Democrats Urge New Gun Laws Amid Spate of Shootings

Plus: Joe Biden and Kevin McCarthy begin new debt ceiling talks.

By
113
Robert Jackson and his mother Cheryl Jackson hug as they visit a memorial near the scene of a mass shooting at the Allen Premium Outlets mall Monday. Eight people were killed and seven wounded in the attack in which the gunman was killed by police. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democratic lawmakers are renewing calls for an assault weapons ban and other gun control proposals in the aftermath of Saturday’s deadly mass shooting in Allen, Texas. But as we wrote in March after a horrific mass shooting at a Christian school in Nashville, such calls are all but guaranteed to go nowhere.

Republican lawmakers largely aren’t interested in debating more gun restrictions.

“Congress passed more gun control,” said House Majority Whip Steve Scalise—who himself was seriously wounded in a 2017 mass shooting—in reference to a gun violence prevention bill Congress passed last year. “I opposed it because I knew it wouldn’t solve the problem. It just makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns to defend themselves.”

That bill passed Congress a few months after 19 children and two teachers were killed during a mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. It expanded the number of Americans prohibited from obtaining firearms, including those with juvenile criminal records and people convicted of misdemeanor crimes against dating partners. It also directed funding toward mental health programs and established a stricter background check process for people younger than 21 who attempt to purchase weapons.

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
113
By
Comments (113)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Wsampson

    “I opposed it because I knew it wouldn’t solve the problem. It just makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns to defend themselves.”

    If government is doing its job, you don't need a gun to defend yourself. Most of us would be in no danger if we eliminated all guns. We would all be in less danger if we limited what weapons you can buy, how much ammunition you can buy, and had laws about who can't buy. The 2nd amendment as an argument against these things is a lie.

    Collapse
  2. Mike E

    Christmas family pictures with everyone well armed. AR-15 lapel pins in place of Flags. I think many on the right have put guns ahead of Faith and Flag. It seems a little jarring to me.

    Collapse
  3. Mattfrommo

    Assault weapons may be the most glaring example of trying to ban something we can't even clearly define. If Remington came out with a brand new rifle tomorrow, how would we even know if it was an "assault" rifle? By the way, 'it looks like an AR-15' is not a sufficient answer.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill B

      How about a lightweight semi-automatic rifle with a large capacity magazine whose architecture matches the small arms the military deploys in combat? The architecture of the weapon betrays it's purpose; no one will mistake a bolt-action rifle for an "assault weapon".

      But let's face it, any "weapon" can be an assault weapon if we assault people with it. It's really about the lethality and effectiveness of the weapon.

      When it comes to the AR-15/AR-10 etc whether it is automatic or not doesn't really impact it's effectiveness since the ability to deliver rounds is only limited by the rate at which one can pull the trigger(which can be exceedingly fast) and a rifle on full automatic isn't going to be very accurate.

      A weapon isn't a metaphysical concept like the homoousion of the Trinity, it's a technology. Why make it's definition anymore complicated than it needs to be?

      Collapse
    2. Mike E

      Yet other countries did it and had success.

      Collapse
    3. Jim.H

      That is the whole point.....the people who want an "Assault weapons" ban really want to ban all guns.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Kbroot

    Thank you for this good reporting. I haven't commented in awhile beacuse of many things happening personally these months. Sick and tired of my former party's position (head in sand as another commentator put it, or tossing up prayers without work - see St. James epistles). Independent for now but will vote for gun control. A 13 year old nearby who broke into his father's gunsafe continually, finally shot a 12 year old to death because the 12 year old asked him to quit making jokes about the 12 year old's mother. The "good guy" with guns knew his son was doing this but did nothing to remove the guns from access. One boy dead and family suffering and the other boy being charged as an adult with the potenial for a life in prison - at 13.

    Collapse
  5. Dave Thatcher

    I did not have time to read all the comments, but a few thoughts. Firs, Chris Murphy and I attended the same college, he’s a few years behind me but I would still assume he knows what dystopia means. The word requires an imaginary set of circumstances and what he said i the rest of his quote was reality. That said, I do not believe that the solution is an ever increasing set of laws as laws, by definition, only regulate the law abiding and most, not all, of gun violence is as far as I can tell not initiated by law abiders. There are, of course, many examples of people who buy guns legally and then go commit mass shootings. That is why I support things like longer waiting periods, though I see no substantive difference between a 3 day waiting period and a ten day waiting period, and more stringent red flag laws, though I do have due process related concerns and think those need to be considered. I think the violence problem we have in our country goes beyond gun regulation and I think our “leaders” are ducking the real issue, and I think that is where the discussion needs to head. The reaction of dems saying more gun regulation and the republicans saying we will put our heads in the sand every time there is a “mass shooting” is not constructive. Also anyone know how I can change things so when I comment it isn’t under my name? I’m old, I don’t understand how these deals work.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Brian

      Go into Account, then select Commenting. The screen will show the default screen name that’s attached to your comments. You can edit that field to change the name to whatever you want.
      Good thinking in your comment. The gun violence problem is incredibly complex and has to be addressed from many directions. Gun access, mental health, red flag laws. better enforcement of existing laws. It’s maddening to see the simplistic arguments made. An “assault weapons ban” would make little improvement in overall gun-related murders, but it gets the most attention.

      Collapse
      1. Dave Thatcher

        Thank you I fixed my “commenting”name. Also thanks for your comments, the thinking wasn’t off the cuff though commenting was. I don’t do so often.

        Collapse
  6. OldBoomer

    I think what we should do is to erase "In God We Trust" from the currency (it's a lie, anyway) and replace it with
    "Americans Love Their Guns More Than Their Children."

    It would at least have the benefit of being truthful.

    Collapse
    1. Samuel Mpona

      The correct phrase should be “We worship Moloch”

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        John W.

        This made me laugh more than it had any right to. Touche.

        Collapse
  7. Samuel Mpona

    You can’t have a civilized society without giving the monopoly of lethal violence to the State.

    Private gun ownership should be safe legal and rare. The 2nd amendment as currently interpreted by the US judicial system is incompatible with the minimum level of safety expected in a modern society. It must be repelled.

    It might take thousands more deaths for that realization to sink in but it will eventually. Democrats should do nothing, say nothing, and let the pile of bodies do the arguing.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      Of course, pictures of the piles of dead bodies would help.

      Otherwise, out of sight, out of mind.

      If I owned a newspaper, I would publish. I bet I could get permission from the families as well.

      Americans need to look at it, to actually see it. Carnage is only properly understood when seen.

      Collapse
      1. Rdtomasello51

        I still not sure that carnage is properly understood when seen. I just think we have been anesthetized to such a point that it will take more than dead bodies piled up. But I hope you are right.

        Collapse
  8. Chipwatkins

    Even if Congress could pass a bill banning semi-automatic rifles, e.g., AR-15s, the Supreme Court would certainly conclude that it violates the Second Amendment because such weapons are in common use for lawful purposes.

    Collapse
    1. OldBoomer

      Could you list some of those "common use lawful purposes"?

      Collapse
      1. Chipwatkins

        Yup. Self defense, hunting, target practice.

        Collapse
  9. Jim.H

    How about enforce existing gun laws.....that would go a long way to stopping these.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Mary

      In the Allen shooting, what law being enforced would have stopped it? All the weapons he had were purchased legally. I don’t think he technically broke any laws until he opened fire.

      Collapse
      1. Jim.H

        I believe he was in a “gun free zone”…not a 100% sure but did see some reporting on that…..However, the Atlanta sweet 16 shooting, all the guns used were illegal.

        All these gun laws just take away the law abiding person to defend themselves…

        I don’t think you are going to stop a mentally ill person from committing mass carnage. They are going to find a way to do it whether it is gun or something else.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Mary

          Okay, so it was a gun free zone. How should we be enforcing that? Should all cars and people be searched for guns when arriving? Genuine question. I live here in Texas and I don't see how on earth that could be enforced. I mean, it's perfectly legal for me to have my gun in my glove compartment when I drive to the mall. I can't carry it inside if there is a notice posted but I can still have it in my car.

          Collapse
          1. Jim.H

            I know, that is the whole stupidity of gun free zones…..but it makes some liberal politician feel good.

            Collapse
  10. Trichwages

    Sharing - free.

    https://specialto.thebulwark.com/p/the-corruption-of-lindsey-graham?utm_medium=ios

    “Here’s why this project is important: It’s not really about Lindsey Graham.” “Going in, you should understand that this story isn’t about hypocrisy. And it’s not a dunk-fest. The point of it isn’t to embarrass Graham or make ourselves feel better for not following on his path. The point is to understand why and how nearly the entire Republican and conservative establishment made the same journey.”

    Collapse
Load More