my roommate and I go around and around about it. He is from here. But I say it with you, Ban Assault Rifles and high capacity cartridges except for the police and the military. Nobody needs them except those protecting our nation. Also, tax all ammunition and use the money for the schools and maybe wildlife preservation. WHY IS WALMART THE LARGEST SELLER OF GUNS IN AMERICA? And do the Walmarts that sell them have regulations on which clerks can sell them like they do for alcohol and tobacco?
LikeLike
“Nobody needs them except those who are protecting our nation.” The total body of the armed citizenry can be thought of as protecting our nation against foreign enemies and against internal tyranny.
LikeLike
Using mental health records to determine whether or not someone can buy a gun is ludicrous and extremely discriminatory. First most mentally ill people are not violent and the boy who shot the kids reportedly had a diagnosis of Aspergers Syndrome which is not a mental illness but a developmental disability at the top of the autism scale. From descriptions of his behavior while in school it sounds like that is what his problem was. He may have had mental illness in addition. Depression, anxiety and OCD often accompany Aspergers.
Secondly, under HIPPA I doubt if there would be any way to force people to allow their mental health records to be shown to a gun dealer or even to require them to acknowledge that they had one. Such a solution is just a farce and a distraction as well as playing politics, once again by non-professionals, just like the school destroyers and teacher abusers.
Meanwhile, Donnie Swaggart, son of right wing preacher, Jimmy Swaggart and also a preacher was seen in a gun shop buying a gun in Gonzales Louisiana (near Baton Rouge) shortly after the Conn. shootings. It was on the local news. Great witness there.
LikeLike
The young man who massacred children in Newtown did not have a gun license. His mother did. She would have passed any test that the state or federal government created. She had an arsenal.
LikeLike
The law MIGHT have required her to have trigger locks on her guns and keep them locked up in a gun safe. The mother was blind and negligent. She’s as guilty as her son, in my view. She paid for it, of course, with five bullets in her own head, but if her son had NOT killed her, and a law had been in place requiring trigger locks and storage in a safe, and if she had been proved to be negligent, she should have done time.
LikeLike
Those who are promoting gun control seldom debate responsibly. For them the need for stricter gun control laws is always “obvious” and arises from emotional appeals, as below:
“Twenty innocent children slaughtered. Six brave educators killed trying to save them. The immediate outcry has been unprecedented. But will anything change? Will America finally cast aside the unhinged ideas of the National Rifle Association and begin to place utterly obvious regulations on guns that can, over time, make it harder for madmen like Adam Lanza to wreak mayhem? And can prevent at least some of the 30,000 deaths every year that result from this nation’s gun-mad culture?”
The common factor in all of the mass killings has been the psychosis of the shooters. Individuals on psychotropic medication probably should not be permitted to buy guns of any kind. That’s a people problem, not a metal problem. In addition, Lanza’s mother was irresponsible in her control of her guns and naive about her son’s potential for violence. She trained him for goodness sakes. My question for policy makers is “What effect will the proposed new restrictions have on problems such as mass shootings?” My contention is absolutely nothing. Colombine happened right in the middle of the assault weapons ban. The criminals won’t turn in their guns. Mentally ill people who have a capacity to plan these killings will find their way around those laws. You will think you are safer, but you won’t really be safer, and in the meantime you will have once again made a cut in the body of the constitution. Enough cuts, and the constitution will no longer protect you from overweening government. Is that the effect you want? Phony safety and a gutted constitution? That’s not what I want to see.
Another element in the kind of argument offered by the San Jose Mercury is the stigmatization of the NRA as having “unhinged ideas.” What are those ideas, and what makes them crazy? The NRA supports the constitution. It promotes safe shooting. It thinks each individual has a right to protect himself or herself both in his or her home AND out and about. That’s NOT unhinged, just common sense. If a flash mob attacks you, you’ll be grateful for a magazine with more than three bullets. I lived through the Detroit riots in 1967. It took three days to restore order. If you were protecting your home, would you want an air pistol only? No, you’d want an AR 15 and plenty of clips. Who is to say that civil order won’t break down again? If so, not having an automatic weapon might be the difference between life and death for you and your family. An ounce of prevention, you know. 30 to 50 ounces in a magazine, all the better.
Finally trying to connect the “30,000 deaths” each year to assault weapons is invalid. The “gun-mad” culture is in the cities among gangs. If you are not in drug dealing, you are not danger, except rarely from psychotics like Adam Lanza. So let’s subtract the gang killings and retaliation killings. What have you got then? You’ve got 300 million guns in the country, a population of 320 million people, and subtracting the gang killings, a murder rate equal to Denmark’s. Mass murders peaked 20 years ago and have been going down since. This country is, in fact, an extraordinarily safe and peaceful place if one looks at the actual numbers. The policy question is simply, what would make it safer? A policeman and at least two concealed carry teachers in every school. That reduces a very small chance of being killed in such an incident even smaller.
The hysteria in this editorial is not something a rational person should be supporting in view of the facts.
LikeLike
What would you know about debating responsibly?
LikeLike
Since your replies are always polite, they are always welcome.
LikeLike
The NRA absolutists have a a lot of money to influence the debate, however most rational people agree that military assault weapons and large capacity magazines do not belong in the hands of the general public. The second amendment can have limitations just like any other amendment.
Was the second amendment added to the Bill of Rights for Southern slave owners? Hmm.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114
LikeLike
“The second amendment can have limitations just like any other amendment.”
In fact, it is the only amendment of the first ten that comes with a limitation built right into the language, the most recent illiterate Supreme Court ruling not withstanding: “A well-regulated militia…”.
LikeLike
Most if not all of the first ten amendments have limitations built into their language.
LikeLike
I consider myself rational, and disagree with you. Yes the second amendment can have limitations, but the most recent Supreme Court decisions in Heller and I forget the one from Illinois, affirm an individual right first in the home for home defense, and second that the city of Chicago may not restrict guns more closely than the federal government. I do expect that the President will implement some restrictions by executive order, as did the first President Bush when he ordered the exclusion from import of automatic weapons. We’ll see tomorrow, or actually later today. But, if I were confronted by a mob rampaging down my street, I’d just as soon have something a bit more effective than a derringer.
LikeLike
The right to bear arms “SHALL NOT’ be infringed. If the government wants to remove my right to defend myself, then they become the same as the numerous dictatorships around the world. Be careful what you wish for. The bad people will always attack the defenseless, so don’t fall for disarming the public
LikeLike
I wish for law enforcement to carry weapons. I wish for no one to have an assault weapon other than the military. I don’t wish for ordinary citizens to arm themselves with Bushmasters or anti-missile defense systems. I don’t want school custodians to carry Bushmasters. That’s what I wish for.
LikeLike
Let’s call them “defense” weapons rather than assault weapons. That way they won’t seem so scary. Do remember that “ordinary citizens” are the militia in a state and nation where the people are the sovereign. Not school custodians perhaps (almost a racist stance there, Diane, are custodians too dumb and emotional to wield defense weapons???), but certainly SRO could reasonably be expected to have access. You really need to move beyond the “wish” stage on this issue.
LikeLike
So what do you make of this part, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”?
LikeLike
I suggest you ask any law enforcement official and officer if they want people who are not policemen to carry weapons. That does not mean hunting and we can leave out the person who wants to protect their home. I challenge you to find one law enforcement officer who thinks it’s ok for a citizen to carry an assault weapon.
While you’re at it, ask them if they want non-police officers (security guards) carrying weapons.
While you’re at it, ask them if the want teachers and administrators carrying weapons.
I have asked several police chiefs. Perhaps you should, too.
As for the 2nd amendment – how about some common sense – just because you have the right to something doesn’t it make it the right thing to do – like a citizen owning assault weapons.
LikeLike
Thanks Dienne. I won’t reply directly, due to my hysteria???
LikeLike
This is for Jere. We are talking about licensed police officers in the schools, whether in uniform or in blazers and slacks and called School Resource Officers (SROs). Your phrase about right . . . right changes the meaning of the word “right.” By definition, something that is a “right” must be also a “moral right.” You have used a slippery sentence as if it were a legitimate argument. It’s just a clever slogan with no real meaning. The essence of law is that rights are legitimate. If a law is unjust then we subject it to the pressure of civil disobedience. You can practice civil disobedience against gun laws by NOT carrying, I suppose. But the real test would be if there were a ban on owning and carrying guns, disobedience by doing so. The second amendment is to protect the sovereign, i.e. the people, against tyranny. If you argue that there is no tyranny here in the USA, I would politely beg to differ with you and to propose that the current administration represents a real threat of becoming tyrannous by not working with and through Congress, but by trying to do by executive order what it should only do by legislation. To the extent that you prefer to see things done by executive order rather than through legislation passed by the House and the Senate, you and I will certainly part company. If the second amendment is quashed, the next freedom to go will be freedom of speech. If you dissent then, you can be arrested. At the moment, you concur with the administration’s position on gun control. But what if you dissent on a different issue, such as, say, testing in schools. Would you be afraid to speak up then? I admire the Seattle teachers who are practicing civil disobedience against the MAP test. With an inoperative 2nd amendment, Diane might possible feel unfree to inform us of it. My contention is that the 1st amendment (the most important of the Bill of Rights because a functioning democracy must hear all sides) is protected by the 2nd. If you see things otherwise, I would invite you to explain to me how free speech can be maintained in a country with a disarmed populace.
LikeLike
“I wish for no one to have an assault weapon other than the military.”
Considering the fact that a self loading non NFA Ar15 – which describes 99.9% of them, is not an assault weapon, then you already have your wish. “Assault rifles” are by definition capable of firing on fully automatic bursts, which the civilians buying AR15s are almost always not. The 1934 and 1986 laws already deal with this, so assault rifles are already illegal.
The interesting thing is that the number of deaths related to a rifle in 2011 was 323 – which includes law enforcement and civilian justified shootings – so the actual murder rate for ALL kinds of rifles is probably somewhere in the 200s. More people are killed with clubs, more people are beaten to death with fists, and far more are stabbed to death. If you and the other gun banners were interested in stopping crime, you would be targeting pistols, where something like 18 times as many people were killed with one compared to a rifle.
Yet you focus on rifles, and intentionally out of ignorance or propaganda continue to refer to self loading rifles as “assault rifles.” Why is that? Is it bc according to gallup, a majority of the public opposes a ban on “assault rifles,” but around 80% oppose a ban on pistols? Is that just an easier step for the same people who advocated total civilian disarmament in the 1990s like Sarah Brady, the Washington Post editorial board, Rosie O Donnell, Charles Krauthammer, etc?
LikeLike
Now, as far as what I wish – I wish that the same people who claim to be horrified and want government policy changed bc of violence perpetrated against children to stop being such massive hypocrites. The same people calling for violating the 2nd amendment and disarming citizens of a type of firearm linked to only around 2% of murders are literal cheerleaders for the Obama admin.
The same Obama admin who is engaging in drone strikes against children on a regular basis – when not using children for domestic political purposes, that is. The same Obama admin that assassinated a 16 year old US citizen with a drone strike. The same Obama admin that believes it has the power under the NDAA to indefinitely detain and kill any US citizen it deems a threat without trial or charge. The same Obama admin that sends federal law enforcement armed with actual assault rifles to those horrible senior citizen and terminally ill threats to national security who smoke medical marijuana. The same Obama admin who has given the same sort of rifles he wants banned from the american public to Mexican Drug Cartels and Al Queda linked terrorists in Syria and Libya.
Unfortunately, the same leftists who pretend to hate “assault rifles” don’t seem to mind it when someone they like is in charge of them and determining what is “legitimate” violence – and literally change their entire views on how evil all of those things were when a Republican was doing them. With a kill ratio estimated by Stanford to be around 49 civilians for every terrorist killed with an Obama drone strike, I am sure the thousands of family members that Obama has assassinated with drone strikes wishes that Obama did not have control of drones. It sort of puts the Sandy Hook stuff into perspective – in many parts of the world, the exact same tragedy happens over and over while the American media remain silent or even cheer on King Obama.
LikeLike