Julianne Moore is adding her voice to the many calling for gun ownership reform following the horrific uptick in random mass shootings. She’s doing so in a way that sounds nonthreatening to gun owners and is quite practical. Moore is advocating for background checks to gun licensure in a process which she compares to the reform in the automobile industry. She likens it to the way that people apply for driver’s licenses and makes it clear that she does not want to weaken the second amendment. Moore is also enlisting the help of her famous friends to join the cause. She’s partnering with the established gun safety nonprofit group, Everytown for Gun Safety, to create a celebrity offshoot of the organization called the Everytown Creative Council. Here’s some of what she told People, with more at the source:
Joining forces with Everytown for Gun Safety, the largest gun violence prevention organization in the U.S., Moore is now launching the Everytown Creative Council, which includes members of the creative community who support gun violence prevention.
“As actors, we are citizens first so we believe in the Constitution and the Second Amendment,” Moore says. “But 92 percent of the people in the United States are in favor of background checks, too, so I don’t feel like I’m in the minority. I definitely feel like I’m in the majority here.”
The actress equates gun safety with strives that have been made in the automobile industry as well. “For cars, you have to have training and you have to have a license, and you wear seat belts and we have airbags and we have all of these things in place that have reduced fatalities unbelievably,” Moore says. “And it was a totally unregulated industry at first. I feel like something that is very sensible and straight forward can be done also with guns.”
Moore hopes the Council will ultimately help create more awareness for change. “Call your state legislator, lobby for it in your own community. Talk about it culturally, too, there are plenty of gun owners who are interested in safety,” she says.
“I know people who own guns who have a gun safe because they have children in their house. These are responsible people. By talking about it, we can admit it’s a problem and we can admit that we want to work together to solve it.”
To date, 79 celebrities including Steve Carrell, Reese Witherspoon and Ellen DeGeneres have already joined the Council and the list continues to grow. “I was going through my address book alphabetically. That’s all I did. ‘Please, are you interested,’ and the response has been overwhelming. I’m so, so thrilled. Everybody feels this way about this issue,” Moore adds. “I feel like with gun safety, there have been many people who feel threatened by saying something but I don’t think I’m saying anything that’s unreasonable. With all of these rights that we have in our Constitution come a great deal of responsibility, and I think the founding fathers would agree with me.”
I’ve actually made similar points to my friends – that gun ownership is easier than getting a license to drive and that it should have similar safeguards in place. I don’t know this from direct experience as I’m not a gun owner. I might go farther than Moore in my regulation recommendations, but she’s focusing on solutions which have a chance of being implemented in our gun-happy nation.
Noted economist Malcolm Gladwell did an interview on NPR this morning outlining the points he made in his New Yorker article about the threshold of violence. Gladwell made the comparison between school shootings and looting, stating that the first school shooters at Columbine (I’m not writing their names) were significantly disturbed, but that once something catches on more people (teens) are willing to join, similar to the way that looting and rioting spread in a city. As for stopping the spread of gun violence, he said that it’s not as simple as the news media refusing to use the names of mass murderers (although of course the media doesn’t do that) because the shooters become famous online. Gladwell downplayed access to guns, which seemed incredibly short sighted.
Germany was facing a school shooting issue after two high profile cases. They instituted tougher gun laws following the Wittenburg shooting in 2009, including strict registration requirements and a national gun registry. Mass shootings were nearly eliminated. Yes ideas can spread but they require the hardware to follow through.
Moore is shown in the header in Chanel on 10-12 at the Mademoiselle Prive Exhibition at the Saatchi Gallery in London. She’s also shown on 10-13 (sequin skirt, booties) and on 9-28 at the NY premiere of Freeheld at the Moma (velvet dress with bow. Credit: WENN.com and FameFlynet
This is very simple, I don’t get why people allow the NRA who make millions off of deaths of innocents by raising their memberships and recruiting new members after shootings to have such a stronghold on the US (same can be said for big-pharma too).
I also live in Canada now and never hear about mass shootings up here. Same can be said for other similar countries. I don’t think it is because we simply are more violent as Americans, I think we just need stricter gun laws.
This seems like such a simple and effective solution to an ever growing problem. I must confess that I simply don’t understand gun nuts. If you have a gun you need to be willing to use it, and do you so desperately need to kill another living being? As our dear old Eddie said, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun helps”
That statement is a bit unfair, we too have our share of mass shootings unfortunately, albeit those happen less frequently. The gun registry that Harper abolished (and shredded despite some provinces wanting to keep their records) was created as an extra protection after the Polytechnique massacre, where 14 women were killed for the sole reason they were women studying to be engineers (the killer told the men to leave, he wanted to kill “feminists”). As a matter of fact, Montreal holds the world record of school shootings (Poly, Concordia and Dawson; as a woman working in Academia, I refuse to forget those who lost their lives). There was also a huge shooting in Toronto on Boxing Day a few years ago… The difference is in the frequency, as I can somewhat easily list all the shootings that happened in Canada in the last 25 years when it would be hard to list those that happened in the USA in the last 5.
The difference surely resides in gun laws: Canadians are hunters, we have actually lots of guns, but they are mostly hunting riffles that can’t shoot many bullets/min and getting a gun requires background checks (that became stricter after the Concordia shooting; the killer had been deemed too unstable to get a gun, but his wife bought one, guess who’s gun he took to shoot colleagues during a Departmental meeting?). No country has a perfect record when it comes to gun violence (or violence in general, remember the kid who stabbed his friends at a party in Alberta last spring?), but we and other at least try to learn from our mistakes so that such things don’t happen again.
From the point of view of the UK……how about no more guns. End of.
Having an armed population, even in a controlled way, is clearly not working.
I’m with Obama’s recent speech vis a vis waking up to another shooting again. Aren’t you guys tired of the mutual mass killings?? How can you wake up to another killing repeatedly yet refuse to give up the guns?
If 92% of the population already agree, what is stopping a grass-roots organisation to de-arm the populace. You really don’t need a Rosa Parks or the govt on this issue when you all agree.
I agree 100% with Obama’s speech; it is all becoming routine. We are numb to such mass killings. When I lived in the states, everyone’s comments were “oh well, another one”. Like it is commonplace and not such a big deal anymore. We need to create a country where it is a rare exception like other countries have.
Canadian here and that’s my attitude as well. When I hear of another shooting in the US, I’ve stopped reading/listening about it. The pro gun attitude baffles and angers me and all I can think is that if you won’t change the system, you have to live with the fall out. Sadly. I feel so sorry for you guys.
Many of us certainly are and can actually see that the Second Amendment contains the term “well-regulated.” But sadly, we have far too many in this country, including the majority in Congress, who are under the sway of the NRA and think we need more guns. What we need is more Julianne Moores and fewer Kelsey Grammers
92% are in favor of background checks, not outlawing guns completely. Too many nuts in the US think having a gun is a source of fun and good times, the only thing that will change the law is ironically more high profile mass shootings. Once the target is too shocking or the casualties too high it will become too much political poison to keep grandstanding.
Sandy Hook was bad but also felt like a ‘first’ making it easier for people to argue the problem with Adam Lanza specifically and not guns at all. With these last three shootings the excuses are getting harder and harder to appear reasonable and more folks are pushig for gun control.
Oops, thought 92% was outlawing guns.
….but i’m coming from a UK perspective where we had one mass shooting, in Dunblane Scotland – a primary school shooting, which was one mass shooting too many for us and guns were immediately banned.
People are also getting tired of politicians claiming that, as in the case of Sandy Hook, it is an issue of mental health care and not guns when they have not only done nothing to improve access to mental health care but have actually cut mental health services.
20 children at Sandy Hook – not shocking enough.
The mental health issue seems to be with the politicians, not the people.
It will never happen. 30 states would have to agree to change the Constitution, and that will simply never happen. The majority of folks are for safe and sane gun laws, but not doing away with guns completely. We have different populations and different rights than the UK.
Killing someone has no colour or creed or rights. Saying UK has different laws and cultures is simply to side step the issue which is that guns are being used on a regular basis to kill people.
Saying every state would have to agree and that will be difficult is also self defeating. Someone needs to start somewhere.
Taking the example of civil rights, that was something someone had to start and not everyone agreed, heck some states had to be forced to agree. And look where you are now.
A population armed to the teeth is clearly not working.
Federal law can and does override state law in many different aspects of civil life. Citizens of the UK, Canada, Australia and most nations that sensibly regulate gun ownership have doubtless as many rights as citizens of the United States.
Many American feel that lax gun laws are actually *depriving* them of their constitutionally guaranteed rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And the courts need to be challenged to interpret the Second Amendment in a way that makes sense for the health and welfare of the nation, not in a way that makes sense to the NRA. Unfortunately, that might not happen with the courts as they exist today, but some states are seeing cases brought against gun dealers for illegal sales. We’ll see how they work their way through the system, and in the meantime we can count on one thing: more people will die.
Yes, because what I’m clearly saying is that it’s great to kill people. Hooray!
Here’s the thing: when you say “just ban all the guns” not only is it unfeasible, but it also plays into the silly propaganda set forth by the NRA. Gun control quickly becomes synonymous with “they’re going to confiscate all your guns!” and renders and any all reasonable discussion impossible. The US in not England or Australia, our governments are different, are people are different, and trying to apply the same solution simply is not likely to happen. So I’m being realistic, especially when you consider that at heart there are a lot of issues converging with gun control – healthcare (in the form of mental health care) economic, education. It’s not just about the guns (which should indeed by regulated), its about the individuals behind them and the fact that if we are continually producing these individuals we are failing as a society.
And the 2nd Amendment has indeed been ruled on by the Supreme Court, and fairly recently (in the last decade) – and they ruled that there’s no judicial obstacle to federal or state regulations on the subject. The failure lays squarely with Congress.
Bridget: all those are just excuses. There are countries that have gone through civil wars as recently as the 90s, and the population isn’t armed to the teeth.
The argument that it’s too complicated to de-arm the population only holds water because you guys let it hold water.
So we should weaken the fourth and fifth amendment to regulate the second? That’s insane requiring people to talk to police ever is not OK. Requiring that they be allowed to inspect your home without a warrant? Not OK. Allowing them to dig through your private medical history? Not OK. Plus with 1 in 3 Americans having been in jail or prison they won’t have a problem finding someone you know with a criminal history. Talking to the police is idotic, regardless of if you’re a criminal or not. They are not your friends. Based on the news it seems like a lot of cops shouldn’t be able to have fire arms much less figure out who else should find them. Also, where is the money coming from to fund this?
It also feeds into the paranoia. The guns are for fighting back the government so why would the people crazy enough to think they could defend themselves against the US military be OK with agents of that government digging through their private lives and approving them.
Realistically moving the needle on this would take redoing the government. Keeping lobbyists and money out of politics. Not allowing money to equal speech, not allowing corporations to be considered people. There is a lot to undo. Until then the NRA will lobby domestic violence “doesn’t count” as a crime that should keep you from owning a weapon and manufactures and sellers’ would have to be willing to take liability for their actions. Comparing what other countries have done and saying do that doesn’t work. We have a different system and a different set of laws. We also are not a democracy, we are a republic.
Also people always freak out about mental health but people with mental illnesses are more likely to be the victims not purpotrators of violent crime.
At this point I agree with Chris Rock’s POV – $5,000 bullets. If you splash out that kinda cash you must have a decent reason. Lol, just kidding.
^^ God I wish it was only 8%. A Republican poll showed more believed Ted Cruise was from the US (is not, never claimed to be) then Obama. It’s really too bad IQ tests as a prerequisite to vote were used for racist reason.
92% of the population is not agreeing to de-arm the population, they are agreeing to a vague idea that we should do more background checks. There is no clear plan how that would work. How do you report someone is too mentality ill for a gun? How do you keep a database full of protected health information secure and confidential when its in the hands of hundreds of thousands of people who sell firearms? Would it deter people from seeking help or be honest with their doctor? It is not an easy plan to implement especially with the NRA, their lobbyists, and all their bought and paid for Congressmen doing everything in their pretty emense power to maintain the status quo.
It is any easy thing to get behind in theory. In practice the 92% approval is going to freefall. It’s not an easy fix. Unless you could get 92% of the US population to volunteer to surrender their firearms. Heck even after seven years in office I don’t think you could get 92% of people to agree our President was born in this country.
That last sentence is very sad to me. If there are still a large group of people who believe Obama is not a US citizen, i wish we could prevent those people from voting. LOL
With respect, it’s not that difficult. In my country, you need to apply for a licence to own a firearm, attend a compulsory safety course and pass a test, and provide details of two referees. The police visit you and interview you and your referees, and check you have made arrangements to safely store the firearm, out of reach of children etc. If you have a history of violence, substance abuse, mental health issues, criminal associates etc you won’t be issued the licence. You also won’t be issued it if you claim to want the gun for self defence. We have a strong tradition of sport hunting but have only ever had one mass shooting that I can think of, more than 20 years ago. Even our police don’t routinely carry guns.
Beware when the people advocating for a solution of more guns are the folks that will profit the most from selling those guns.
Something like 40% of all gun sales are private transactions that don’t require the same background checks. Most gun owners I know are all for safe an sane regulation, and Julianne is correct on the number of folks in favor of universal background checks.
Hmm..when I buy cars, no one ever checks to see if I’m wanted somewhere or crazy..just if the check will clear. Perhaps she’s thinking drivers license rather than car..but that doesn’t fit either. She may mean well, but the analogy isn’t clear
But they do when you get your licence, which is the point being made here.
My only problem with the analogy is that cars are designed for transportation and most of the time are driven safely. Guns are designed to kill AND most of us don’t need to hunt to eat OR kill a lot of people very quickly. I see what she’s trying to do, but this could be a trap. Gun “rights” lobbyists are always going on about how many more people are killed in road accidents etc., as if that makes it all right for toddlers to accidentally shoot people dead.
“Gun “rights” lobbyists are always going on about how many more people are killed in road accidents etc., as if that makes it all right for toddlers to accidentally shoot people dead.”
…But it’s true. Actually, with safety features improving in cars, it looks like deaths by car are finally getting DOWN to the number of deaths by gun per year.
As for toddlers, I am all for disallowing parents who cannot properly lock up their guns from having guns at all.
More gun deaths each year – by a factor of nearly 2 – occur from suicide than homicide.
The first thing I noticed was that she worded that statement very, very carefully. She’s not really arguing that there should be less guns or anything of that sort. She’s arguing that one should have to demonstrate some kind of baseline knowledge and responsibility to get one. And I don’t think it’s hard to think, okay, that’s actually a smart idea. A lot of gun accidents occur when people try to do dumb stuff with them, like clean them without unloading first, etc. I see no reason not to support stuff like that.
Although I feel like I should point out as an attorney that looking to other nations is really a lousy way to draw parallels. Even the ACLU has noted that the German idea would be illegal here in the United States (a national gun registry, I mean). The ACLU argument is essentially that the registry would serve no real legitimate purpose towards reducing gun crime, since the vast majority of gun crime involves guns that are traded or purchased illegally and that such a registry would have potential implications for the right to privacy, which is enshrined in federal caselaw. The ACLU did eventually wind up supporting the Toomey-Manchin Bill, but only after they inserted language expressly prohibiting the creation of a national gun registry.
And here’s my last thought: I would really love if more people – celebrities and the like – talked about the overwhelming driver of gun violence in America: POVERTY. No single factor – not mental illness, not easy access to guns, nothing else – is more predictive when it comes to gun violence than POVERTY. I get that Sandy Hook was a horrendous, gut-wrenching thing, and it was and I totally understand it. But part of why it was so awful was because it represented violence intruding upon a place that we didn’t expect it. On average, in terms of shooting deaths, there is an equivalent to Sandy Hook every week or two in places like Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit, etc. But we don’t pay attention, by and large, because we convince ourselves that those people “deserve it.”
I appreciate that people want to address the gun issue. But I don’t see it being effective. If you actually meaningfully wanted to reduce gun deaths in America, you would address poverty (along with meaningful mental health reforms, but that’s a different issue). Until that starts being done, I tend to see gun campaigns as really well-intentioned but largely not going anywhere. As bad as this stuff is, meaningful reductions in gun violence will take a lot more than it seems like anybody wants to do.
“And here’s my last thought: I would really love if more people – celebrities and the like – talked about the overwhelming driver of gun violence in America: POVERTY. No single factor – not mental illness, not easy access to guns, nothing else – is more predictive when it comes to gun violence than POVERTY. I get that Sandy Hook was a horrendous, gut-wrenching thing, and it was and I totally understand it. But part of why it was so awful was because it represented violence intruding upon a place that we didn’t expect it. On average, in terms of shooting deaths, there is an equivalent to Sandy Hook every week or two in places like Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit, etc. But we don’t pay attention, by and large, because we convince ourselves that those people “deserve it.”
+1
The vast majority of mass shootings have been by middle class shooters who purchased their weapons legally. The majority of gun accidents fit that same criteria.
While other incidents of gun violence do have roots in poverty, the mass shootings do not.
Canada, the UK, Australia etc. … all have poor people. Still less gun violence. Because fewer guns. More checks upon ownership, but mostly fewer guns.
Who are these people: Ah, but think about it. All those countries you named have far better social safety nets than the US. All of them have some form of baseline guaranteed healthcare. They all jail far fewer people. Doesn’t that sort of change the analysis for ya?
Poverty is the US is glaringly hard to break out from. It traps you. My family is extremely fortunate that we eventually got the means to leave the neighborhood (and that was attributable to the death of a loved one and a decent sized inheritance). No matter how much my parents worked, there are forces in the US that conspire to keep the poor, well, poor. And that makes poor people here a special kind of desperate. And so they turn to illicit means to earn a living. And when something is illegal, it’s dangerous. And when something is dangerous, you’re vulnerable. And the vulnerable will arm themselves to try to stay safe. And they usually aren’t buying legal guns to do it.
All the data indicates that there is a profoundly strong correlation between poverty in an area and the level of gun violence. Make no mistake, Newtown was horrific, but for most people, it wasn’t really about small children being murdered. People under the age of 18 are shot and killed every single day in America. You just don’t hear about it. Newtown was also about violence intruding upon a place that was believed to be “safe” and shattering a sense of security. That’s what did it. Why did it take that to get people to care? It shouldn’t. But it did. And if it finally got people to talk about guns, great. But until you recognize that gun violence, in most cases, is a symptom of a bigger issue, I don’t see any real progress getting made.
Interestingly, England, Austrialia, etc have less gun violence, but they have actually seen a rise in violent crimes since banning guns. So they’ve managed the scope of these violent crimes, but it would appear that they haven’t addressed the social root causes either.
@LilacFlowers-You are leaving out the majority of gun violence deaths happen where? to whom? It is not from mass shootings, which are statistically very rare events. What about the gun violence in Chicago? Baltimore? Detroit? Nobody wants to talk about that. The majority of violent gun crimes are from illegal possession.
@Sam-very good points.
@Sam you make some interesting points but there are lots of countries which have entrenched poverty which is difficult to break out of, what about India with its caste system? The difference in America is that everyone, even the poor, have ready access to guns.
Lilac: Here’s the thing, though: “Mas shootings” account for a very small percentage of total gun-related deaths. Roughly speaking, according to the CDC, about 2/3 of all gun deaths in America are suicides. Tragic, certainly, but let’s remove them from the analysis. Another 1-2 thousand each year are attributable to accidents. That leaves the homicides. For the last year available, which was 2013, there were over 11,000 firearm homicides in the US, and only around 500 of them were part of a “mass shooting.” (Let me note: Law enforcement considers a mass shooting to be any shooting events that has a minimum of 4 victims -killed or wounded). That means that less than 5% of all US gun homicide deaths come from mass shootings. The other almost 96% are “general homicides.”
That to me is a serious issue. That same data reveals that while the majority of mass shooting victims are white, people of color are far more likely to die in gun violence, but they tend to be part of that almost 96%. That’s my big beef with most of these campaigns – they focus on the smaller problem. I appreciate what Moore says, but I do sort of get slightly miffed when she phrases it as “after Newtown.” She does realize that children are shot and killed fairly routinely in America, right? But most of them are not white, they’re poor and they’re killed in dumb, stupid altercations over very little. And the news covers it maybe once and moves on. That’s routine in this country.
Like I said, Newtown didn’t represent people starting to care about guns, or even children. It represented people caring that a phenomenon that before was the problem of big cities, of minorities, suddenly came to them. That’s the frightening thing. And the data is really clear that wherever you find routine gun violence, you will find poverty.
TrixC: Actually, look up the numbers. India’s intentional homicide rate is actually not that far off from the United States (4.7 homicides per 100,000 people in the US, 3.5 in India). That’s only a difference of about 1 extra homicide in the US. It’s close. And look up the data otherwise. You will see that the highest homicide rates in the world are actually in South and Latin America, where poverty is dire and exacerbated by the illegal drug trade. So your point is actually not that solid. You want to find violence? Find poverty.
Given all the gun violence, individual and mass, that’s an AWFUL LOT of “individuals” we’re producing. The Supreme Court has a lot of conservative appointees. A different court might rule otherwise. With the Bush-Cheney government crowing about how the NRA would work out of the Oval Office, all 3 branches of government have failed on this issue.
England, Australia, Canada – all democracies. Are people different? Everyone bleeds the same way. This is like saying that the USA can’t have single-payer health care because “it’s different” from all the other advanced countries that have nationalized access to health care (via some form of public or public-private insurance). The country can and should learn from the examples of others because others keep their people healthy and alive much better. What makes the US different: big money in politics, a history of violence, a poorly worded amendment to the Constitution, and regional variations in the concepts of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty.’
All right, let’s a) ban assault weapons, because who needs those for self-defense? b) redistribute income and support full employment c) pay people to turn in their guns (it works pretty well) d) continue to work on economic inequality e) close gun-show and dealer-sale loopholes f) pay people a living wage g) improve background checks and make them uniform nationwide h) ensure affordable housing i) ban the NRA from lobbying Congress J) work on poverty! k) fund mental -health problems effectively for the first time since Reagan, and let public-health experts work on the problem of unstable, un-medicated young men and access to weapons, l) POVERTY – pay women what men get m) reduce guns in the media the way we reduced cigarettes in the media n) get kids out of poverty o) ….
Amen.
I am an Oregonian and the mass murder a little over a week ago made us sad then angry. I hate guns, I think they’re unnecessary and they’re the instruments to violence. However, guns and America seem to go hand in hand. I’d like to also see very strict rules regarding guns. I’d go so far as the gun owner should have a psychological test, just to make sure they’re not unbalanced.
Sociopaths are intelligent enough to pass these tests easily. They’re completely in touch with reality.
Background checks of all kinds would be useful, though.
As well as severe limitations on the TYPES of guns being sold. Assault rifles? We knew it was a bad day when the ban on them expired.
I am so sorry for what your state has been through. I’m actually from Tasmania where the awful mass shooting of 35 people occurred in 1996. I was in grade 9 and still to this day remember everything of the event, the days, weeks, months and even years after. It shook our state and country beyond belief.
I am so proud that our country was able to change so dramatically after that horrific event. Within a matter of months, our newly elected (conservative) prime minister had completely overhauled our gun laws, which had to be done in each state. He faced huge opposition too, but it was done. Nearly 700,000 guns were bought back by the government. As a population we had an increase to our Medicare levy from 1.5% to 1.7% for one year to cover the cost. We all played a part in this process.
Since then we have had ZERO mass shootings. We had actually had quite a few leading up Port Arthur too.
I think we enjoy a wonderful quality of life here in Australia and would you believe in my 33 years the only gun I have ever seen is on a police officer and I intend to keep it that way.
I like to believe that we aren’t that much different to our US friends, and I truly hope the attitude to guns changes and you guys can enjoy a safer society.
Thank you for your report. It takes strength and conviction, but clearly in the case of Australia it worked. Point 2 percent for one year is not a big price to pay to keep people safe. The fact that these shootings are NOT shaking American society the way they should says something about the acceptance of violence and cheapening of human life. It’s so sad. The USA would be MORE of a powerhouse, MORE of a respected world leader, even more of a free society, if it just cut back on the guns.
All it is now is increasingly militarized, angry and paranoid.
It’s urgent we try to solve this huge problem, and not with somewhere-over-the-rainbow “solutions” the NRA pretends to want, like therapy or some sort of pre-cog.
Sadly, I have a feeling their pushback to the idea of licensing or insurance similar to cars will be that the second amendment is a constitutional right and that a right is not subject to licensing or insurance schemes.
Did Constitutional Court not say that the gay marriage was contrary to the US Constitution before ?
The anti-gun/ gun control lobby needs to be more powerful than NRA lobby
The NRA outspends the gun control lobby by abut 4 to 1.
I wish to give foreigners a more accurate view of what’s happening in this country and why many people feel held hostage by the laws and those motivated to keep supporting this foolishness.
It all boils down to lobbies, allowing them and not regulating them—-big pharma has a huge one too which is why my prescriptions are 2/3 less in Canada than the US. Lobbies aren’t allowed to have such a stronghold in other countries. Welcome to capitalistic/corporate America.
Wait till the TPP passes. Drugs will go up in Canada, too. : (
I say this as a gun owner–it is WAY to easy to purchase a gun even when it DOES require a background check. I was astonished that I could walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun that very same day–the background check is a joke. Not to mention is was VERY APPARENT I had no idea what I was doing (I purchased a handgun for the SO, who is very proficient with firearms and firearm safety, as a gift)–I literally walked it, pulled up a link on my cell phone and said “I want to purchase this” and 15 minutes later I walked out the door with it. I’m a firm believer in the second amendment BUT it’s far too easy. This was purchasing through a store, not a private sale. People really need to face reality and use common sense– guns are not toys and yet we treat them as such when regulating them (in fact, I’d be willing to bet that safety requirements for toys are far stricter than gun safety requirements).
Some states require a three-day “cooling down” period. Which is grossly ironic, because there have been cases where a woman wanted a gun to protect herself from a violent ex-lover / husband / stalker, and was murdered during the cooling down period. I’m not kidding; Google it.
Point being, not every state lets you just walk out the same day with a gun. Whether that’s a good or a bad thing, I don’t know.
I had an ex stalk me repeatedly and got a restraining order renewed 3 years in a row due to the judge’s decision that he was a danger to me and others (he stalked two other exes that I know of during this same time period). He violated it two times and went to jail each time; got an ankle monitor after the first time. I at no time felt like I needed a gun to defend myself against him. The justice system prevailed in my favor and he was never a bother since the 3 years were up. I don’t publicize anything on social media (my accounts are private), but other than that, I just feel like if you need a gun to protect yourself against someone, the justice system is failing you.
I realize in varies in states. My state does the background check and when I asked “so what if something popped on the background check?” they said they would call me and ask me to bring the gun back in (I wish I were joking). It’s a completely useless system in this state.
Re: domestic violence. The system sometimes fails people but I don’t believe that we should use that as a reason to NOT have a waiting period.
@lem That is insane! How many people would actually bring it back? how about not allowing someone to get a gun until the background check came back clear? I like also what other people said about vouging for your friends/relatives neighbors in owning one(they have that in other countries). I know a few people I would be like hell no for various reasons (depression, etc).
I’ve just read about this issue but related to Brazil. I think the laws over there are worth to think about how they would work in America.
A person can only own a gun legally after going through a good amount of certified documents , there are no visible gun stores and guns are not sold anywhere else.
Wow, this sounds like a great idea!
It’s the same in my country. I don’t know where you buy a gun because I’ve never seen one being sold. If you do want to buy one, you get checked, your history, they interview your friends and family, sometimes your neighbours and check your house.
I don’t know anyone who owns a gun ( which is remarkable considering thete was a war going on here only 20 years ago). Maybe it’s due to the fact that our violent crime rates are extremely low.
We had one school shooting in the 70s, I think, and never again.
In Brazil the crime rates are very high because criminals are too powerful and there is way too much pity towards them from the leftists.
Every criminal own guns and they are illegal obviously.
The fact that this isnt already happening is pure insanity.
Does anyone truly feel safe with everyone being armed in America (potentially/hypothetically here)? I can imagine scenarios where you get in argument with a friend/relative/coworker/spouse and then you draw guns and shoot one another. Wait, that happens all the time already! I would like to see an America where we don’t have the need to arm ourselves against “enemies”.
I don’t. In fact I would argue strongly that had armed citizens tried to intervene in any of the recent shootings, there would have been more fatalities, not fewer. I’m distraught at the thought of a citizenry armed to the teeth 24/7. That’s simply not my idea of a civil society.
And I was also appalled this morning during Gladwell’s interview when he said access to guns was only a small part of the mass shooting uptick. I think that’s flat out wrong.
He’s wrong about a lot of things. What a self-promoter.
Some woman opened fire in a parking lot the other day because she saw security chasing a guy shoplifting a cart of stuff. Miraculously she didn’t hit any bystanders, or kill the guy shoplifting (not really a “punishable by death crime” you know?) or get shot herself by someone thinking she was just a wacko shooting at people.
So no, I do not feel safer by having more people armed.
I am all for background checks, waiting periods, required training, licensing, no crazy automatic weapons at all, etc.
The idea that guns make us safer is beyond stupid. The NRA’s “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” fails completely.
Take the killing of Chris Kyle the “American Sniper”. He was shot at a gun range surrounded by armed “good guys” who were veterans that knew how to use guns. It didn’t stop the “bad guy” with the gun from killing someone.
At the Arizona shooting where Rep. Giffords was shot, an armed citizen came out with his personal weapon and was about to fire at the shooter…when he realized that he wasn’t aiming at the shooter, he was aiming at the person who disarmed the shooter. He was a fraction of a second away from killing an innocent person, because in an active shooter situation it is impossible to tell the “good guys” from the “bad guys”.
Completely off topic, I LOVE Julianne’s style. Perfection.
Maybe im missing something here, but I thought you had to have a background check? When I got my concealed weapons permit, they did a background check because I had to wait for it to come back. I bought my gun before that at a gun fair, they asked for my license, i assumed they did a background check because I couldn’t take it home that day, I had to wait a couple days and pick it up at a gun store. This is Florida, btw
It varies by state. But there is the “gun show loophole” which allows those who buy from unlicensed dealers to avoid background checks. Waiting periods, if at all, vary by state. In order for background checks to be effective, states need to report incidents of violence and arrests into the national database. MANY states refuse to do this, so things that should show up on background checks do not.
This is where a federal law should be in place and mandated. But sadly, even roe vs wade isn’t upheld per state (some states don’t even have abortion clinics).
You don’t have to have a background check if it’s a private sale/gift sort of thing. My dad recently sent me a gun (a very nice Ruger LCP9, btw) through an FFL. I had to have a background check when I picked it up. As for owning one, it depends on the state. In IL you have to have a FOID before you can purchase and then you have to go through the federal background check. In FL to get my concealed carry all I needed was the background check and my military paperwork. A lot depends on the state. Btw, what do you have for your concealed carry?
Background checks also vary by state – the system often doesn’t work well because not all states are particularly good about submitting the necessary data. It’s ridiculous.
This is where a federal law should be enforced and states get fined heavily if they don’t comply by filing the necessary data.
I’ve thought about this too. Not just more background checks, but I’ve also thought that perhaps people should have to complete a course in order to get a gun.
People should have to state why they need a gun. That reason better be good.
Why do you call Columbine the first one? It may have been one of the biggest but it was far from the first.
It is the first mass shooting that sticks in people’s minds. It does for me anyway as well..
Think about all those western movies where people walk into a saloon and shoot up the place over an insult. I’m sure some of that was based on fact. Columbine was just a modern example of that mentality.
If you read the links, Gladwell goes into it in some depth. Columbine wasn’t the first school shooting, but it was the first of the new generation of mass shootings. It’s the archetype, the “model” that has been set.
From the New Yorker link:
“Larkin looked at the twelve major school shootings in the United States in the eight years after Columbine, and he found that in eight of those subsequent cases the shooters made explicit reference to Harris and Klebold. Of the eleven school shootings outside the United States between 1999 and 2007, Larkin says six were plainly versions of Columbine; of the eleven cases of thwarted shootings in the same period, Larkin says all were Columbine-inspired.”
If a gorgeous woman like Juliette Moore cannot pull off the booties look, no one can! They should all be gathered up and burnt in a flaming heap. They make one’s legs look so stumpy, even when they aren’t. Who is behind this ghastly conspiracy foisted on womankind? It must be the bootie trolls.
I grew up in Alaska, was given a .22 when I was 12 and life without a gun in my hometown is impossible due to risks from wildlife. We have several bears and moose that come around the property and it can easily turn into a life or death situation with these animals. Its nature and its life; even with a gun, you aren’t always at the top of the food chain.
Also, there are a lot of criminals/misfits in Alaska who know you have at the very least a 45minute response time from the police and therefore thieves/meth heads will scope out your property/sheds for tools/anything else worth stealing. And these people are also armed, often with rifles, crossbows, hatchets etc. like i said, crazy people. And even with a court ordered background checks, they will buy a gun off someone trying to get quick cash. there are simply too many guns out there to keep track. The best thing you can do is limit ammunition. Requiring ammunition licensing and limits would go farther.
That being said, we need our weapons in Alaska. Angst filled Bobby who plays call of duty for hours in the suburbs doesn’t need an AR-15.
@Ariana I love this comment especially the last sentence! I believe certain weapons should be banned or only allowed for military/law enforcement. There are plenty of guns available in Canada (mostly long guns for avid hunters), but semi-autos and handguns? No one wants to take guns away from hunters or people who live in rural areas who are protecting their livestock from bears etc. But loner Johnny in his basement does not need a semi-auto.
I married someone in the military and we moved to the south (but not country south…we’re in the city suburbs). So many of our neighbors here are “weekend country boys” who will show you all their toys without checking to see if the safety is on or if its loaded. When I asked one of them why he doesn’t have them locked away instead of easy access in the garage, he said his 17 year old son “isn’t a friendless loser who shoots up schools”.
Thats the mentality that makes gun owners look stupid. I see no reason to ever own an AR-15. When my husband misses shooting those kind of a weapons out of marine corps nostalgia, he goes to a range that has them available to use. There is no need to own a weapon like that in domestic, civilian life
Wow. Also, a lot of parents are in denial about their teenagers.
The majority of gun owners are responsible and don’t abuse the right. Ban assault rifles if anything or limit bullet purchases. You will never get gun owners to relinquish their guns and that’s a fact. I live in Midwest and if you want to make people furious just mention gun control to them.
Now that I live in Canada, the fact that Americans feel the need to own guns other than for sport/military.law enforcement is terrifying to my coworkers every time this discussion comes up. My coworkers don’t even know ANYONE who owns a gun (we live in a major city).
Americans frustrate me to the extreme! I am so grateful I don’t live in that messed up country. Most of the gun crime in Mexico, Canada and some South American countries are traceable back to firearms smuggled out of the US. It’s like trying to keep your house mouse free but having an insane neighbor who breeds and releases mice in their backyard constantly!!!! You’re that crazy neighbor!!!!!! Causing even more problems in other countries thanks to your stubbornness to change. Ridiculous and infuriating.
Cute tree icon
Speaking from the Southern hemisphere, the only thing I can assume is that some Americans have very little value for human life but really want to protect their big screen tv. What does it take to make a change? Obviously the mass shootings so far have had no impact on your gun laws. It sounds like you have a group of very selfish people that only wants to protect themselves over the advancement of society. One small step for Julianne but one huge leap for the safety of US citizens!
You’re onto something. Property rights are a major value in the USA.
Good for her. This just makes sense.
I don’t know why Americans are so dogmatic about the constitution. If the constitution is getting in the way of common sense and the will of the people on certain issues then constitution needs to change. I also don’t accept the argument that the populace needs guns in case the government become tyrants because the populace is already no match for the American military anyway.
Extremely unlikely that the Constitution would be amended over gun ownership, but the National Rifle Association (lobbying group for gun makers) has misled the country about the meaning of the Second Amendment. Their arguments are relatively new hogwash but they have worked due to the prevailing streak of anti-government paranoia.
I don’t want some Hollywood Bimbo yelling me what to do with My guns.
WORD. I’m not exactly sure how a policy like that could be carried out when so much of the population already has guns. But I wish so hard that it could be. I was reading upthread about someone who lives in a country with crazy background checks in order to get a license. To me, I think that would solve a lot of problems. I don’t agree with the outer-limit peeps who keep suggesting that we take away all guns. Or the others that suggest that we need no reform. No one can take away ALL guns. Criminals will find ways of getting them, and find tutorials for how to make their own. But if we allow them to be purchased after rigorous background checks and multiple hoops to jump through, it still ensures that a few people with level heads on their shoulders can own a gun for hunting or protection. If there’s a way to strain out individuals who are mentally ill, I’m all for that. I myself have struggled with depression on and off (two children. ;)), and if it meant that I wasn’t allowed to use or own a gun, I’d be more than ok with it seeing as it means nut-jobs that go on the rampage at children’s schools have even less of a chance. I don’t see how anyone could disagree with Moore’s words or the idea and people behind it.
Agree. I’ve battled with depression and probably would’ve blown my brains out by now if I owned a gun. On the other hand as I get older the idea of being able to arm myself for protection against people who are a threat to me is appealing. But more often than not you can avoid danger and trouble if you use your brain.
Are mental problems or violent tendencies easier to blame than the simple fact that one gun can kill at least 5 people faster and easier than a knife? Anyway it’s ok America, just stay the way you are; as defensive as you can (“I need a gun to protect myself against guns and the government who last tried to attack and prison me since uh…sometime ago. I’m sure it will happen!”)
The rest of the world is tired. If you don’t want to ban guns, have.more.restrictions.like.duh.
Can I ask why does a driver need a background check? Thanks!