The attack on a gay night club in Orlando was the deadliest mass shooting in history. We should all stand with the LGBT community today and we should mourn with the city of Orlando as well as with the families of the victims. Our government needs to take action to stop the carnage that’s becoming all too common.
This particular attack touches on so many hot button issues that are currently in the public debate—the war on terror, LGBT safety and rights, gun control, mental illness. The shooter called police to express his allegiance to ISIS during the attack. The FBI says they interviewed him three times. His father said that he had become enraged when he saw two men kissing a few weeks ago. His ex-wife and her fiancé describe a mentally unstable man with violent tendencies. And authorities say that he purchased his guns legally.
Conservatives blame the assault on ISIS and terrorism. They’re angry that President Obama didn’t call out Islamic terrorism in his statements yesterday. Liberals blame easy access to guns, especially assault weapons, as the main culprit. Both sides screamed at each other all day on social media, digging into their respective positions.
Conservatives want a more aggressive approach to terrorism but don’t usually offer many details. Do they want more troops on the ground in the Middle East? More aggressive interrogation techniques? More domestic surveillance? We’ve tried them all.
Liberals argue that denying terrorists access to guns, especially assault weapons, is an approach to curbing terrorist attacks. They want more information about who has guns and want to restrict access to certain types or for certain people. They also claim that the rhetoric and discriminatory laws aimed at the LGBT community create an atmosphere where disturbed people see gay, lesbian, and transgender people as targets.
The anger and vitriol on social media just reinforces the divide and each side blames the other for the attacks that seem to happen every few months. Before we can adequately address the problems we need to find common ground. The rhetoric needs to die down.
One place to start is to allow the government to fund research on gun violence. For twenty years, the Center for Disease Control has been barred from doing research to find out what works and what doesn’t in reducing the incidents of gun violence. In light of yesterday’s attack, and the one at Newtown and Aurora and dozens of other places across the county, the least we can do is increase our knowledge about what can better protect our country from random attacks.
That’s just a baby step that will have no immediate impact but at least it might begin a dialogue. It’s a small gesture that can show a little unity and send a statement that, finally, Congress is willing to take action. If we can’t find agreement on something as simple as research in the pursuit of knowledge, then we really don’t have a functional enough Congress to keep us safe.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
There is no issue in America more rooted in ignorance and superstition
than the call for “sensible gun control”.
Examine a few of the anti-gun arguments accepted as gospel by most of the writers above:
–We need to get dangerous assault rifles (whatever you mean by the term) and weapons designed for the battlefield off our streets!
Raise your hand if you remember that our revolution started at Lexington and Concord when the forces of tyranny marched out to seize the colony’s Brown Bess muskets–the weapon designed for the battlefield of the time. The Second amendment has nothing to do with the right to hunt or shoot targets. The courts in the earliest cases clearly establish that the Amendment protects the right to keep weapons in common use by the military.
–It just makes sense to allow the Centers for Disease Control to
spend millions of dollars dealing with the problem of gun violence!
How soon folks forget. I don’t have time to look up the details, but those of you who want to understand why pro-gun folks do not like or trust the CDC is that a few years ago under Clinton the CDC proposed allowing it to treat firearms and ammunition like drugs and
impose regulations written by doctors who have as much knowledge of the subject as I have about the back side of the moon.
–We can never pass any sensible gun control because the NRA
is so unreasonable!
The reason gun control is difficult to get through Congress is because a majority of voters oppose it and politicians, who care for
nothing more than getting reelected, risk losing their seats if they
support it. If a majority of people supported gun control you could start collecting all the guns.
I do not belong to the NRA and I do not listen to their propaganda.
There is no one at the NRA who knows as much as I do about the
Constitution and the Republican form of government. You’all need some facts on your side instead of more bogus boogiemen like the NRA and powerful gunmakers to blame for the failure of your dreams of living in a world where only the criminals–including the government-have guns.
If you have the courage to face the reality of the world we live in,
you might consider this:
How can America protect itself against the invasion of millions of people who hate us and are told by their god and his profit to kill us or enslave us?
How can we deal with the children of Taliban supporters like the cowardly murderer in Florida when they are American by birth?
Of course, not all Moslems are going to become murderers
or mutilate their daughters or stone folks because of their religion or sexual practices. But how many Americans will die at the hands of
Islam before we look to the source of our problem?
Steve K
Norma:
Bless your heart. Did I say you were not lucid? No. I’ve read your writing here and it is quite obvious that you capable of elucidating yourself well.
Congratulations; you survived the concrete jungle. But as with many others, you want to come here and dictate your preferences and mores for how people here should live in relation to you. I’m not saying that I agree with any of those you find offensive or find fear in, including their symbology (quite the opposite actually) but here, typically if you leave people alone, they’ll leave you alone, generally speaking and for the most part.
Thank you as well for confirming what I previously stated, which seems to share concurrence broad spectrum. Uniform background checks and if you’re shady enough not to be able to fly, perhaps you shouldn’t be buying weapons either and any purchase made from a dealer should require a background check. Contrary to what I think is common sense, you want to go off banning things. Yes, we must do something about this plague upon us which is ‘military type, style, modeled after’ weapons. Taking your suggestion to heart, I did some reading and guess what? Muzzleloaders, revolvers, lever action rifles, bolt action rifles and pump shotguns have all placed themselves among ‘military type’ weapons. The Glock series of pistols were designed for the Austrian military. So there ya go.
It’s a shame that nothing posited here addresses the use of those weapons. No one seems the least bit concerned about the behavior or the person behind the implement. Oh no, let’s blame it on the inanimate object since, as common sense dictates, there is no reason for anyone to have a weapon like that.
On that basis alone, it would appear that I’m not the only one in this conversation that needs to do some reading. Try following some of your own advice. In that regard, might I suggest writings by James Madison, George Mason, and Alexander Hamilton as a primer to the understanding of the founders and their interest in the meaning and context behind the 2nd Amendment. You may even wish to explore some of the history of the State in which you now reside about how the Constitutional Convention from the State of North Carolina would not ratify the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was drafted and included as part of the Federal Constitution and to specifically include the right of keeping arms.
Just for your edification, I agonized many an hour after Sandy Hook. Wondering if I was truly wrong in my beliefs and what I’ve always understood to be right. Not just as a person, but as one who has carried arms in a number of professional roles. I read, I researched, I analyzed. Ultimately, I don’t blame the weapon. How can I? Unless you or I pick it up, it’s going to lay dormant and eventually oxidize. Without the person, it’s just a hunk of metal and plastic. These things are not toys. They were never meant to be toys or objects of intimidation. They deserve respect the same as any of our inventions which can maim or kill. But people don’t do that. Training that little idiot to shoot was no different than giving a 16 year old with a brand new driver’s license a Corvette; stupid and irresponsible. The difference is when either is used irresponsibly and people die as a result, you blame the implement on the one hand and on the other, the parents.
I grew up in rural, small town Grorgia and lived in this part of the country almost half my life. Also have been visiting Charlotte for years, sometimes for extended time. Have family here as well as Ga so not exactly a new locale for me. Also have modicum of knowledge of NC history although not as much as I would like. As much as history teaches us, I still think we have to deal with the reality of today. The weapons of today kill at a horrific rate compared to those you brought up. We will not stop evil or crazy people but we can try to limit the damage the do with weapons designed for the battlefield. I won’t ban much of anything humans do, but these weapons I would. Will read rest of your post later.
I’ll await the rest of what you wish to say.
No. This is not about “extreme ends” or trying to find middle ground. The right and their deep pocketed funding source the NRA are WRONG! Common sense says limiting access to guns and certain types of guns is the ONLY way to minimize these massacres. Australia enacted strong gun laws in 1996 and have not had a mass shooting since. Other countries have similar narratives. America is a disgrace when it comes to this issues and there are NO excuses.
You are correct. Australia is a good example and the results in diminishing murders (all kinds) and suicides proves that it can be done. Gun control is NOT an extreme position. We have more weapons per 100 (88.8) people than Yemen (54.8) where there is war going on. (https://top5ofanything.com/list/de09aa45/Countries-with-the-Most-Guns-(firearms)-Per-Capita) The list cited here is by independent researchers, and is truly eye opening.
And that approach Joe is why nothing will be done to curb or control sales to people who shouldn’t have them. You’re right, they’re wrong, deal with it and there is no give, no take, no discussion.
Yes, Austrailia is the shining example of Nirvana for gun control advocacy. Not just some guns, not a few guns, but any semi-auto rifle of shotgun. Unlike Austrailia however, Americans have a Constitutional right to guns. That sir, is the starting point; that is the middle ground.
Northern Ireland had gun control. Didn’t seem to slow down the PIRA (Provisional Irish Republican Army) from obtaining automatic weapons, explosives, RPG’s, grenades, and mortars. And terrorist acts of violence are not crimes; they’re acts of war. England recognized that. That’s why British Paratroops patrolled the streets of cities in Northern Ireland during the ‘troubles’.
The NRA isn’t that impressive. I’m not a member. I won’t be a member. Their free market agenda on weapons is just as dangerous as total control on the opposite side. How many members do they have? 3-6 million? That’s what precentage of the population? They’re loud and established but as a force, they aren’t as bad or powerful as many believe them to be.
What does an anti-conscription movement turned paramilitary terrorist group have to do with gun control? That’s the tired argument “if a solution doesn’t work 100% of the time, then don’t do anything at all”.
Are you suggesting we should have the National Guard patrol our streets? Of course people will get weapons from somewhere. Does that mean we should throw up our hands and do nothing?
There aren’t too many gun control advocates who advocate taking away ALL guns – although I don’t doubt there are some. However, those total ban voices are few and far between and are not really involved in the discussion. The NRA is VERY powerful. Just because their members are 1-2% of the population doesn’t mean they don’t have a disproportionate affect on the political process. That’s like saying, well there are only a handful billionaires on Wall Street so they shouldn’t really influence financial policy and regulation.
What I’m saying is that the political pawns of the gun lobby – mostly, but not all Republicans – will not budge on common sense legislation. Even something as tiny as CDC studies as Thomas has pointed out. They are the extreme and they are wrong. Its like attempting to get an evangelical Christian to understand Darwinian evolution or a climate denier to understand the undeniable science behind human induced changes to global climate. They are blind to any rationality. Just because you believe its not true, doesn’t make it so. One plus one equals two, whether or not you think it equals orange.
I’ve a feeling that Liam Lynch et al would disagree to your analysis of the Irish Civil war as being solely about “anti-conscriptionist”. Be that as it may; this isn’t about Ireland.
No one, least of all me is suggesting that the National Guard should be patrolling the streets. There are private contractors for that. A group that will not fall within the purview of the Posse Commitatus Act or the Constitution.
Is that your solution? No, you can’t buy a gun. Yes, the hoodlums can smuggle in all they can carry. I’m guessing they won’t be smuggling in single shot shotguns either.
As far as people opposing complete gun control are concerned, take a look at the following if you please. A few people well connected all the way into the White House.
“Tired argument” as opposed to your ‘one size fits all’ argument? Consider this, which are excerpts from the minutes of a meeting held by the group “Handgun Control Inc”:
“HCI – Confidential Document DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OR COPY/NOT FOR GENERAL CIRCULATION. The attachment is also marked CONFIDENTIAL, and Confidential Information for use by Lobbyists or Senior Officers Only. The attachment is dated December 29, 1993 and contains details relative to the Notes and Minutes of the December 17, 1993 meeting. The material was distributed to the following individuals: NOTE: Sarah Brady was a member (important later)
The following is summarized from the content of the general document and the Attachment.
D)Ban on all pump shotguns capable of being converted to over 5 shots without reloading.
H)Ban on possession of a firearm within a home located within 1000 feet of a schoolyard.
L)The eventual ban of all semi-automatics regardless of when made or what caliber.
10) Ban on all military style firearms. This will be based on a “point system” and hopefully can be expanded to include high powered air guns and paint ball weapons.
16) Eventual ban on handgun possession. We think that within 5 years we can enact a total ban on possession at the federal level.”
The rest, if you’re interested can be found at varmintal.com/hci.htm.
The stated goals and objectives for Handgun Control Inc…now the Brady Foundation. The Brady Foundation is more careful to cover up what their real intentions are. “A few people…” indeed.
Should there be background checks? Certainly. Should people we wouldn’t allow on planes be allowed to buy weapons? No, they shouldn’t. If you’ve ever been committed to a mental institution should you be allowed to buy a gun? I’m going with No again.
I’m not an Evangelical Christian; I believe evolution. I likewise believe that we’re changing the climate. I likewise know that when you start walking back rights, you’re not going to get more in return, regardless of how it adds up.
So when you come up with something a tad more lucid than, “The Austrailans did it” we’ll talk.
Thanks for telling me I am not lucid! For a person who is quoting secret documents from Dec. 1993, what can I say? I guess nothing has changed since then, although Sandy Hook parents, and a host of others might say otherwise. Banning weapons designed for military use is not too much to ask. Banning large size magazines also. Insisting on better background checks and including gun shows and private sales so mentally disturbed people, or those on the no-fly list, cannot buy a gun is common sense. I have not yet heard an explanation that does anything except claim either the 2nd Amendment (which was not until 1960s even considered to apply to individuals owning guns — please read some history further back) or that we must be armed to defend ourselves. From what? I lived in NYC during high crime days. I walked the streets, rode the subways and buses — both without fear. I got mugged once by a couple of teenagers. Did it scare me? Yes. But I did not move forward as though my life was in danger. I am far more frightened when I see a pick up truck with guns in the rear window today than I ever was in NYC, and especially when it is accompanied by some of the more infamous symbols that float around. Yes, a hanging noose or a swastika on a vehicle with a gun inside scares me. But then, I am not “lucid.” I guess my daughter should just have this old lady put in a home!
Truly. But the dialogue at the moment is just like everything else being debated. It’s at the extreme ends of the pendulum arc. No one is willing to meet in the middle and discuss this rationally, civilly, and with the intent of actually solving the problem. Everybody wants to point fingers and utter politically charged phrases at the other’s views as if they alone possess the whole truth on the matter.
Will knowing the causality provide a solution or a series of steps that can be implemented without violating the Constitution? In that regard, would we truly know or would it just be a set of numbers with statistical significance to a set series of variables? I do agree that something has to be done. But the solution lies in working together on the problem, not in a shouting match based perceived impressions of humanity, civility, or governmental excess.
Agree with everything you wrote. However, I see very little of common sense in either the NC GOP or the national leadership. I wish it were otherwise.
Well said and right on! What is the NRA afraid of regarding desperately needed research by a respected organization?
Good question, Bert. Research might show that there are some citizens without any criminal history who are so unstable that they are dangerous. For example, people with acute paranoia or delusions of persecution may act irrationally and impulsively with a gun.