Actually, this is a perfect time to discuss America’s ridiculous gun laws

Embed from Getty Images

For me, it was Sandy Hook. I still cry if I think about those children, if I think about the principal Dawn Hochsprung walking towards the shooter, if I think about 7-year-old Josephine Gay, an autistic child who died in her behavior therapist’s arms as the therapist tried to protect all of the kids. After Sandy Hook, no one should give a sh-t about being polite. No one should care about “the right time” to talk about gun control, or the insanity of our gun laws, or how gun manufacturers pay for the NRA and the NRA has bought all of the GOP and some of the Democratic party. Who cares about the speed or frequency of these conversations after Sandy Hook? After Virginia Tech? After Aurora? After Pulse nightclub? Let’s stop f–king debating about WHEN to have these conversations and just f–king have the conversations.

The conversations started happening within hours of the Las Vegas shooting. As they should. Of course there were plenty of people saying it was “too soon” or that the immediate focus should be on blah, blah, blah. The Vegas shooting is now the deadliest mass shooting in American history, with 58 people dead and more than 500 wounded. Spare me the lecture on what is and is not appropriate to discuss. Here’s what Sarah Sanders said from the White House podium:

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders choked up at Monday’s briefing as she read prepared remarks about Sunday night’s mass shooting in Las Vegas. But Sanders she insisted now is not the time to talk about gun control: “Today is a day for consoling the survivors and mourning those we lost. Our thoughts and prayers are certainly with all of those individuals. There’s a time and place for a political debate, but now is the time to unite as a country.”

That is a familiar refrain; Louisiana Gov Bobby Jindal, as a for instance, said same thing after a movie theater shooting in his state, more than two years ago. And, at today’s presser, one reporter noted Trump had been eager to talk about gun policy immediately following the June 2016 shooting death of 49 people at Pulse nightclub in Orlando.

“There is a difference between being a candidate and being a president,” Sanders shot back, reminding reporters and TV cameras recording the exchange that Trump is a big Second Amendment supporter.

Reading prepared remarks, Sanders choked up as she said, “The memory of those who displayed the ultimate expression of love in the midst of an unimaginable act of hate…will serve as an eternal reminder that the American spirit cannot and will not ever be broken.”

[From Deadline]

SHS is full of sh-t. If the shooter had been brown or black, Trump’s itchy Twitter fingers would have been tweeting bullsh-t ALL F-CKING DAY about “ungrateful” this and “Muslim Ban” that. He politicizes terrorist attacks all the time as events are still unfolding, using attacks to justify his own jingoist and racist policies. Also worth noting that SHS invoked “Chicago” because Republican racists believe that they can cry “but Chicago!” whenever there’s a white shooter. And that’s not playing politics?

Also: CBS fired one of their vice presidents today for tweeting about the Vegas shooting. Hayley Geftman-Gold tweeted this in the wake of the tragedy: “If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs will ever do the right thing. I’m actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans are often republican gun toters.” She was fired within a few hours and CBS claims she violated the “standards of our company.” Am I alone in wondering something similar about how the shooter selected his victims though? I’m not blaming the victims, I’m merely curious about why country music fans – who, let’s face it, are primarily white and more likely to be politically conservative – were targeted by this psycho.

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

246 Responses to “Actually, this is a perfect time to discuss America’s ridiculous gun laws”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Tulsi 2020 says:

    “Am I alone in wondering something similar about how the shooter selected his victims though? I’m not blaming the victims, I’m merely curious about why country music fans – who, let’s face it, are primarily white and more likely to be politically conservative – were targeted by this psycho.”

    Maybe he was a murdering POS who just wanted to kill people and these poor souls where in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    The American Government should (but wouldn’t) announce a gun amnesty giving everyone in possession of firearms, be they registered or not, three months to hand them in. Anyone found with a gun after that would have the guns confiscated and receive a massive fine. You’d get a lot of guns out of circulation and raise a lot of money for the public coffers. Win-win.

    Of course there’d be exceptions for people who had a legitimate reason to own a firearm.

    • Megan says:

      Guns are so deeply engrained in American culture there is literally a constitutional right to own a gun. While I disagree with the way the courts have interpreted the second amendment, it makes clear that there is no simple solution, nor will gun owners willing surrender what they believe to be a fundamental right. One of the reasons nothing happens after shooting is because gun ownership is so widespread, and diverse, there isn’t a sustained public will for change.

      • okeedokee says:

        No but there are some common sense regulations that can help. We cant just throw our hands up and say “welp, its complicated, what are ya gonna do?” I like a lot of these:
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/three-common-sense-gun-policies-that-would-save-lives/2015/10/15/3fd8cb80-735f-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html?utm_term=.12afb74f5d98

      • denisemich says:

        It is not ingrained in America, it is backed by MONEY. We are at the point in America that we need to ask which Amendments are really serving their purpose for citizens NOT corporations.

        I actually can’t name one that hasn’t been bastardized by some corporation to diminish its use by a citizen or embellish the rights of a corporation

      • Megan says:

        @denismich Yes, guns are deeply entrenched in American culture. If they weren’t, there would not be 300,000,000 in circulation today.

      • Sixer says:

        In the UK, handgun owners always had to have a licence. And not many people owned guns anyway – I think fewer than 150k people had licences in a population of 65m (mostly for sports purposes if not a farmer). So, after the Dunblane mass shooting when we banned them, it was relatively easy to retrieve the guns in circulation, by referencing hand-ins against licences. It was all very similar in Australia, I believe.

        Presumably, even most Americans in favour of gun control don’t want to ban all handguns. But there would be a majority who wanted assault weapons out of circulation? And perhaps ban the sale of the modifications for them? But if this happened, how would anyone be able to get the weapons already out there, out of circulation? Does anybody even know how many there are?

        I must admit, I share Megan’s fears that the problem is now so big that it is intractable.

      • Honeybee Blues says:

        I posted this solution on the O’Reilly thread:

        Here’s the problem and solution: The NRA has too much money for Americans to do anything about this in a sane amount of time (it might take a couple of generations to flip that centuries-long conditioning). Yes, we can vote, and then our elected members get inside and the money starts talking. Ergo, the solution rests NOT in Americans, but rather the rest of the world. Our global politicians will always privately back each other regardless of their publicly stated stance. The one thing that has WAY more money than the NRA is foreign tourism. If ALL foreigners boycotted the U.S., things would change quickly. It is the almighty dollar that rules, not the NRA. It’s merely that right now, the NRA has the most to offer; or so they think. Don’t come here! It’s not safe! Please, for the love of all things sacred, STAY AWAY UNTIL WE ARE A SANE COUNTRY AGAIN!!! Foreigners often complain about having no vote in elections that affect the world. Well guess what? YES YOU DO! In the United States of America, money will ALWAYS reign so spend yours elsewhere until the NRA is dethroned!

      • Megan says:

        @Honeybee no one in America is going to give up their gun because foreign tourists stop coming here. The courts have repeatedly affirmed an individual right to gun ownership. Until you have nine outrageously liberal justices on the Supreme Court, little will change.

      • denisemich says:

        …….

      • Lorelai says:

        Honestly, we are at the point where this is just how it’s going to be, apparently, no matter how horrific that is.

        I wish they would add an option to every American’s driver’s license, like they do with organ donation. I would definitely check the box saying, “IF I WAS SHOT, PLEASE DO POLITICIZE MY DEATH IMMEDIATELY.”

      • Hanny says:

        That is less true than the NRA would like you to believe. A major study released last year showed than half of America’s guns are owned by just 3% of the population. Surveys repeatedly show popular support for better background checks and reinstating the ban on assault rifles is high. But NRA propaganda and political donations are so effective that popular opinion has no weight in Congress.
        The underlying problem is that US political donation laws, (especially the Citizens United Supreme Court Decision that has allowed billionaires and corporations to buy the US Congress), coupled with electoral laws which a) do not guarantee US citizens the right to vote and b) leave electorate boundaries in the hands of (mostly Republican) state governors who have gerrymandered the Congressional districts, have taken US governance from the people and handed it to the plutocracy. The USA is no longer government for the people, by the people.
        For example, Congress has passed laws BANNING research funding for any study of mass shooting by the CDCs. That’s right. Banned even asking questions about Americas plague of gun violence.

    • Kitten says:

      “Maybe he was a murdering POS who just wanted to kill people and these poor souls where in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

      Yup. And I understand that it’s human nature to seek answers but let’s face it: the “why” doesn’t really matter nor would it bring any solace or closure for the victims’ families. What explanation would really suffice? Innocent people died for no clear reason. This man had been stockpiling weapons for quite some time so perhaps this plan had been in the works for years.
      The truth is that the shooter took the answer with him to the grave and we will likely never know why he did what he did.

    • GingerCrunch says:

      What if he did it simply to show that it could be accomplished? How really bad it could be? Had that horrible thought after I tossed and turned about it all night.

    • Monica says:

      Yeah unless you want losers to kill cops who are confiscating those weapons. Are you even American? That will never work.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      From my perspective, this event was about the ability to shoot at a large group from far away. I don’t think it mattered what the people were gathered for, he just wanted to shoot down into a large crowd.

      • Janetdr says:

        My thought also, he just wanted access to a lot of people.

      • Christin says:

        Some reports claim he’d attended this event before, which could have given him an added idea of how closed in the attendees were. Just a few exits, and sadly people tended to run toward the shooter — by going to the entrance.

    • Joy says:

      So hand all the guns to the same oppressive racist government everyone was just claiming abuses power nonstop like a week ago? Makea sense.

  2. Giddy says:

    To turn a phrase: If not now, when? No individual should have the need, or the right to own a murdering machine like the ar-15.

    • Lolo86lf says:

      What’s even more disturbing is that he owned like 40 guns! There should be a limit of how many guns you can own. Unless you’re running a shooting range why should you need such an arsenal?

      • Megan says:

        Federal law requires that back ground checks for gun purchases be deleted within 24 hours, meaning there is no way to track how many guns someone has purchased. The laws are so stacked against safety it’s outrageous.

      • Marie says:

        I don’t understand how owning fewer is safer. Is there a way to shoot more than one or two off at a time? Do you sincerely think a deranged person can’t find a way to kill a bunch of people if that is what they intend to do? They could obtain guns illegally.
        Terrorists have built bombs, used big trucks, fire, there is poison- they could poison our water supplies.

    • bleu_moon says:

      It’s part of the “slippery slope” 2A argument that banning any weaponry for any reason will eventually lead to total loss of gun rights. Sure, there is a constitutional right to own a gun, but I doubt the founding fathers could have ever foreseen today’s weaponry. The Brown Bess, one of the most common weapons used in the American Revolution, could be reloaded in 20 seconds. So a decent marksman could possibly get off 2-3 shots in a minute with a range less than 300 yards. I’m perfectly fine with all Americans owning a Brown Bess or a long rifle for hunting and protection as the constitution writers intended. I truly doubt they meant to enshrine the right to commit public mass murder in the constitution and it’s ridiculous for the gun rights crowd to even suggest it.

    • Rachel says:

      Even my husband, who was raised in a gun culture, admits no one should need more than a hunting rifle.

      And yet, while politicians are arguing that now is not the time to discuss gun control (and I say now is EXACTLY the time), House Repubs are pushing NRA backed legislation that would, among other things, make it easier for people to purchase silencers and make it legal to sell armor piercing bullets, provided the manufacturer markets them as being for “sporting purposes.” Are you f***ing kidding me. Because people need armor piercing bullets for sporting purposes?? Is body armor the new trend for deer this fall?? And the proponents of the legislation somehow manage to make ludicrous arguments in support, while people are literally dying because of politicians selling out to the gun lobby.

      So for the next few days, social media will be filled with lamentations about how sad it is, and what is becoming of this country. But all those Rs “praying” for the victims will shout about their constitutional rights to own automatic weapons when someone suggests actually doing something that would help prevent something like this from happening again.

      • bleu_moon says:

        The only thing silencers will do is increase body counts. At least when you hear the shots you know to take cover. Whoever thought we’d have to discuss preparing for the next mass shooting? Just another day in America, folks.

  3. Sixer says:

    A Gloria Steinem quote has been doing the rounds:

    “I want any young men who buy a gun to be treated like young women who seek an abortion. Think about it: a mandatory 48-hours waiting period, written permission from a parent or a judge, a note from a doctor proving that he understands what he is about to do, time spent watching a video on individual and mass murders, travelling hundreds of miles at his own expense to the nearest gun shop, and walking through protestors holding photos of loved ones killed by guns, protestor who call him a murderer.”

    Puts things into very stark perspective, doesn’t it?

    • wendywoo says:

      Especially in light of the new WH-backed bill to ban abortion after 20 weeks- abortions that only really happen when the woman’s life is at risk, not as some belated-prophylactic choice.

      • Sixer says:

        Yes – here in the UK, where access is free and easy, only the tiniest number of terminations are after 20 weeks (less than 2%) and are all for the reasons that lawmakers say they would create exceptions for (rape, very young girls concealing pregnancy, catastrophic foetal problems diagnosed late, etc).

        But it says something that US laws are as they are for something some women NEED to do and something some (mostly) men WANT to do.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Yes, abortions that happen after 20 weeks are usually because of something horrible. It isn’t humane to make a woman carry a fetus to term when they aren’t developing lungs, only to have them suffocate to death upon “birth”. It is inhumane for the woman, it is inhumane for the fetus.

    • Mermaid says:

      @sixer
      🙌
      I just read about the 20 week abortion thing and was like wait!!!! What about the people who have ultrasounds and find out their baby has huge health issues and can’t survive? For many of these women it puts their life in jeopardy also. F the NRA and the whole Republican Party. Gutless thriving cowards!!!!

    • Otaku fairy says:

      Beautiful. I agree 100 % with Gloria Steinem on this. Very telling about people’s priorities. I also wonder how *some people* would have responded if a famous man had made a comment about the “best gun” he ever had. It’s not a haircut, boys.

      • Sixer says:

        Precisely.

      • Trashaddict says:

        Gloria, what a voice of sanity in the effin’ wilderness. Recent events make me want to retreat into my abode and not deal with people any more. It’s not an option if I’m going to help my descendants navigate through this unholy mess we’re in.

      • suze says:

        People, famous and otherwise, discuss the best gun they ever had all the time. ALL THE TIME. I hear things like that all the time – we just had a local politician discuss his gun collection at a town hall.

        I love CB but this place is somewhat of an echo chamber.

    • detritus says:

      I read this quote this morning for the first time.
      I want to share it with everyone, because holy hell that is powerful. Thank you for posting it here.

    • Lizzie says:

      the GOP was like ok – its monday people where are we?

      gun sales are up – check!
      brown people are suffering – check!
      wait – wait – we’re missing something?! (furiously flip through notebook)
      OH YESSS….women. women..hrmm….lets see…hrmm….ok how about 20 week abortion bad punishable by prison? HERE HERE!!!

    • bijou says:

      YASSS!! WHAT A GREAT IDEA!

  4. LaraK says:

    Yeah tweeting that victims in any way deserved it should get you fired.
    SHS is such a pathetic wretch. And she suffers from Kellyanne syndrome – getting uglier by the minute.

    Just wonder what will be enough to change voters minds so that even NRA money won’t be enough.

    • Otaku fairy says:

      Yeah, that part of her statement sort of justifies the firing.

    • Shambles says:

      Yeah, that woman is an asshole and deserved to be fired. I’m actually really mad at her for tweeting what she did, because she handed an article to Fox News on a silver platter. It was being circulated all over my FB feed last night, with cries of “this is the ideology on the left.” Funny how they’re completely okay with making this woman a representation of her entire group, while they’re still out there “not-all-white-men-ing” the shooter.

    • Trashaddict says:

      It was so godawful I was wondering if it was even true that she’d posted it? Because, how dumb can you get? And if the did, good riddance.

  5. Scal says:

    He chose those people because he lived nearby and knew it was a soft target. If it had been the American ninja warrior group (who has their finals in the same location)-he would have done the same thing. Soft target from high location. Large volume of people in one place

    1) I really wish people would stop bringing up Chicago. Yes it has tough gun laws. That keep getting thrown out in court AND is surrounded by ill suburbs and other states (Indiana Wisconsin) that have much laxer laws. Chicago is not in a magical bubble and shows the need for a national policy.

    2) these jerks now want to talk about ‘hotel security’ instead of guns *rage face*

    3) this concert had a bunch of active duty police officers present for crowd control. 20k people and security will be present with weapons. And the shooting STILL happened-almost as if that whole ‘good guy with a gun’ thing is total BS. Because it is.

    And don’t kid yourselves. Nothing will happen. If 5-6 year olds dying changed nothing-nothing will. These people value guns more than human life. And that breaks my heart.

    • lightpurple says:

      To your point 3, “good guy with a gun” would have caused even more carnage – people shooting every which direction and at one another because they don’t know who the terrorists are and who the “good guys with a gun” are and in this case, they would be shooting up and missing and bullets rain down killing more people. There actually were “good guys with a gun” at the concert and several of them interviewed said that they couldn’t enact “good guy with a gun” because the police would have killed them. Good Guy with a Gun is pure NRA manure.

      To your point 1, It infuriates me when they pivot with “but Chicago” The Chicago situation is a completely different issue. Chicago’s murders are not mass murders. They are not terrorism. The one on one or one on a few crimes in Chicago happen, despite strict gun control, with ILLEGALLY obtained weapons from outside Chicago and even outside Illinois, (hello, Indiana!) or weapons obtained legally elsewhere and brought into Chicago ILLEGALLY. The only ways to change that is to stiffen laws in Illinois and surrounding states or search every vehicle entering the city. The shootings in SandyHook, Pulse, Las Vegas, so many other mass shootings, were committed by “law-abiding citizens” with LEGALLY obtained weapons. Two very, very different problems that require different solutions. However, stricter gun laws that are enforced will almost eliminate the mass shootings and applying such laws nationally and enforcing them will reduce the importation of guns into places like Chicago. Sadly, Paul Ryan wants to go in the other direction.

    • Megan says:

      Let’s not forget, the courts knock down gun laws. The Brady Bill initially had a 48 hour waiting period, it was knocked down by the courts. The law limiting gun purchases to one per month was knocked down by the courts. Countless state level laws to restrict ownership, limit quantity, and prevent concealed carry have been knocked down by the courts.

      Even if lawmakers were willing to pass legislation, why waste political capital on something the courts will overturn?

  6. Lolo86lf says:

    I am so very happy that the shooter was not Muslim, Arab, black or Mexican. Because if he had been one of the above, Donald Trump and Ann Coulter would have been quick to push their disgusting racist agenda forward. I find Sara Huckabee a shameless hypocritical liar just like her horrible orange boss. NOW is the time to discuss gun control laws not later.

    • milla says:

      Ok people are dead and you are HAPPY??? I dont give a flying fck who did it or why. I do not want people to leaves us for nothing.

      • Nicole says:

        That’s not what they said at all FFS

      • Lolo86lf says:

        @milla: You misunderstood my remark. Of course I am not happy people died. I meant to state that I was happy it was not someone from a minority who perpetrated the crime.

      • milla says:

        I got your point. But people died in France at the same time. We are way beyond that narative. People kill people and i do not see color or religion. I see killers and innocent victims. And its insane.

      • Nicole says:

        We are not “beyond” that narrative. Color blindness is for the privileged among us. Color blindness is not being woke. It’s burying your head all the way in the sand. Please look at how they framed the white shooter yesterday. Had he been a minority they would’ve found every minor infraction in that person’s life by now. So get out of here with that. In America racism is very real. It’s how victims of police brutality like Tamir Rice get worse headlines than a guy that shot 600 people.

      • Kitten says:

        This didn’t happen in France so please don’t project your cultural standards and sensibilities upon us. Your lens is your lens. The issues that persist in the US regarding race absolutely permeate every aspect of our society right now, even this shooting.

      • Megan says:

        @Kitten and @Nicole FYI I just heard that Ta-Nehisi Coates is on 1A this morning to discuss his new book. http://the1a.org/shows/2017-10-03/ta-nehisi-coates

      • lightpurple says:

        When the news first broke of the shooting, people all over Facebook and Twitter were insisting that Muslims did this. There are still people today who believe Timothy McVeigh was framed and that Muslims committed the Oklahoma City bombing. We are not beyond that narrative.

      • Kitten says:

        @Megan-Coates was on Pod Save America yesterday and he was absolutely brilliant–such a fascinating guy. Thanks for the link–will definitely check it out!

      • Nicole says:

        So ready for his new book. My teacher discusses his work in our class. So ready for his next book.

      • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

        Reading comprehension! It’s for everyone!!

    • Megan says:

      I can’t wait for the day SHS’s kids ask her why she is such a shameless liar.

    • detritus says:

      Me too. I just imagine the politicized hate, and the self absorbed i-told-you-so crowing.

      While I would prefer no shootings, in this political climate, a white man is the only shooter that wouldn’t increase violence.

  7. Babs says:

    That conversation should be very short, really. The only question is how. My heart goes to all victims of gun violence today, whatever their stance on the matter may have been. No one should die that way, killed by a crazy civilian running amok, for nothing. Peace.

  8. wendywoo says:

    I think the only credible motive (IMO) so far is that he lost hundreds of thousands of dollars over that last week and decided to take it out on Las Vegas as a whole. This took planning. This took patience. This took grievance (no matter how empty and self-centred).
    His father was a diagnosed psychopath and it’s a trait that has genetic tendencies.

    • Megan says:

      When I heard he was a big time gambler, I wondered if he had snapped after losing everything. He definitely planned this, so maybe he felt he was somehow cheated and wanted to extract the greatest revenge possible.

      • Karen says:

        I think something happened to anger him re Las Vegas. By planning this attack he ruins the Las Vegas economy. No tourists, no gambling, no hotels and no shows. I cannot think of any other reason for a premedidated mass murder. I don’t think it was the attendees-as someone said it was a soft target.

        So disturbing. The NRA makes me puke. And the congressmen and senators that accept money from them.

      • holly hobby says:

        Yeah that crossed my mind. He must have lost it all and he’s now taking everyone with him. Selfish bastard.

    • Veronica says:

      Psychopath is not a clearly defined clinical diagnostic term, so I wish the media would stop bantering around like mental illness (if it’s a problem here) like it’s an actual answer. An action of this magnitude requires immense planning and organization, meaning that he was entirely rational during the entire process of putting this together and then doing it. Mental illness is neither the excuse nor the reason for it, and it’s extremely problematic to suggest otherwise. Millions of Americans suffer from mental illness. Millions of people are not committing mass shootings.

      • H says:

        The FBI has clearly defined three types of mass shooters: sociopaths (laymen’s terms, psychopaths) like Eric Harris from Columbine; depressed shooters who want to die and take as many people with them as they can, like Dylan Klebold, the other Columbine shooter. And finally the seriously mentally ill shooter like the Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech shooters. (The FBI never added the politically motivated shooters like the San Bernardino couple to the list before they stopped publishing data).

        So far the Vegas shooter doesn’t fit any of those parameters. But the amount of pre-planning that it took the Vegas shooter, doesn’t scream to me of mental illness, it seems to me like revenge.

      • wendywoo says:

        Then the interchangeable DSM term, “sociopath”, who are entirely rational albeit devoid of conscience.

        There is a difference between a sufferer of a mental illness and one who exhibits a personality disorder while retaining their faculties. Sociopaths don’t “suffer”, it’s one of their defining traits.

      • Asiyah says:

        Psychopath isn’t a mental illness, though. It’s a personality disorder. Mental illnesses are at least curable. A personality disorder is much harder to treat (though there is hope for people BPD). Nobody is excusing his behavior on account of a mental illness because to be a psychopath is to be void of conscience and morality.

      • Hanny says:

        They’re not mentally ill. They’re angry and entitled. It’s just the extreme edge of the toxic masculinity bell-curve. Especially when you include the vast majority of “mass shootings” that we dismiss as “domestic violence” or “family annihilation”.
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/mass-shootings-domestic-violence-women_us_55d3806ce4b07addcb44542a

    • Trashaddict says:

      After reading about his crazy father, I viewed his brother’s statements that he was “just a regular guy” with complete incredulity. Unless, of course, this is who “regular guys” are now-

  9. Talie says:

    I knew after Sandy Hook happened and nothing changed that it was a lost cause…if a bunch of 5/6 yr olds being killed couldn’t move politicians, nothing will.

    • Giddy says:

      I guess the only thing that would get action in Washington would be if a shooter targeted an event for the families of our elected officials, or the families of NRA board members. Our families, our neighbors’ families, the children of Sandy Hook, and the dead in Las Vegas don’t matter evidently. The NRA has bought our politicians to an embarrassing and unconscionable degree.

      • lightpurple says:

        Congressional representative Steve Scalise was shot at a congressional baseball game practice four months ago. He plans to vote in favor of SHARE, which will make it easier to buy silencers and armor piercing bullets and will trample state gun control laws. So, no, even their own physical safety doesn’t matter to them.

      • third ginger says:

        LP is correct. Pro gun politicians throw away all logic when it comes to this issue. The only thing they fear is a primary with a bigger gun nut or NRA support being denied.

      • Shambles says:

        What does the NRA have on these people??

      • jetlagged says:

        Lots and lots of money, and the ability to endorse and finance a candidate that can & will defeat any incumbent politician. Because money.

      • Trashaddict says:

        Scalise enrages me. He got a pass at life because he’s a congressman. He had the dumb luck to be born privileged, have bodyguards and a combat surgeon at hand, and be protected from the outcome of gun violence, even if he did experience the pain of being shot. Hundreds, no thousands in Chicago didn’t have the chance he did. I have seen a mother go through the devastation of losing a completely blameless child on the playground because she lived in the “wrong” neighborhood. This mother has lived through something I cannot imagine and hope I will NEVER have to live with.
        So please, if he writes a book about his “hardships”, from which he learned NOTHING, don’t buy it. Flood Amazon and every other outlet with scathing reviews, hopefully by the thousands. Post a picture of every victim from Las Vegas, Chicago, and Sandy Hook on any website hawking the damn thing. If he votes for that law, he has squandered a gift from God, or the Cosmos, or whatever you believe in. And he deserves NO ONE’s tears and NO ONE’s sympathies.

    • Lenn says:

      Same here. I still think about those kids, teachers, their parents. It makes no difference. Nothing will change the gun laws. Ever. Unless Trump gets an enormous egotrip-kick out of getting something done that Obama couldn’t…

    • LadyT says:

      That’s how I feel. If Sandy Hook didn’t do it than I just don’t know what’s going to inspire gun law changes.

    • holly hobby says:

      Well you know now the bottom feeders are saying Sandy Hook was a hoax and those that died were “actors.” That’s how disappointing this whole thing is.

  10. jwoolman says:

    Realistically, that festival was most likely targeted because it was just there within shooting distance for him from a hotel room. He wanted to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. Mass murderers go where the people are gathered out in the open.

    I’ve never associated liking country music with a particular political viewpoint and this is the first time I’ve been hearing that idea. Where did that notion start? Fox News? Breitbart? Alex Jones? Russian bots? Somebody needs to monitor those outlets to sort out such things.

    It’s true that Trump had a lot of supporters in rural areas which may be a stronghold of country music fans for historical reasons, but there are lots of us in the city also who are not Trump supporters. And we even like other types of music as well, no matter where we live.

    • wendywoo says:

      Amen. I’m a bleeding-heart liberal and I loves me some Dixie Chicks and Jason Isbel.

      • Megan says:

        Jason Isbel would be one of my secret boyfriends, but I am also a huge fan of his wife, Amanda Shires.

    • Sixer says:

      I like some country music! Brilliant, gut level storytelling.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Country music is associated with conservatism because it is primarily southern and southwestern. There aren’t a load of country music venues in the Northeast. Northwest, West Coast or even the Midwest compared to Nashville, Atlanta, places in Texas and so forth.

      It doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of exceptions, but that is the generalization that has some truth to it. So I know why Kaiser said that.

      When you go somewhere like New Orleans, there are different kinds of “country” music genres like Zydeco from the Creoles, Cajun that is a mix of bluegrass, jazz, folk and swamp pop/rock and bluesy country, etc. It tends to be diverse. With traditional and then all sorts of offshoots and mashups.

      However, if you go to a Blake Shelton concert, I am going to say it would be 90+ percent white.

      • Kitten says:

        Yeah country isn’t a huge thing up here in the northeast, although concerts for bigger country stars usually sell out in Boston.

        I personally cannot stand country music. When I was in the Midwest a couple months ago it was everywhere and it was torturous for me lol.

      • Veronica says:

        It’s also targeted toward those groups. Country music contributes a fair share to the urban/rural rivalry, and a lot of country artists will put on the pretense of that lifestyle in order to sell the image to fans. I mean, I grew up in the South, so I’m fond of country music despite being a Northeasterner now and fairly liberal, but the elements are definitely there.

      • jwoolman says:

        At least starting with my generation (the Beatles generation, just after the Elvis generation in my region), artists often blend different styles of music because all over the country, we grew up with a mix. The lines are blurred now. Enjoying one genre doesn’t preclude enjoying others. And you don’t need to go someplace to hear it, we got ours on the radio and and tv (cable includes a country music station in the lowest tier here)
        and always on various media such as vinyl, cds, MP3 players, streaming music, etc. So lack of an official venue doesn’t mean much today. Just means people don’t go out as much to hear music…. Considering the ticket prices and restaurant prices, you can see why. You can get a lot more music for your money at home.

      • Lady D says:

        @Kitten, I loathe, despise, detest, hate and can’t stand country music.

      • magnoliarose says:

        @kitten
        How did I know you and Pickles weren’t rocking it out to Garth Brooks? lol

        @Veronica
        Country music stars put an extra twang in their voices, but then a lot of them are a lot more sophisticated than they seem. I don’t like that rural vs. city divide because it just cements stereotypes and suspicion.

        @jwoolman
        Sure people have diverse tastes, but I don’t know many but true country fans would pay the money to go to a concert.

      • Kitten says:

        @ Magnolia- Pickles enjoys his gangsta rap -_-

  11. Beth says:

    With all of these tragedies becoming a regular thing, it’s time for Trump and the Republicans to take it seriously and do something about it. How many more innocent people need to be murdered for them to finally face the fact that there needs to be strict gun laws?

    • lightpurple says:

      They have a bill in the House to relax existing gun laws. Making Sarah’s “this is not the time ” spiel ridiculous.

  12. Aiobhan Targaryen says:

    Maybe we need to change the verbiage used when we talk about this because some simpleminded fools have an issue with being told what to do. Even though those fools obey the speed limit, have a driver’s license and registration for their car, pay taxes, and would more than likley not rob a bank, rape or kill someone. but there is something about the word control that turns some of these people into loud drooling fools who scream out about the government making them do things they don’t want to do. Maybe if we call it “gun safety”, which is the point that many of us are really trying to make instead of “gun control” the argument would progress further. Probably not, but we have to take the narrative away from the NRA and this is just a suggestion to get the ball rolling.

    Or maybe too many people are like that guitarist who changed his mind AFTER what happened. He could not dredge up enough empathy after hearing about the many other stories in the news about gun violence(especially after Columbine and Sandy Hook) but as soon as it happened to him, he changed his mind.

  13. tamika-jay says:

    I really dislike the politicizing of victims. That woman from CBS deserved to be fired. There were white victims, black victims and brown victims; victims who likely voted Rep, victims who likely voted Dem and victims who didn’t vote at all. Just indiscriminate shooting of people enjoying a balmy night out. None of them deserved to be shot by a man who’d built himself an arsenal to compensate for his inadequacy. If people want to politicize something, they should politicize this: the response. There absolutely must be changes in the law.

    • Aiobhan Targaryen says:

      Politics is why he had those guns in the first place. Politics is why those people are dead.

      While I do understand your overall point, we cannot be free of politics. All of these things are connected. Actions have consequences. If you vote for someone who believes in no restrictions on the sale of guns and ammo, that certain tools can be sold to modify a gun, then you should not be surprised or sadden when someone does something like this. If you believe your “freedom” is more important than a group’s safety, then you should not be surprised and sending out empty thoughts and prayers when things like this happen. How are the gun laws going to change if they keep voting in people who don’t believe that the gun laws should exist? These people keep voting for people who don’t believe in mental health services, who don’t believe that the social safety net should exist, who don’t even believe in science-unless they can make money off of said science. We have to start connecting the dots between actions and words. If you don’t want something like this to happen again, vote for someone who wants restrictions on guns like that and mental health services and actually has a plan to get it done.

      No one is saying that they deserved it. I am not saying that they deserved it. I am saying that this is what happens when toxic masculinity and “freedom” mix. And it will keep happening until people understand that they are intertwined and try to do something to change things for the better.

    • tamika-jay says:

      Oh, Lord, I never said that we should be free of politics so my apologies if my post appears to suggest that. I just can’t get behind comments like those of Hayley Geftman-Gold. I can’t be angry at concert attendees who were shot at and I can’t be angry at dead country music fans. I’m not “AllLivesMatter”-ing either. I’m a black woman so know the political is personal and vice versa. Sorry if my post didn’t make that explicit enough (it was a quick comment fired off during a break) and lead to you preaching to the converted, because we’re on the same page here.

  14. Nicole says:

    Never. Because once Sandy Hook passed and nothing happened the debate was over. They have a bill up for deregulating silencers up for a vote soon. In Nevada you do not need a license or registration to own guns. Nor is there a limit to how many you can own. So now we know how this guy got enough guns and ammo to power a small militia.
    When you have Congress getting millions from the NRA you know they sold us down the river. Just like they did with healthcare and literally everything else.

    • Esmom says:

      The only positive, however meager, I can take is that this happened in NV, where guns aren’t tightly regulated. It shows that having an armed populace isn’t a deterrent. Kinda pokes a hole in the NRA’s “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” narrative.

  15. Jenns says:

    Don’t even waste your time talking about gun laws.

    Because nothing is going to change.

    • lightpurple says:

      Actually, it is going to get worse. There is a bill in the House to make silencers and armor piercing bullets more available, allow more guns in National Parks and allow gun owners to cross state lines with their weapons even if those weapons aren’t allowed in the other states.

      • tifzlan says:

        Who the f needs ARMOR PIERCING BULLETS?!?!? Oh my God, i can’t believe this is even being considered. I’m truly at a loss for words.

      • Scal says:

        @tifzlan-apparently the argument is for hunting feral hogs as their hide is tougher or something. I wish I was kidding.

        Never mind that hunters have actually said that for other game they don’t want them because they are less accurate. But you know….feral hogs are ruining america. *eye roll*

      • Christin says:

        Yet you can get a citation for having vehicle window tint in some states, even if the level is legal in your state. Priorities!

      • Rachel says:

        So Republicans are happy to let people carry guns across state lines and into Federal parks, but those same people have to relinquish any firearms when they enter a federal building. Why is that? Oh right, they don’t want armed civilians around federal employees. But it’s okay for the rest of us.

  16. angie0717 says:

    Sandy Hook really did shine a gruesome light on gun violence and gun love in the U.S. I pray for all the families having to live this new horror in LV. Pls just stop selling guns, pls stop buying guns. Just pls.

  17. MarionC says:

    I am so tired of hearing “but the second amendment.” What is always left out is the amendment is about “a well armed militia” and their right to bear arms. You can thank, in part, the 2008 Supreme Court for reinterpreting the second amendment, it significantly contributed to the opening of the floodgates to buy find. And LOVE the Gloria Steinham quote.

    • lightpurple says:

      Specifically, Antonin Scalia.

    • whatever says:

      Tired of hearing about the second amendment too. Isn’t the definition of the word ‘amendment’- change, improvement, revision, alteration, modification, adaptation, adjustment etc?..

      Sigh.

    • Suze says:

      Well regulated militia.

      Not well armed.

      We have substituted “individual” for “militia” but the well regulated part seems to have been forgotten entirely.

      • jwoolman says:

        It’s so obvious that when the Second Amendment was written, nobody was even thinking about individual gun ownership. They had bows and arrows and soldiers still went into battle wearing swords. The guns available were not the repeating kind and didn’t fit in a pocket or a purse and took some work to reload. It was a complete non-issue.

        The Second Amendment referred to the right of the individual states to have their own militias. That was a crucial point back then. They did not want a centralized government to be the only one with an armed force. In order to convince the former colonies to join together in a Union, they had to make sure the states still had the right to their own militias.

        It’s just so obvious that it has nothing to do with individual gun ownership and that therefore individual communities and states have to decide how to set limits on modern weapons, which a single shooter can use to kill and maim hundreds in a few minutes. Communities have to decide on issues such as gun-free/weapon-free zones, concealed and open carry and all the other details. The Bill of Rights says nothing about it because in the 1700s, nobody cared about it.

    • Esmom says:

      You an also thank the NRA for using the second amendment for marketing purposes since their base of recreational gun owners was shrinking.

  18. lightpurple says:

    If now is not the time to discuss gun control, Sarah had better tell Paul Ryan to take The Sportsman’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act (SHARE Act) vote off the agenda. SHARE will allow silencers and armor piercing bullets and allow transport of registered guns across state lines, even into states that otherwise don’t have reciprocity. I want it blocked but you now tell me I can’t exercise my First Amendment rights to say so? Then tell Ryan he can’t bring it to the floor for a vote.

    And since we’re talking about “the right time,” let’s pick a date then and schedule the discussion, shall we?

    • Jen says:

      Exactly. We’re in a sickening cycle where a shooting occurs, Republicans scold the media for making a tragedy about “politics,” and hide behind meaningless calls for “unity,” Republicans block every proposed bill to change the law, we’re outraged again, and then time passes. And the media moves on. And then another shooting happens.

      This IS the time. I don’t know how these people sleep at night.

  19. CrazyCatLady says:

    As a Aussie I truly don’t understand the need to own guns. I grew up in the city and I don’t hunt and it has never occurred to me that I need to own a gun. After Sandy Hook I thought the US will have to change their gun laws but it didn’t happen. I just don’t get it, what will it take for sensible gun laws.

    I have been reading this Celebitchy for years and this is my first post.

    • Laur says:

      I’m in the UK and I feel the same, I can’t understand why anybody needs a gun full stop. I don’t buy this idea of ‘I carry one for protection’ because there are millions of people worldwide who don’t carry guns because it’s not the norm and we survive just fine. This type of heinous act will continue to happen as long as you allow people to have guns (I’m not saying gun crime doesn’t ever happen in the UK but it’s a damn sight harder to get hold of one because they’re not freely available).

      I think I remember reading after Sandy Hook that more people die in individual shootings in the US than in any of these mass shootings, and tbh I don’t understand a society where numerous individual shootings are accepted as some sort of norm. Nobody should have easy access to any kind of weapon which can take a life. This guy clearly planned this and was a very disturbed individual, I can’t even imagine what his victims’ families must be going through.

    • TrixC says:

      I agree, I’m from New Zealand and I also find it hard to fathom. As a country we are also very keen on hunting and sport shooting (although I’m not personally) and I know several people with firearms licenses for those purposes. They all had to pass a stringent police assessment to get the licence. Military style weapons are certainly not permitted, nor are handguns – just hunting rifles and the like.

      I feel quite sad reading the comments from Americans on sites like this and to see that you all feel so powerless to change the system, despite living in a democracy. One thing that always surprises me is that even quite liberal Americans seem to be signed up to the idea that owing a gun for self defence purposes is legitimate. In my country you would never be granted a licence if you stated that as your reason for wanting a gun. I actually think this argument about the right to defend yourself and your property will make it difficult to ever achieve effective gun control. You can always argue that criminals will be armed to the teeth, so this fosters a culture of escalation.

      • HelloSunshine says:

        New Zealand is a place my husband and I would like to move to and one of the biggest pieces of information we found while researching is that guns aren’t a thing there. We won’t have to send our son to school and worry that he’ll be murdered by someone. We don’t have to worry about someone shooting at another person and getting caught in th crossfire (has happened near our home and we live in a very nice area).

        I’m just so exhausted with the gun culture in America. If all of those sweet children and their wonderful teachers getting murdered didn’t change anything, nothing will.

      • TrixC says:

        Yes, even the police don’t routinely carry guns here. My husband was offered a job in the US a while back and I went through the opposite thought process – I don’t want my kids to grow up somewhere where gun ownership is normalised.

      • Aotearovian says:

        New Zealander here too. God knows we have our issues, but I am feeling especially grateful today that this kind of gun violence isn’t one of them. I was re-reading about Aramoana this afternoon and was reminded that our firearms regulations were changed shortly after that, and the only mass shootings we’ve had since then have been of the shooter’s immediate family – Bain, Ratima and Schlaepfer (who was an acquaintance of my dad, typical NZ) – and none with semi-automatic weapons of the kind David Gray used,

        We talk about companies being too big to fail, but I’m starting to wonder if the US is too big to succeed – that a capitalist democracy can grow to a point where it’s trapped in this unholy stasis. The political system doesn’t work to the point that a hostile foreign power can interfere with the electoral process, universal health care is a fantasy, and people are being slaughtered by their fellow citizens for having the temerity to go to a concert or school or work or church.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Hi there!

      The gun manufacturers have to keep passing new laws to maintain high profits because once a person has a gun, they don’t usually buy an arsenal so more laws for more guns.
      Nothing will change until a monumental catastrophe of epic proportions takes place because there is no real endgame here.
      It will take a person or gang of people to go after Congress, their families and maybe some maternity wards and a whole slew of white people before they want to change.
      My only other scenario is an angry posse of CEOs going across the country as a sniper team targeting other CEOs wiping out Wall Street first and heading west destroying banks as they terrorize the nation.

      I am using facetious examples but not really; I truly have no idea what it will take.

    • Babs says:

      I live in France and feel the same, and I might add that I am truly and utterly disgusted at the brainless morons who dare to use the recent tragedies of Paris and Nice to justify the “uselessness” of gun control. Have some decency ffs, if you can’t have logic or common sense.

    • lightpurple says:

      I live in a working class city outside of Boston, a large city, I grew up outside of Boston in what was at the time a poor, crime-ridden city outside of Boston. I have never owned a gun. I have no desire to own a gun. The scenario put to me by gun-lovers is what will I do if someone breaks into my house. Home breakins usually occur around here when people aren’t home. So, I think I’ll be calling the police to report what was stolen. But should one occur while I am home? No, I’m not “standing my ground,” I’m getting the Hell out. I know my home better than anyone breaking in. I know where the doors are. I know which parts of the house I can lock off from other parts of the house and I know which windows I can climb through to escape to the yard and street and my neighbor’s house is just a few feet away. All of my neighbors’s houses are just a few feet away and I can scream. And that has ALWAYS been my plan.

      • Esmom says:

        Exactly, this has always been my point of view. And when it comes to personal safety and self-defense, I have always believed that adding a gun to the mix would only make a bad situation worse. How often do you hear of an assault or rape or mugging being thwarted because the victim used a gun to successfully stop it? We hear about accidental shootings, like when the toddler grabbed the loaded gun out of his mom’s purse at Target (!!!), much more often.

      • Lady D says:

        I have pretty much the same plan lightpurple. Get out and run. I remember something Sandra Bullock said in a movie, SING. It stands for Solar plexus, Instep, Nose and Groin. The body soft spots that can do the most damage, “giving you time to run away.”
        If your car has an alarm system try doing what a cop told me. Keep your car keys under your pillow and hit the alarm if there is an intruder in your house. It’s a good distraction, usually enough to scare them away, or at the very least, alert your neighbours. The cop said you need to be within approx 100 feet of your vehicle for this to work. Stay safe.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I can’t remember the source, but I read that a home owner’s gun is more likely to be used against them during a break in than it is likely to save them.

        My aunt was killed by a man breaking into her home. But he was already there when she walked in the front door and she was shot before she made it out of the doorway. A gun would not have saved her.

  20. Seriously says:

    As an Australian, I cannot tell you how shocking American guns laws are, or lack of them, it actually blows my mind.
    We had a mass shooting in 96, extremely strict guns laws were introduced soon after, guess what, 96 was our last mass shooting.

    • H says:

      Yes, the shooting in Tasmania. I grew up in Tassie but had moved to US by 1989, I couldn’t fathom that shooting nor could my relatives there. While I own a gun here in America (I’m a former police officer), I’d happily give it up to tighten up the gun laws here.

    • Kath says:

      I was just about to say the same thing. The US’ gun culture is the thing that completely separates America from the rest of the world. I was going to say “developed world”, but no – it’s pretty much across the board aside from a few war-torn nations with tribal conflicts. I don’t think there is another country which “loves” and fetishises guns like the US does. It’s bizarre.

      I’ve never held or even seen a gun in my entire life living in Australia and the UK.

      The gun laws enacted in Australia after the Port Arthur shooting were introduced by a conservative government, and were perhaps the only decent bit of legislation John Howard managed in his looong reign as PM.

      If nothing changed after Sandy Hook (including opposition by Democrats in purple states) – then I don’t think anything will change now.

  21. Bella says:

    I just honestly don’t understand the whole American gun culture … I cannot get my head around why you would want a gun in your home, or have anyone have such easy access to them ? Not only when things like this happen, but everytime you hear about a kid hurting them self or another where they have come across one not properly secured. I remember so clearly being 10 when Dunblane happened here, and our headteacher explaining it to us the next day in a special assembly, and the security that changed afterwards. And after Sandy Hook which I can’t bear to even contemplate what the poor babies must have felt I really don’t know how this is even a discussion anymore …

  22. whatever says:

    There are many thing wrong with the UK but one of the things that I am proud of is how change was made to gun laws after the Dunblane School Massacre in 1996. I’m proud that UK recognised the massacre innocent 5 and 6 year old’s in their classroom was the definition of evil and things needed to change so it never happened again. There has been no elementary school massacre’s in the UK since. Its baffling how nothing changed in the US after Sandy Hook. You would have thought the execution of children would have change something.

    • Laur says:

      Agree completely.

    • Lady D says:

      I was thinking earlier when reading the article that my ‘first’ mass murder was Dunblane, Scotland. Horrifying then, horrifying now. It then made me sad to think that I could say ‘my first mass murder was… Barbaric bastards.

    • Kath says:

      Yep – the UK had a mass shooting and changed the gun laws. Australia had a mass shooting and changed the gun laws.

      The US has a mass shooting (defined as four or more individuals) more than once a week, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

  23. grabbyhands says:

    “There is a difference between being a candidate and being a president,” Sanders shot back, reminding reporters and TV cameras recording the exchange that Trump is a big Second Amendment supporter.”

    Oh f*ck off, you evil cow.

    • Jerusha says:

      I once remarked on twitter that she always had a mean expression on her face. I was called a c**t by one of ‘them’. That’s the Deplorables for you.

      • Kitten says:

        My BF and I were discussing her this weekend and how…….*coughs* unpleasant-looking she is. Yes, I know that is far from the biggest problem with her but she really is so harsh-looking..she always looks like she smelled a fart.

      • Shambles says:

        I hate her face. There. I said it.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        She is so condescending and disrespectful, that it has invaded her face.

      • magnoliarose says:

        She is not attractive because her ugly on the inside has successfully migrated to the outside. I can’t stand her and her lies. Her face looks contorted with disdain all the time.

      • Christin says:

        Her personality has etched itself on her face. Same with Conway and their head orange.

    • grabbyhands says:

      I agree with everyone.

  24. Doodle says:

    I’m Canadian and living in the states. It’s interesting to me that it’s always a gun control issue, full stop. That’s part of it, but not thhe whole picture, imo.

    This is a mental health issue. When you have private or expensive health coverage, people with mental health issues are going to fall through the cracks. Combine that with easy access to guns and this (again, imo) ridiculous 2nd amendment and you are going to get these mass shootings. Unless both issues are addressed in tandem the public at large will not be safe.

    Republicans say they want less interference from the government… but I honestly don’t understand that. They send their kids to government funded schools, call 911 when there’s an emergency. Universal health care might increase taxes but it also provides a layer of protection I’m comfortable with, as does stronger background checks regarding gun purchases and access in general.

    • TrixC says:

      The thing is, there are mentally ill people in every country. The big difference in America is the ease of access people have to guns. Mental illness is by its nature unpredictable and IMO it is unrealistic to expect mental health services, or any kind of screening process, to preemptively identify every individual with the potential to do violence. So I disagree with your argument, better gun control is by far the most important factor here.

      • Doodle says:

        That’s why I said the two need to work in tandem.

      • TrixC says:

        But your argument is one that’s often made by those who oppose tighter gun laws – that what is needed is better mental health surveillance. Since this is expensive and complicated it quickly becomes an excuse for inaction. Saying the two need to work in tandem is basically exactly the same thing.

      • lightpurple says:

        @TrixC, but the ones making that argument rarely do anything to address the mental health crisis in our country. They oppose mental health parity laws, they oppose funding for community mental health centers, they want to gut the ACA, which has mental health requirements in it.

      • TrixC says:

        @lightpurple, that’s my point, it’s a diversionary tactic. My other point was that no action on mental health will be sufficient to stop this, as long as nothing is done about the availability of weapons.

      • Trashaddict says:

        Physicians in many states are expected to notify the government if they have a patient they suspect is too unstable to own a gun. This presupposes that: they can identify all potential shooters (read minds?– no warning on the guy in Nevada!), they can screen all patients for gun ownership. It’s kind of like predicting a patient who “might” get TB. This is not the best use of physician time. Doctors want to help parents raise emotionally and physically healthy kids, help parents deal with their own illnesses and stresses, and create a healthier environment. Gun violence is a national health threat and it has to be quarantined and controlled just like any other disease. Malaria: control mosquitoes. Typhoid: stop the bacteria from spreading. Gun deaths: control the damn guns.

    • Elkie says:

      President Obama issued a executive order aiming to restrict access to guns for those with certain mental health issues.

      One of the first things Trumplestiltskin did whilst in office was rescind it, because “something, something… black, Kenyan Muslim”…

      • Doodle says:

        I dunno TrixC, people in Canada have access to guns. But the restrictions are much tighter, and we take care of our mentally ill through our universal health care system. There was a mass shooting in Montreal when I was a kid, I remember having memorials for the victim when I was a kid because it was such an unheard of event. And there has been I think one big shooting in recent history, in the 2000s sometime. That’s two in a 30 year span as opposed to one mass shooting every year in the States. I’d say the mental health slant working in tandem with gun control seems to be doing a better job than the thoughts and prayers approach that the States is taking.

    • Hanny says:

      Universal health care shouldn’t raise taxes. The USA has by far the highest health care costs in the developed world, with some of the worst results, (eg infant and maternal morbidity and mortality). A well designed universal health care system should be a lot cheaper. It is in every other developed nation.

  25. Agent Fang says:

    So people are really wondering why a white person would kill other white people? Probably because not all evil is motivated by racism

    • magnoliarose says:

      No one said that. With mass shootings, there is usually a group targeted for some reason, so it is a question why them?

  26. Mia4s says:

    I tread carefully as I say this but as a Canadian I have to be honest about my reaction. It was…muted. I’ve seen too much of this in the USA. I wasn’t shocked. I wasn’t stunned. It wasn’t until reading a few personal stories that I managed to feel sad. I was mostly just disgusted. Grossed out. 59 people dead and I barely reacted. I gave up on the notion that America will save itself from this after Sandy Hook. I always remember Ariel Durant’s quote “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within”. “I actually laughed bitterly at the “thoughts and prayers” tweets. Gee, cause that’s been so helpful the other 300 times!

    If what I’ve said makes you mad, upset, mildly irritated? Good. Channel it. Prove me wrong.

    • Patricia says:

      I’m an American and my reaction was exactly the same as you are describing.
      Didn’t flinch. Felt gross. Wasn’t surprised. Only felt sad when I read individual accounts.

    • Skylark says:

      My reaction was pretty much the same. At some point, I actually shrugged and me and Mr Skylark exchanged a ‘hey, what can you do, this is America’ look. But it wasn’t borne out of lack of empathy for or indifference to the sickening violence and the loss of lives, it was a gut reaction to America’s fucked up, infantile value system that puts the right to bear arms over the right of its citizens to be protected from the egregious misuse – again and again and again – of those same arms.

    • Rachel says:

      Another American, and I feel the same. I am not saddened by the lives lost. I am saddened that our society allows this to continue to happen. I am enraged. Enraged to the responses I see on social media. Save your prayers people. They obviously don’t work. And certainly, don’t follow up your prayers with a post about how now it not the time to talk about gun control. For god’s sake, just STOP with the empty shows of sympathy. Just openly admit your need to own an assault rifle to show off to your friends is more important than the men, women and children killed by similar guns. More important than the families who now have to mourn them.

    • Pip says:

      I’m afraid the reaction in the UK seems to have been pretty much the same: weary shrugs & complete bafflement as always at the US attitude to gun ownership. & as other posters have said, if Sandy Hook couldn’t do it, this one certainly won’t, or the next or the next …..

    • pinetree13 says:

      Non-American. Same reaction. “Oh another shooting? Why even report it here when there will clearly be an American shooting every week until forever because they don’t ever do anything about it.

      Y’all say it’s impossible to do anything yet you protest the Drump all the time! Where are the gun protests? Exactly.

      • Kitten says:

        Ummm, we have gun violence protests all the time.

        Most recent:
        http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Gun-Violence-Protest-Erupts-Outside-Congressman-Issas-Office-in-Vista-449279083.html

        But it doesn’t matter because protests aren’t gonna do shit when red states are obsessed with the Second Amendment and the politicians they elect have their campaigns funded by the NRA.

        Beyond that, there’s an estimated 300 million guns in the US.
        How do you suggest we get rid of them?

        What about dismantling one of the most powerful lobbying entities in Washington, the NRA?
        Suggestions?

        Seriously, some of you make it seem like this is something Americans haven’t been passionately arguing against for the past 50 years or more. Stop insinuating that we don’t care or that we don’t want things to change. Most of all, stop acting like we somehow deserve this.

        The United States in not only the Republican party, guys.

    • Kath says:

      Yep, I’m not American, but my response was “oh another one”? I’ve gotten to that point with terrorist attacks in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and SE Asia as well, sad to say. Both involve the killing of innocents for no reason.

      We live in incredibly shitty times.

  27. Lizzie says:

    i’d like to slap the lips off her block head

  28. msd says:

    Non-American here. Yes, compared to Australia, Britain, and Europe, the US has a stronger “gun culture” but afaik polls indicate a majority of Americans actually support increased levels of gun control.

    No one seems to be able to leverage that support effectively but there must be a way to do it, surely? A whole new approach seems to be needed. I don’t know what that approach could be but something needs to change tactically. Otherwise it’s just a cycle of talk that goes nowhere, yet again.

    • Rachel says:

      The majority of Americans supported Hillary Clinton, too. Popular vote doesn’t rule here. Congressional elections are subject to heavy gerrymandering to give a certain party a majority in that district. So republicans can re-district to ensure a win among voters in that district. Therefore, the vote of people who want to elect someone who would actually represent their interests is marginalized.

      • Hanny says:

        Yes, Rachel. Nothing will change until political donation laws and electoral/redisctricting laws change. There needs to be a constutional amendment guaranteeing US citizens the right to vote, (that’s right: there is no such right, which is why state governments can get away with their vote suppression scams); a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, so as to take the power back from the billionaires and corporations and return it to the people.
        Until then, the people aren’t choosing their representatives. The representatives are choosing which voters to corral into a district that will elect them. The representatives are chosen by the deepest pocketed donors.

  29. Weezer says:

    I might be stepping in it here but just wanted to share our perspective….I live in the South….I grew up in a house full of guns (we had guns in the glovebox, on top of the fridge, in the bed side tables, full cherry oak cabinets full of guns). My dad was a doctor and a Democrat….and now I live in a houseful of guns. A lot of from my dad’s house but my husband hunts and loves his guns (he’s a Republican but that’s a discussion for another time, ugh). There is a semi automatic rifle here. Our daughter got a pink rifle for Christmas one year in grade school. As I sit here and type this I don’t even know how many guns are in our house currently (they are all locked away). We have seen Jason Aldean in concert and there is even a pick up truck in the driveway. My point? We don’t shoot people. Everyone who owns guns aren’t violent/ignorant/intolerant folks. I think the issue is a huge one that has many components. I agree that if we didn’t act after Sandy Hook, we are never going to. My fear is that we have heard “worst shooting in our history” how many times now?? And it is the worst…until the next shooter simply shoots more. I am always curious as to why it is white men/boys are the perpetrators of the majority of this. What are they so threatened by? What’s the agenda? I don’t always think it is mental illness (but sometimes it is). I think he targeted this arena simply because he could. I don’t think this is about country music/white people/conservatives etc. I think it was just that he had the means and the opportunity to do it here. I hate sitting in church or the movie theater thinking “it could happen here, this is my game plan to protect my child if…”. I love living in America, I love the South in a particular way that it is hard to understand if you don’t live here. And because I love it so I want us to be safe…I want us to be better…I want us to fix this (even though I don’t think there is a one true remedy). I want people not to get shot at concerts and schools and churches and offices and in the back of police cars…If wishes were horses and all that….

    • Kitten says:

      What do you do with all guns? Like, they just sit in a cabinet…??? Do you guys use every one of those guns?
      What is your daughter going to do with a pink rifle? Is this something that she will learn to shoot at a target range or…?

      I have to admit, as someone who did not grow up with guns, who has zero interest in guns at all, it really confounds me how someone would “collect” potentially lethal killing machines. But ya know, the only thing I collect are owl figurines so obviously I’m coming from the extreme opposite end of the spectrum from you.

      Anyway, I appreciate your comment and I also acknowledge that I will likely never understand the appeal of guns no matter how often it is explained to me.

    • msd says:

      This is a genuine question. Why do you have so many guns?

    • Cee says:

      Weezer – the issue here is why it’s so easy to own a gun/weapon in the US. Your husband hunts and uses weapons for that endeavor. Nobody is saying you’re all violent, ignorant, gun-crazy menaces. But the fact there are no checks, no security measures, when a person buys a firearm is alarming. How many children shoot each other on accident because they had access to a firearm? Just one is too many. You might be a responsible firearm owner but that doesn’t mean everyone is. Hell, this guy might have been a responsible owner and for some reason or other, decided to shoot people at a music festival. This guy clearly had mental issues.

      • jwoolman says:

        Waiting periods and background checks wouldn’t have stopped this particular killer. He had no known history of violence or mental illness. And he planned this in advance and would have had no problem waiting. He was off law enforcement radar entirely.

        He even seemed to modify a rifle to make it able to shoot more rounds at a time.

        A silencer would have let him kill and maim more people, though, because they wouldn’t have the warning of the sound of the shots.

      • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

        @Jwoolman-

        That’s the Share Act ( such a cutesy name for such an openly ugly thing) that congress wants to pass right now. FFS. I cannot believe they have the gall to even consider it.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        FYI – He could have modified a semi-automatic to make it automatic…but not all automatic guns are illegal. If they were produced and bought before a certain year, they can remain in the gun market. There are around 175,000 fully automatic rifles legally owned in the US. Maybe he owned one.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I know where you’re coming from, because I grew up in a rural area where gun ownership was very common. I have shot guns with a police officer at a range.

      I think the crux of the matter is that, when we allow “good” people to own dozens of weapons, we are also allowing people who could be violent to have those same guns. I think people should be allowed to own guns, but there need to be restrictions on lethal ability and ownership responsibilities.

      Additionally, “Smart Gun” measures exist. You can have guns that can only be fired by their owner (so they can’t be used when stolen or used by children). But the gun industry buys those technology patents just to bury them. Make no mistake, we are in this situation because the NRA and gun manufacturers work TOGETHER to make our country more dangerous for their profit. They pit reasonable gun owners against people for reasonable regulation.

    • I agree, Weezer, about wondering when “gun culture” changed into mostly males shooting up public places and almost always committing suicide. When did this start, because mental illness has been around long before then? In fact, I’ve even seen a book from 1990 or 1991 where some former ONI guy warns that school shootings will become commonplace to push for stricter gun laws. This was 1991! How could this person have known that? Something’s going on here that we just can’t quite grasp or understand.
      The other argument for owning a gun is if a tyrannical government tries to take over its citizens the way things have happened in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China, etc. It always helps such a government to have unarmed citizens. People may have scoffed at the idea that the Obama administration would do such a thing, but what about an administration you don’t trust?

      • magnoliarose says:

        Under a fascist regime, citizens’ guns would be confiscated so by the time a dictator was in power they would strip the citizens of as many rights as they could to control them. Guns don’t equal freedom. We have become less free because lunatics have access to additional firearms.

        If Americans want guns and want to stay safe, then stringent gun laws would keep them in the hands of people whose guns were registered, and they had taken safety classes and passed background checks.

        It isn’t just mass shootings; it is also domestic violence and stalkers that are threats. But as far as mass shooters it is on the rise, in my opinion, because of high stress and hopelessness along with anger. Why it is white guys I don’t know, but there have been minorities who have done it, but maybe it is only the fact that there are just more white people in America.

      • Or, the danger is, it could be done incrementally and then the populace would be unarmed by the time they catch on.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        But governments have MUCH bigger weapons than guns. They can freeze all of your assets. They can bomb your house, they can follow you with drones.

        The idea that an individual will keep a government in check because they own a fire arm doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. We can’t allow citizens to match the gov’t’s fire power, or we’d end up letting citizens get nukes.

      • I’ve heard that before, but nobody is saying individuals should have a whole arsenal of bombs, drones, etc. And no, one individual alone can’t keep a tyrannical government in check.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        But if the justification that people are putting forward is that guns are needed to stop the government’s power, and we acknowledge that a gun is not enough power to stop the government…then doesn’t that whole argument fall apart?

      • No, because you’re talking about “a gun”, one gun. Obviously, you seem to feel that guns are no good anyway; that’s fine. But there are still people (that are not necessarily “gun nuts”/hillbilly idiots/whatever assumption insert here) that feel it is a person’s right to own a gun if they use safety precautions and handle/use it properly, etc. I’m just aware of certain past regimes disarming their citizens before killing them, and wanted to remind anybody who’s open to research, that this is something that shouldn’t be forgotten in the heat of the moment.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “Obviously, you seem to feel that guns are no good anyway“

        You’re making inaccurate assumptions. I think guns are ok as long as high standards are met (options worth vetting include licensing, training, testing, mandatory state reporting violent crimes to national database, home storage requirements, insurance and liability, smart gun safety features). I grew up around guns. I know that in rural areas, animals can be dangerous and sometimes weapons are needed for legitimate protection. I know that an AR-15 isn’t needed for that purpose.

        What I actually do think is “no good” is the idea that guns are necessary (not merely helpful, but necessary) for freedom from tyranny. A gun would not have saved the Syrian people from chemical weapons. This one weapon is not a cure all from tyranny. Why must we sacrifice our loved ones at its alter?

    • Lady D says:

      ” I hate sitting in church or the movie theater thinking “it could happen here, this is my game plan to protect my child if…”
      Something a security expert said after the Pulse shooting, “always, always, always find 3 ways out of every place you are in.” Make it the first thing you do when you go into a building, bar, gym, car park, grocery store, nightclub, restaurant, etc. It needs to be a habit. Drill it into your children. It is imperative you carefully review your surroundings, and orient yourself with your exits.
      Lessons for the bright shiny 21st century.

    • Hanny says:

      The question here is not whether you like your guns. The question is whether you love owning guns more than you hate that the US now has a mass shooting on average every single day. The issue is NOT whether you and your family shoot people.
      The issue is how many guns are in circulation and how easy it is to buy them.
      The issue is whether most people, even if they love shooting, choose to give up their guns in order to stop, or greatly reduce, mass shootings. The people of the UK and Australia chose to give up their guns. In return, they got to be safe from mass shootings. Many of them didn’t like it. Many of them loved shooting and hunting. But most of them realised that there was a greater good, and put that first.

  30. Electric Tuba says:

    Sarah is such a biscuit mouthed bitch I swear to god.

  31. Kitten says:

    This poem by Brian Bilston:

    America is a Gun
    by Brian Bilston

    England is a cup of tea.
    France, a wheel of ripened brie.
    Greece, a short, squat olive tree.
    America is a gun.

    Brazil is football on the sand.
    Argentina, Maradona’s hand.
    Germany, an oompah band.
    America is a gun.

    Holland is a wooden shoe.
    Hungary, a goulash stew.
    Australia, a kangaroo.
    America is a gun.

    Japan is a thermal spring.
    Scotland is a highland fling.
    Oh, better to be anything
    than America as a gun.

    • Cee says:

      This is true. No country or society is perfect, but damn, you’re killing each other and regulations just make it easy to do so.

    • Esmom says:

      Heavy. Sigh.

    • Skylark says:

      For an on-the-surface whimsical little poem, that packs quite a punch. Thanks, Kitten.

      America seems so lost. And while trump has more than played a part in its losing its way, he’s just a symptom of something intrinsically darker and sadder.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Thank you for sharing.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Yes. It is and thanks, kitten. I will share that with others.

    • Jaded1014 says:

      Thanks for that Kitten…America is eating itself from within. It’s inherent racial divisiveness, it’s “frontier” mentality and insular jingoism will be its downfall. The biggest threat isn’t from Muslim terrorists or a nuclear-crazed Korean dictator, its biggest threat is from within – the idea that anything can and should be solved with violence, even a grudge against a city that took your money.

      Someone upthread mentioned boycotting travel to the U.S. I’m doing that – Mr. Jaded has dual Canadian/American citizenship and many friends and family members there but we’ve both agreed not to travel to the States until the current government has been dismantled and someone rational can take the helm and steer the country out of the dark waters it has let itself be led into. Dark days ahead I’m afraid…

  32. Margo S. says:

    This makes me so effing angry. I’m an American citizen, but I live in toronto. You can’t just buy a gun here, and you can’t walk around with them. It’s not socially acceptable. We don’t believe it’s OUR RIGHT to own a gun. That is not in our culture.

    Problem is that lots of Americans believe it’s their right to bare arms. That needs to change. And the NRA need to be abolished. Seriously guys, these shootings are going to get worse and worse. But so long as the NRA is packing their pockets, they won’t care. Educate yourselves America!!!

  33. happyoften says:

    They have to answer to the hand that feeds them. At this point the gun lobby is holding America hostage to fetishists.

  34. Cee says:

    The fact so many people can purchase these kind of weapons is disgusting. You don’t need a semi automatic machinegun to feel safe. You don’t live with a guerrilla.
    This psycho owned 40 guns? I’m tired of the old “machines don’t kill, humans do” nonsense gun-crazed people sprout when a massacre like this one happens. The US needs stricter gun control regulations – intensive background checks, mental assessments, quotas, etc. Whoever is against this is complicit. The fact this man was able to enter the hotel with such a weapon is also a disgrace on security measures.

  35. Ana says:

    I agree, if you’re not going to talk about this now then when? Unfortunately, nothing is going to change in regards to gun laws, not in the current government at least.

    The saddest thing is that every time this happens, the gun companies make money because their stocks go up. The more we talk about restricting gun laws, the more their stocks rise because dealers buy more guns. It’s a crazy vicious cycle.

  36. robyn says:

    Very odd how it’s never the right time to discuss the insanity of allowing citizens to have military style weaponry that can kill hundreds in seconds. In large part that’s thanks to the NRA and, oddly enough, even the Russians who’ve been quietly stoking the flames of gun rights in America behind the scenes for years with Republicans playing into their hands. This bit of news about the Russian involvement stems from investigations about Trump and the election. As for the NRA, they remind me of those dogged cigarette people who claimed for decades that smoking didn’t cause cancer. Guns don’t kill, people do … but people can be manipulated and become extremely out-of-control angry, including grandpa and that nice neighbor next door.

  37. NotSoSocialButterfly says:

    STFU, SHS. Both can be done simultaneously, as if tackling gun control is disrespectful to the victims . Honestly, I cannot think of a more meaningful way to pay homage to those slain ( and injured) than to get tough on gun control.

    This is no longer the wild, wild west. There is no need for a citizen militia in this age of technology and national armed forces. To claim otherwise is a straw man argument. If you want to hunt with a rifle or shotgun, that is reasonable- BUT- military style firearms and handguns have no place in civilian hands. None.

    Unload on your congress people who currently support the Share Act, and those who shot down S.Amdt. 711 to S. 649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013). I just did. They are responsible for the deaths of 333 people in mass shootings ( defined as four or more people at a time, not even including the thousands of other deaths not sensationalized) in the last 10 years alone.

    It’s time to stop allowing NRA lobbyists to shut down CDC research into the public health crisis that is gun violence. It’s time to get corporate funding out of politics.

    It’s time for Democrats to co-opt the Repug message brand, “common sense…” and the like. In terms of rhetoric, it’s time to fight fire with fire

    It’s time to publicly shame every last one of them. Get your shame bell on.

  38. HannahLee says:

    My husband is a gun owner and avid collector. He probably has over 100+ guns, some antiques. They are all locked away in safes and not loaded. He has also been in the military for over 30 years. He was in the Special Forces and served in 4 deployments to Iraq. In his civilian life he is a police officer. He has never shot anyone. His record is exemplary. He is a strong proponent of gun control laws (indeed our state is one of the toughest) and yet he is a strong believer in the 2nd amendment. They are not mutually exclusive.

    • Sophia's Side eye says:

      Well, I guess the guns that your husband owns will never be used to kill people, so there’s that…?

    • ATLMathMom says:

      Thank you for sharing your situation. It’s nice to know that there are people like your husband out there, although I fear that they are too rare.

    • Pandy says:

      Question: how is he a strong proponent of gun control laws? To me, I see someone with OVER ONE HUNDRED GUNS who likely has a trauma background from active duty. He sounds like a red flag to my Canadian, gun control mind.

      • Joannie says:

        @ Pandy, i couldn’t agree more. My thought exactly!

      • HannahLee says:

        Thank you for insulting my husband who has spent his entire life and still puts his life on the line every day to protect complete strangers. And to protect the rights of people like you who say vile things and insinuate things about his mental state. And you not only insult him but my family who have sacrificed dearly for his service. You cannot imagine what it is like to not know if he will be coming home from his job as a police officer. Or going days, sometimes weeks, without hearing from him during a deployment, watching the news and dreading a middle of the night phone call. PTSD IS a tragedy, please do not throw the diagnosis around lightly or make fun of it. I personally think our government does not do enough to address it. I have seen my husband spend countless hours with the young soldiers in his unit suffering from it.

        I don’t need to offer you an explanation but my husband collects guns because he enjoys collecting them. They have never been left around our children. He is fanatical about having his duty weapon locked up when he gets home. I personally have never even fired a gun in my life! Hard for you to believe but he is an advocate of gun control and MORE screening. More help for those suffering from PTSD and mental illness. Completely against police brutality. He is the first one to say there ARE bad cops out there. He was disgusted by many of the horrific incidents of the last few years. It boggles his mind that there are so many inexperienced / undertrained cops these days will shoot first and not as a last resort, he always wonders who is teaching them.

      • Ange says:

        Oh lord my husband is in the army as well, get off the cross. None of you accidentally fell into your life. In other countries where gun control is strong your husband WOULD be under more scrutiny because of his past service (and justifiably a lot of his compatriots would not be allowed weapons because PTSD is a real and common occurrence) and unfortunately being a supporter of gun control yet having 100+ guns and supporting the second amendment is a completely dichotomous position to have. He has the luxury of being able to publicly support gun control because he knows nobody is taking those 100+ guns away any time soon, lets see how he feels if the laws are changed.

      • Pandy says:

        Not insulting your husband, being realistic. I work in mental health field and my father was a veteran. With all the violence your husband must see and deal with, geez, maybe switch to collecting movie posters or something. It’s a totally dichotomous position to hold.

    • Pamela says:

      Hi HannahLee,

      I don’t know you, but I am going to just go ahead and say that I bet your husband really does store his guns locked safely away, unloaded. And that he is not ever going to kill anyone for sport like these mass shooters do. There are loads of people just like your husband out there, who are not a danger to society. Odds are that MOST gun owners are not dangerous.

      My issue is that there is no way to know which people are the “Hannah’s husbands” of the world, and which ones are the potential mass shooters.

      If 100 people all owned 100 guns each, that is 10,000 guns. I don’t like the idea of 10,000 guns being out there in the world in the hands of a bunch of people that may or may not be safe and responsible. Not to mention that in some cases, the shooters use guns that are not THEIRS, they take them from people who have licenses. (I think that was the case with Sandy Hook and Columbine??) What if some maniac breaks in to your house when you aren’t there and steals all those guns?

      Guns are lethal. Should the rest of the US sit by and worry that their kid’s school will be the next Sandy Hook…all so someone else can enjoy their gun collecting hobby? Why not collect stamps instead.

      I’m sorry and don’t mean to “yell” at you. Your husband has spent many years protecting and serving our country, and I respect him for that. It isn’t him that is the issue, it is the people that might get their hands on that many guns, or even HIS guns — people who are NOT decent like him that concern me.

    • Trashaddict says:

      HannahLee, as you both age, what will you do if your husband becomes demented? Will you get rid of the guns? How will you know when you have to do that? Does your husband have good control of his temper? Do you have children? Is their mental health OK? Do you have good security in your house so you know that no one will break in, steal the guns, and use them on you?

      • HannahLee says:

        If he dies I will surrender them to the police. The same if he had a mental illness, I have control of his power of attorney and health care. My children and husband’s mental health are fine thank you. His guns are locked up, I don’t know how to access them. Yes we have a good security system (most cops do). I have never shot a gun in my life nor do I intend to.

        As for the other Army wife. I find it hard to believe your husband does not have guns. How many times has he been deployed? How many Bronze Stars / Purple Hearts does he have? No cross here. But a lifetime of service to this country in two different wars is a great sacrifice. One the whole family makes, not just the soldier. As is being a police officer in a dangerous city. He has wanted to be a soldier / cop his whole life and is dedicated to it. He is actually one of the most selfless people I know. The type of person who will jump in a situation to help even when off duty. His accolades in both professions reflect that.

      • Angre says:

        He doesn’t have any guns at home, only the ones at work. And guess what?! What your husband has done doesn’t give you the right to sit on your moral high horse and declare his opinion is greater than anyone else’s in this thread. Military service is a choice, it doesn’t automatically make anyone smarter or more informed on anything. I’m not going to sit here and compare notes on what they’ve done because A. Neither you or I did any of it and B. it’s a blatant appeal to emotions with a side of childish nyah nyah! thrown in and army wives who do that are my biggest pet peeve. You don’t decide to do a thing then declare it gives you the right to accolades.

        Bottom line: his opinions don’t make sense when laid out.

    • Hanny says:

      Hannah, most gun owners, like you husband, would never intend to shoot anyone. And the skilled and conscientious ones will make sure they never do.
      Nonetheless, they are putting their right to enjoy guns ahead of the lives of those Sandy Hook children and the victims of every other mass shooting in the US, which are now happening on average once per day.
      The arguments for self protection and to guard against tyranny simply don’t stack up. They are laughable. The second amendment was introduced when the USA had no standing army (and nor did the founding fathers believe it should have one).
      The number of home invasions that are foiled with a gun is vanishingly small, while hugnumbers of women and children are shot accidentallly or on purpose by these guns that are kept for ‘protection’.
      The only real reason for having guns is to enjoy them. And I used to shoot. It’s great fun. I was shocked to learn how much I enjoyed hunting. But is an individual’s right to enjoy his or her guns more important than the lives of the Sandy Hook children? Every supporter of the 2nd amendment answers ‘yes’ to that question.

  39. Pandy says:

    Sorry to hear about another mass shooting. But you live by the gun you die by the gun. US laws have to change. I don’t understand the fixation. I guess just a violent citizenry? I don’t understand why there isn’t a limit on how many guns you can own. One weird country.

    • Jerusha says:

      That’s a cavalier attitude. Of those 59 victims how many do you think ‘lived by the gun’? A few maybe? Did they and the others deserve to die? How many of the Sandy Hook children lived by the gun? Not many, I bet. Did they deserve to die? I’ve never touched a gun and I assure you I don’t deserve to die by a gun. The gun culture is driven by big money, spineless politicians and a minority of gun nuts in this society. If you want to say they can live/die by the gun, I’ve no problem with that, but don’t condemn the entire country.

  40. Jamie says:

    I didn’t grow up with guns, and don’t own any, but they’re so common where I live (in the US) that probably at least half the people I know own guns. Open/concealed carrying is thought of as basic self protection, like you’re stupid if you don’t have a gun to defend yourself and your family. And yet here are few things that recently happened not far from here: 1) two women out school supply shopping got into a fight in Walmart over a notebook, somehow it escalated, and one of the women pulled a gun on the other and 2) two toddlers were just shot in an in-home daycare by another toddler who found a gun (thankfully the children are going to recover). That is why I’m not interested in owning guns myself. I have kids, and I don’t want to risk any accidents. Sometimes I think I should just have at least one gun locked away somewhere, though, just in case of a zombie apocalypse (kidding). But I do think part of the issue is people thinking they need a gun to defend themselves from everyone else who has a gun, like a vicious cycle.

    • Christin says:

      Two situations that never made our local news involved permit carriers dropping or losing a loaded weapon in two different businesses. There was an injury in one case (grocery bagger allegedly shot in the foot) and potential that a child could have picked up the weapon in the other (weapon slips out of pocket onto a waiting area couch).

      My workplace does not allow weapons inside the building, and we routinely receive negative comments that are so similar they seem to be talking points. The complainers claim they could save the day if something bad happened in our public lobbies. It would be like a movie and they would identify the threat and neutralize it with no escalation or missed aim. Thankfully we have stood our ground thus far and the ban remains.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        The guitarist for the Josh Abbot Band has changed his opinion on the 2nd amendment after being at the Vegas shooting. He said that his idea of the “good guys” saving everyone from the bad guys evaporated. He said that there were armed security members that could have pulled out their guns, but the police would have shot THEM thinking they were the terrorist.

        The good guy vs. bad guy scenario is really not realistic in most situations. There was also a case a while back where a “good guy” shot the victim of a car jacking, thinking he was killing the bad guys. He didn’t save anyone, he murdered an innocent person.

      • Christin says:

        The singer’s change of heart was so well stated. I am glad he spoke out.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Me too! I thought it was courageous of him and well explained. Hopefully there are people listening to him and considering his experience.

    • Rachel says:

      Jamie, in the event of zombie apocalypse, you’re better off with a different kind of weapon anyway. The report from firing a gun would only draw more zombies. Although is SHARE is passed, you can buy a silencer, so I guess it really doesn’t matter.

      Seriously though, you both make excellent points. A couple of months ago, a member of the local gym took his licensed handgun into the gym with him. Put it in a locker in the locker room. The gun discharged. His story is that it went off in the locker, but the only bullet hole was in the wall. So more likely, he mishandled it. Either way, he could’ve accidentally shot anyone.

  41. Christin says:

    Rosanne Cash (Johnny’s daughter) has penned a great opinion piece posted on NYT today. She’s been involved in this issue for years with other artists and has had personal threats.

    Her essay does not mince words and encourages artists to take a stand, no matter the backlash.

  42. Alexandria says:

    I guess in America, it’s ok to shoot at many pregnant ladies because it’s a price for freedom but you must spare the babies because pro life. Something like that.

    • Originaltessa says:

      Abortion is legal in the US.

      • Jerusha says:

        Just barely.

      • alexandria says:

        Yea sarcasm. “Something like that” was alluding to the “logic” that American women are not to be trusted on abortion decisions or basically any decision on family planning and their bodies hence, all the intended measures by your states or the government. However, when it comes to owning a gun for all Americans, even if you’re mentally unstable, it’s all systems go and the folks in power wants to allow everyone to decide for themselves. Logic.

  43. JennaR says:

    I’ve been wondering if it had very little to do with whose concert it was and more that it was an open concert with a lot of people as “easy” targets. My suspicion is that it was an opportunity for him to kill a lot of people in one go, so to speak.

    • robyn says:

      Yes, easy targets are exactly what would-be murderers look for and easy access to automatic weaponry that kill hundreds in seconds. The connection between “freedom” and the ability to own military weapons is a false equation perpetuated by the NRA and spineless Republicans who get contributions from people with pro-gun agendas. The system is corrupt and more grass roots people must speak out against these false equations. It’s becoming harder and harder to feel any pity for a society in a death-spiral that permits such willful ignorance and opens the door to an insanely idiotic and dangerous amassing of guns.

  44. poppy says:

    make gun owners serial mark and insure their weapons.
    as we do with cars.
    until someone or some entity has to pay for a couple of massacres there won’t be any kind of improvement.
    no body followed through with forcing the manufacturers to be responsible.
    sick sick culture.
    put the onus on every $$$ point.
    money is the only language that has a voice now.

  45. Shannon says:

    Meh. That’s kind of an old stereotype of country music. I’ve been a fan ever since the Dixie Chicks, and I’m pretty damn liberal, and I’m not the only one. It’s become pretty mainstream now, and I’m sure this dude had been around long enough to realize that. So I don’t think there was anything political about it. If there was, why not hit up a Trump rally or a white supremicist march or something? I think he was just looking for a large group of people and bam, there’s a music festival in Vegas. Wrong place, wrong time. It’s clearly heartbreaking and tragic, but I think there’s not much point in looking too hard at motive. But it’s definitely the time to talk (yell, scream) about gun control. It’s too late for those victims now. But who will it be too late for next?

  46. hmmm says:

    It’s rather ironic that the likes of this happy, pathological liar, Sarah Sanders, is acting in and proffering a faux politically correct manner.

    If not now, WHEN? Yeah, we’re not that dumb, you soulless freak.

  47. Trashaddict says:

    I actually believe her tears for the victims were real. But you wouldn’t be crying them, you soulless sell-out, if gun control were a reality. Your tears are not a sign of humanity, they’re a freaking insult.

  48. dobbs says:

    the USA will not be able to do what the UK or Australia did, we should look Instead to Germany or our neighbor to the north, Canada. You can by a Tacticool AR15, only difference is that sale of these rifles are far better managed and regulated. You need a firearms license which requires a extensive background check and firearms safety training. Germany the AR rifle is so popular that Schmeisser makes there own version for German shooters, like Canada, you need a license and safety training to get one.

    Want to reduce deaths, make ownership a PAIN IN THE ASS to do. That the deranged maniacs will be harder to them to get their hands on.

    America leads the world in gun deaths, we also lead the world in Opioid overdoses and obesity, all three are caused by the same reason, we have a government that led Gun Industry, Big Pharma and Big Food to push guns, pills and Junk food on the population without and reasonable regulations or responsibility.

    • Valois says:

      About 1% of German citizens own a gun and most of them are members of a club or hunters.
      They are registered (plus the license you mentioned), the amount and type of guns you can own is limited and there are strict rules in terms of how to store your weapons. Getting a license is not impossible, but it takes quite some effort.
      And owning a gun just because isn’t something that most Germans find acceptable.

      I get your point and some aspects of it could work in the US but all in all, Germany has strict gun laws that many Americans would never accept.

  49. Greenie says:

    What I don’t quite understand is why the all those people who claim to be such “responsible gun owners” are not leading the fight for gun regulation. They’re more than happy to tell you about all the safety precautions and training and heritage, etc., etc., etc., they take into account with their own guns. Why aren’t they angry at the ones who are not responsible or even, well, flat out insane, who are allowed to have guns without the same caution and respect they give theirs? Why are they protecting the gun rights of people who are supposedly so different from themselves?

    They like to talk about the slippery slope but they won’t even agree to basic, common sense regulation. To drive a car, the government makes you take a test to see if you’re fit to operate a vehicle, they impose limits on what and how you can drive, they give you a license that they can suspend or revoke, and they register you in a database that helps keep track of your driving performance. But to buy guns—killing machines—most US states don’t require a permit or a test or a recorded background check, not even a waiting period, and there’s no license or database to document any accountability. How does that make sense?