There was a good deal of excitement about the bipartisan deal on gun control, in which 10 Republican senators agreed to endorse proposed legislation. That’s enough to block a filibuster, if all 10 Republican senators vote for the legislation. When even one Republican agrees to any form of gun control, it’s cause for celebration.
Since the Uvalde massacre, public support for gun control has solidified along partisan lines. According to the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, 59% favor curbing gun violence, while 35% do not. That includes 92% of Democrats in favor, along with 54% of independents. However, “70% of Republicans say it’s more important to protect gun rights. Notably, however, 56% of gun owners say it is more important to curb gun violence than protect gun rights.”
NPR summarized the key points of the new agreement:
The proposal, which has not been written into legislative text, includes money to encourage states to pass and implement so-called “red flag” laws to remove guns from potentially dangerous people, money for school safety and mental health resources, expanded background checks for gun purchases for people between the ages of 18 and 21 and penalties for illegal straw purchases by convicted criminals.
CNN described what’s in the deal and what’s not.
It has been endorsed by major gun control groups, like Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, because it is the first such measure with a chance of passage since 1994, when Congress agreed to ban the sale of assault weapons, a ban that expired in 2004.
I say the proposed legislation is a nothing-burger. It is toothless, or to be fair, it has only one or two teeth.
It will not stop future massacres. It does not ban the sale or manufacture of AR15s or other automatic or semi-automatic weapons that have been used in massacres. It makes no attempt to buy back the 400 million weapons now owned by Americans.
It does not raise the age from 18 to 21 for buying a military-grade assault weapon, even though federal law prevents those under 21 from buying a handgun.
It does not require a waiting period of 2-3 weeks to buy an assault weapon, although there are heightened background checks for buyers under 21.
It does not ban internet sales of AR15s and other military-grade weapons.
It pours billions into mental health programs and school security, which is a good thing, but satisfies the Republican claim that guns are not the problem, mental health and school security are.
Under the terms of this bill, the Uvalde killer could still buy his weapons.
The murderer of 20 children and six school staff at the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012 would still have weapons because his mother bought them.
The 2016 massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, where 49 people were murdered by a man with semi-automatic weapons, would not have been deterred.
The mass murderer who killed 60 people at a Las Vegas music festival in 2017 would not have been stopped.
The 2018 massacre of 11 people at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh by a white supremacist and anti-Semite would not have been prevented.
This is weak tea. Even the NRA could possibly endorse this bill, although it is just as likely to raise symbolic opposition to satisfy its most zealous members. The lead Republican negotiator was Texas Senator Jon Cornyn, a favorite of the NRA. He is one of the top recipients of NRA funding. The NRA gave him an A+ rating for his fidelity to its evil agenda (and he bragged about it on his website).
With this two-tooth bill, Republicans can crow that they supported “responsible” (I.e. limited) gun control. Democrats can claim victory too simply because a gun control bill was forged and might pass. Democrats will support it because a slice of bread, even a few crumbs, is better than nothing at all.
But this bill will do nothing to prevent future massacres in schools, churches, synagogues, nail salons, movie theaters, nightclubs, anywhere that people gather.

When doing something is difficult, do nothing and say it’s something.
–Motto of the United States Congress
LikeLike
Yep.
LikeLike
This is good, Bob. I have copied it, will remember it & will use it.
(I’m very politically involved, so a LOT of people are gonna hear it!!!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, retired!
LikeLike
Worse when the next massacre occurs Republicans will be screaming that we gave you the gun control you asked for and look it did nothing.
LikeLike
This is all true. But I still think something is better than nothing.
LikeLike
A few crumbs are better than nothing.
Senator Cornyn is already bragging that the bipartisan deal is a defeat for Biden, because it included nothing he asked for.
LikeLike
Okay–add corncob to my list of worst politicians.
LikeLike
Agreed. This Senate bill simply ‘appears’ to do something. Apparently, with 1/3 of the Senate up for re-election, appearance is at the front.
With that note in mind, I didn’t even notice which Republican Senators voted for this limp bill. I think I might have some time after I take care of more important things (relating to food).
The bill also detracts from the 1/6 hearings (sedition), and, hence, it’s ‘value’ is of no use, whatsoever , to Democrats (unless they, too, are trying to deflect the finger pointing out corruption at the highest levels).
Getting pretty cynical.
LikeLike
This is weak tea.
That is very well said.
LikeLike
Thank you for writing this, you are absolutely correct on all counts. What will it take for people to open their eyes (and hearts) and pass truly meaningful legislation? It is sad indeed that such a weak measure is being touted as real progress. While I applaud the effort, the most impactful points (banning the sale of AR-type weapons for example) are missing.
LikeLike
The single most valuable thing that Congress could do is to re-enact the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994-2004. But make it tougher by criminalizing ownership of a weapon of mass murder and buying them all back.
LikeLike
Not realistic, unfortunately. Remember that the assault weapons ban had bipartisan support because it was part of the 1994 crime bill, passed in an era where both parties were eager to take action to curb extremely high gun crime. (The 10-year sunset provision was probably also necessary to get Republican support for the ban.) We don’t have those circumstances today.
LikeLike
Isn’t that sad, FLERP? That instead of progressing toward a more humane future, we have devolved.
LikeLike
It’s unrealistic to expect today’s Republicans to do anything that is for the good of society unless they are paid to do it. They fear their funders and their base. Their base is stupid.
LikeLike
Oh, Diane. I hate to see such a response from you. As you know, you were once a Republican. Your ‘base’ wasn’t ‘stupid’, they were simply misinformed (on purpose). I know plenty of Republicans who have been hoodwinked, but they aren’t ‘stupid’.
LikeLike
While I agree that there is no earthly reason for people to have access to assault weapons designed for military use, most gun violence occurs with handguns. Even if we had gotten an assault weapon ban again, we would still have a huge problem with gun violence. Still it is the horror of mass shootings that is driving even this token response. If I was a Democrat, I would not be framing this as a victory but as a small step in the process given Republican intransigence.
LikeLike
Absolutely true, speduktr.
LikeLike
Even John Cornyn is bragging abut the toothlessness of the bill:
“Exclusive: GOP’s John Cornyn calls gun bill loss for Biden: ‘Look at all the things he asked for — none of that’s in there'”
Sad.
https://www.rawstory.com/john-cornyn-gun-bill/
LikeLike
The weakness of the deal is why 10 GOP senators agreed. And sone of them might not vote for this meaningless gesture.
LikeLike
I think those of us for real action need to focus on ammunition. Not so much because it is a good plan, but that it is a good slant. Ammunition that is used for military purposes, like anti-tank weaponry or surface to air devices, needs only be the province of the military.
The reason I would take this approach is that there are plenty of repeating weapons out there. They have been with us since the Civil War. They gain their level of power by shooting powerful ammunition. Let’s start by regulation of the ammo. Who is going to kill a deer with a shell that blows the deer up?
LikeLike
I think you’d be amazed, Roy. Most of us think of ‘hunting deer’ as a twofold exercise. We can protect our crops and put meat on the table at the same time. However, there are many who just want to kill the deer. They don’t plan to butcher it, nor do they have any crops to protect. They simply enjoy killing.
No true ‘sportsman’, however, would use either large magazines, military ammo, or handguns. Only nut-jobs have these.
LikeLike
It’s a framework, not a bill. Let’s wait and see how far the legislation gets once it’s written. I am not optimistic.
LikeLike
A politically flaccid and woefully ineffective reaction to an epidemic crisis.
“[The bill] pours billions into mental health programs and school security, which …satisfies the Republican claim that guns are not the problem, mental health and school security are…”
Yes this!! This “compromise” makes RepubliQan deflection even more effective and likely in the future as yet again we ignore the elephant in the room while obsessing over the mouse.
LikeLike
It’s good to have more money for mental health. Such programs will have little or no effect on future mass murders.
LikeLike
This act gives Republicans up for election cover and opportunity to tell their voters that they worked to create a bipartisan bill to improve gun safety without jeopardizing their sacred 2nd Amendment rights. They can’t be accused of doing nothing, although as Dr. Ravitch points out this is really doing nothing to keep kids in school safer.
LikeLike
The proposed so-called “gun safety” legislation is a complete and cowardly failure that The New York Times said is at best “better than nothing” — barely. It is clearly a cowardly capitulation that heaps insult on the graves of the children slaughtered in Texas and in other states over far too many years.
The key provision in this “better than nothing” legislation is that it “encourages” states to pass red flag laws!
“Encourages”!?! Red states are laughing at that, so Americans will continue crying over the graves of children.
Take a look at what the legislation DOESN’T INCLUDE:
LikeLike
You are quite correct (in my opinion), however it goes even deeper than that. Children are taught that killing is ‘heroic’. They are taught the people in the military who kill other people are ‘heros’. Some of this is even embedded in our school curricula.
I taught science. At the end of my career, all of my school day was needed to teach Physics, and my mind was always focused upon the disaster that was Hiroshima. I tried to make sure that my most advanced students (those with the capacity to do both the most good, or most harm) understood their responsibility to be very careful how they were ‘used’.
There was a great ‘Ascent of Man’ episode concerning ‘modern physics’ that was narrated by Leo Szilard, a person who had been ‘duped’ into creating Hiroshima. I was very powerful, and I made sure that I had a day or two at the end of the year to show that film (in those days, we used film). In other words, my students needed to understand that technical knowlege might get them ‘jobs’, but they needed to think about the ethical consequences as well.
Why isn’t ‘ethics’ taught in High School? Really, why did I (as a science teacher) need to fill that gap? Where were the ‘Liberal Arts’?
LikeLike
Sorry, close to the end there was a typo. “I” should have been ‘It’, referring to the film, not me. I wish there was a way on this platform to edit things like that.
LikeLike
“Really, why did I (as a science teacher) need to fill that gap? Where were the ‘Liberal Arts’?”
Seriously?! Are you really saying that ethics are not taught in the liberal arts? So those units on the Holocaust or the Civil Rights Movement or the books like “Animal Farm” or “To Kill a Mockingbird” had nothing to do with examining ethics? Moreover, as a science teacher you should feel obligated to “fill in the gaps” from a scientific perspective. There is a difference between what we can do in science and what we should do that, I think, is best illuminated from a scientist’s perspective and adds depth to any discussion that may occur from a liberal arts viewpoint.
LikeLike
I think preventing Germany from getting the bomb was only part of the motivation for the physicists and engineers who worked on the Manhattan project.
My guess is that they did it largely because it was an interesting physics and engineering challenge.
At least Richard Feynman was honest and admitted as much.
The claims like “I was duped” are difficult to believe coming from some of the smartest people on the planet.
LikeLike
I tend to agree, somedam. However, most of those working on the ‘problem’ didn’t consider the the ramifications. This comes out in the film by Szllard.
Hiroshima caused a tsunami of a change for at least a few decades. I (for example) decided to teach High School instead of making atomic bombs, or work for the ‘Space Agency’ (i.e., the Pentagon).
Don’t kid yourself, physicists may appear to be ‘smart’, and few could get through the rigor of their training, however we are all prone to making mistakes. The atomic bomb was a mistake.
Feynman may have known what he was doing, however most involved in the ‘project’ did not. Feynman suffered for decades among the ‘physics community’ for his role (and, as you can see, that ostracism infects my perception).
Note that the ‘bomb’ was used against Japan, not Germany. And, it mostly killed civilians, not military. Also note that the bomb was used after it was clear that the Japanese were seeking a diplomatic means of surrender. There is just no ethical excuse, and as a Physics guy, it is an intense cause for shame. We were duped, and, thus, not the ‘smartest guys on the planet’.
LikeLike
Daedalus– There is a terrific novel called “The Narrow Road to the Deep North” [2013, Richard Flanagan]. It is mostly about the grotesque horrors endured by Aussie POW’s building the “railroad to nowhere” [Burma Railroad] under brutal Japanese army supervisors. But it follows one of those Japanese army officials on out of the jungle back to Japan, into the nuclear holocaust and its aftermath. He was not a cardboard cut-out bad guy character, so we do not read it as payback. The only novel I’ve read that explores that particular territory at ground-level. Challenges one to question how anything could justify it.
LikeLike
On it, Somedam… will order it today. Thanks.
LikeLike
To claim they were duped implies they were bamboozled and had no inkling that the politicians and military would use it in a way different from what they said.
The mere fact that physicists like Szilard and Oppenheimer later felt guilt actually means that they suspected as much but were so caught up in the excitement of the project that they were willing (eager?) to put aside their misgivings.
Incidentally. There was one physicist who actually quit the Manhattan project when it became clear that what was being claimed by the politicians andmilitary was likely not reality. Joseph Rotblat later got aNobel Peace prize for his work on arms control.
LikeLike
Oppenheimer in particular learned (too late) what happens when you steer the ship toward iceberg laden waters and then try to save it after it hits the iceberg.
But I don’t believe for second that he actually thought there were no icebergs.
LikeLike
And then there were physicists like Freeman Dyson who, till their dying days refused to believe that Truman knew that the Japanese were prepared to surrender before the bombs were dropped, conveniently ignoring the blatantly obvious (and very relevant) fact that the US was veritably itching to “impress” Russia with its new military power.
If Dyson was duped, he duped himself.
LikeLike
The most curious thing about Dyson was that he was not involved in the Manhattan project and therefore had no motivation to assuage guilt — although it is at least possible that he was attempting to rationalize the roles played by friends like Feynman.
LikeLike
Well… I worked at an AEC facility that made nuclear detonators for a year or two in the summers (helped pay my grad student bills), and I can assure you that it’s rather easy to dupe people. First, the ‘secrecy’ thing is so ‘important’ and makes sure people can’t talk to one another. As a result, you have no idea what you are actually working on.
I was working on ‘transport properties of noble (inert) gasses’, and what could be more harmless than a noble gas? And, yet, I now suspect that the purpose of the program was to find a better way to purify those radioactive isotopes that make atomic bombs blow up. None of the people working in our little group appeared to think of that, and all were focused on a ‘better understanding’ of nature. We had no military background and couldn’t imagine how people could want to use an understanding of Nature as a way to kill people. Naive, I guess.
I think it’s clear that many working on the Manhattan Project thought that they were simply trying for a ‘better understanding’. Not all understood that they were making a bomb. Oppenheimer knew, and he deserved his ostracism.
Also, physicists didn’t ‘assemble’ the bomb. Engineers did that. And, after the ‘demonstration’ in the desert, Szilard immediately started to beg that the bomb never be used. By then, however, the physicists were out of the decision-making process.
After that, huge numbers of physicists quit, and refused to be employed in the ‘defense’ industry. As a result, the ‘Hydrogen’ bomb was a result of captured German Nazi physicists.
That leaves us with a dilemma, doesn’t it? Rationality con enhance our lives, but it can also be used to kill. So, should we go back to the Dark Ages? Today, I kicked out a few wasps that had come into my home. Such animals have been around for at least 300 million years, well beyond 100 times as long as anything remotely resembling a ‘human’. So, who’s ‘smarter’?
LikeLike
“Today, I kicked out a few wasps that had come into my home. Such animals have been around for at least 300 million years, well beyond 100 times as long as anything remotely resembling a ‘human’. So, who’s ‘smarter’?”
I guess it depends on how you define smarter although I don’t think either wasps or humans had much to say about their “evolution.” I guess we are the first creatures who might manage to engineer their own extinction with agency.
LikeLike
LOL!
LikeLike
The whole thing is actually similar to Walter White’s rationale for why he makes meth in Breaking Bad.
For a long time he keeps telling his wife and even himself that he does it “for his family.”
But in the end he finally admits to his wife that he does it because he likes it and because he is good at it.
In my opinion, that is the primary reason the physicists kept working on the bomb after it was clear that Germany had been defeated. They liked it snd wanted to see the fruits of their labor. They wanted to see if it really worked.
Germany surrendered May 9 , 1945 (so the original rationale for the bomb disappeared — poof,!) and the first test of the a-bomb was not until July 16, 1945. If the physicists had refused to complete the assembly and test the bomb , it could not have been used on Japan.
LikeLike
Well, how many ‘gaps’ do (or did) you fill in about inductive logic and it’s major importance in keeping our species alive? That’s ‘ethics’, right? But, of course, that depends upon which ‘group’ you decide to promote. That’s rather a key component, eh?
It’s good, however, to hear that you are holding up your end, when it comes to ‘ethics’.
LikeLike
As a symbolic step, the proposed legislation may be a good thing–a win for sanity. It probably is that–but be careful what you wish for. And, as it is said, the devil’s in the details. Especially in money for school “security.” If it means more police in the schools, it’s a terrible idea. Or training so teachers can carry guns. No! Please No! But if it’s money for guidance counselors–which has been cut in Ohio and elsewhere–it could be good. Better still, money for dispute resolutions programs, such as the one we had at Chillicothe High School in the ’90’s, but had to drop. We teachers and counselors had to do it on our own time–conference periods, lunch periods, after school (when the kids can’t or won’t attend), etc. Our program died, and then our counseling staff was cut. Money for schools to use on counseling, human relations, etc. could be very helpful. I’m not holding my breath, though.
LikeLike
For some perspective — about 60 people are murdered with guns every day in the U.S., with the weapon of choice overwhelmingly being the handgun. Just as nothing in this proposed deal would have prevented the massacres in Buffalo or Uvalde, a total ban on assault rifles would not have prevented the overwhelming majority of the gun murders that happened yesterday or will happen today, tomorrow, or the next day. But every little bit of progress is good. In such an imperfect system, we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
LikeLike
Yep. Handguns are totally useless for hunting or killing ‘varmints’. They (like AR-15’s) are only good for killing people. They ought to be banned every bit as much as ‘assault weapons’.
LikeLike
If it were up to me, I would ban private ownership of guns.
But it is not up to me.
LikeLike
Some of us, who raise food, would rather use guns instead of poison. Poison is bound to creep into the crop and is far more dangerous to the general biosphere. Guns can be ‘aimed’ at the particular problem.
I don’t mind rabbits, in general. However, those who eat my bean sprouts are on my ‘hit list’.
Same with my Asian pears. I don’t ‘hate’ crows, or raccoons, or possums… Yet, when they attempt to take away my food, well, something needs to be done.
You, quite clearly, don’t raise (and eat) your own food. In ‘Nature’, other organisms are always trying to ‘grift’. If you let them do what they want, you will end up starving (and that includes ‘you’ who think food is produced in a grocery store). So…
Would you rather have poison-free food in your grocery, or have the varmints removed by other means? In either case the varmints will die, but in one case you won’t have to eat the poison and the response will be to a particular pest instead of a broad swath of nature ( and humanity).
It’s so easy for people who ‘buy their food’ to dissociate themselves from the reality of food production. If they truly want to understand, they should try raising their own food.
LikeLike
I feel positive about this, simply because it’s a break in the logjam. Legislative gridlock has been going on almost unremittingly since Reps first set their sights on refusing to pass anything proposed by Dems (in 2010). That’s got a lot to do with why Americans poll very low on satisfaction with Congress, and high on distrust in govtl institutions. The fact that this is movement on one of the key culture-war issues polarizing Reps & Dems makes it significant. I had zero expectation that any gun control would be passed consequent to yet another mass shooting. Perhaps more such positive devpts will ensue– in other areas– any movement forward is welcome in my book.
LikeLike
I agree with this.
LikeLike
I’m not so sanguine. First, nothing has been passed into law. Secondly, if anything is, it will drag the Democratic Party (misnomer, at this point) even farther away from what people actually want. But, it will provide ‘theater’ before the election.
I live in a county that spends very little on public infrastructure (other than the police, of course). Every election season, the ‘Road Superintendent’ has people go out and throw a few shovels of asphalt/gravel mix into the ever-growing potholes. By December. that shabby cosmetic will begin to disintegrate and by Spring, the holes will be bigger than ever. BUT, the facade will be enough to continue the current power structure, and in another two (or four) years the farce will be repeated.
LikeLike
We drove through Tennessee on our way to North Carolina and decided to stop for the night rather than fight the potholes through the mountains. It was nerve wracking enough during the daylight.
LikeLike
That’s what Republicans do. Let me be fair, that’s also what corporate Democrats do. They suck away from the ‘public good’ in order to feed the ravenous maw of the already wealthy.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say I’m sanguine. I’m just saying this deal would be better than nothing, and therefore it would be a good thing.
LikeLike
It is a cynical deal.
LikeLike
I write this after another mass shooting that hit close to home. St. Stephens Episcopal Church near Birmingham, AL is the latest tragedy. I have attended Diocesan meetings in that church. The brutal murder of fellow “boomers” at a pot luck supper has many of us Christians who do not espouse to the “Prosperity Gospel” grift in anguish. Between the greedy corporatists and the grievance culture they exploit, we are a sick nation. It is no accident that all of these incidents that are taking innocent citizens are perpetrated by cowardly individuals who choose unarmed victims. There are never good or bad guys with a gun in the general vicinity. Remember that it took over two decades to make seat belts the law and another three decade for air bags. I’m afraid we do not have the luxury of such time for us to come to our senses.
LikeLike