by Adam Gopnik

Once again, the overriding lesson, as settled as social science can ever be, remains: If we had gun laws like the gun laws of most countries that resemble ours, we would have lower levels of gun violence, as they do. That would not mean that we would have no gun violence. It means that we would have less gun violence. Deranged fans would not casually assassinate young singers, and young men would not be sending desperate texts to their heartbroken mothers. It is possible to believe both that Islamist terrorism is real and that Islamist terrorism is uniquely empowered here because of the availability of guns designed to kill many people very quickly. It is impossible to make gun terrorism impossible. But it is easy to make gun terrorism hard. It begins with controlling the weapons that terror loves.

By NATE BETHEA

These weapons are intended for the battlefield. I don’t want an assault rifle, because I don’t want to think of my home country as a battlefield. I don’t want civilians to own assault rifles, because I think the risks outweigh the rewards. If people really do believe that they need them, maybe it’s because they see a battlefield where others don’t. …

I don’t want to believe that we live in a place so dangerous as to require these weapons. Maybe I’m naïve. Maybe I’m just waiting to be victimized. I’d rather be naïve and hopeful than face the alternative: the howling terror, the sensation that danger is kept at bay only by that familiar weight, those familiar clicks, and what comes after.

Gun-loons insist gun control is impossible and pointless. The bad guys are the problem, they say. Yet the bloody industry tool, the NRA, fights every effort to study this violence. They don’t want the truth to be known because they fear it will limit the profitability of their bloody industry. We must study violence to understand it — including violence involving guns. Push the NRA aside.

WebMD News from HealthDay
By Robert Preidt
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, June 14, 2016 (HealthDay News) — On the heels of yet another senseless gun massacre in the United States, the nation’s leading physicians’ organization is urging more research into gun violence.

Specifically, the American Medical Association (AMA) said Tuesday that a long-standing ban on federal government research into gun violence must be lifted to better understand and tackle the problem.

The AMA is now pledging to lobby Congress to overturn 20-year-old legislation that has prohibited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from researching the issue.

“Even as America faces a crisis unrivaled in any other developed country, the Congress prohibits the CDC from conducting the very research that would help us understand the problems associated with gun violence,” AMA President Dr. Steven Stack said in a news release from the group.

Such research would also help “determine how to reduce the high rate of firearm-related deaths and injuries,” he said.

Assault weapons must be banned in America
By Eugene Robinson, Opinion writer, June 13 at 7:28 PM

The only reasonable response to the massacre in Orlando is to ban the sale of military-style assault weapons. All else, I’m afraid, is just noise. …

The Second Amendment enshrines the right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court has ruled that this is an individual right, not a collective one. The court has made clear, however, that this does not preclude reasonable gun control measures. Not all weapons must be considered suitable for private hands.
When the framers wrote of “arms,” they were thinking about muskets and single-shot pistols. They could not have foreseen modern rifles or high-capacity magazines. They lived at a time when it was impossible to imagine one man barging into a crowded room and killing more than one or two people before having to reload and surely being subdued. Today it is not only imaginable but also tragically commonplace.

No hunter needs an AR-15 to bring down a deer. None of us needs such a weapon to defend our families against intruders. And for those who believe assault rifles offer protection against a hypothetical tyrannical government — or who perhaps consider the present government tyrannical — I have sobering news: If and when the black helicopters come, they will be accompanied by tanks. …

Freedom is possible, however, without the right to buy military weapons designed for killing sprees. Banning them would not end mass killings, but it would mean fewer deaths. If we do not act, the blood of future victims will be on all of our hands.

Assault rifles were used in Orlando and Sandy Hook. Now a Tenn. lawmaker plans to use AR-15s as fundraiser prizes.
by Peter Holley, WaPo

Instead of cancelling his gun give-away, as some critics called for, Tennessee state Rep. Andy Holt had another idea.

“That’s right… I’m now giving away TWO AR-15s!” he wrote on Facebook Monday.  “I’m sick and tired of the media and liberal politicians attacking our right to keep and bear arms. I’ll do everything I can to ensure the 2nd Amendment is protected and people are equipped to exercise their innate right to self-defense.”

Holt told the Tennessean that he remains convinced that the weapon used Orlando’s mass shooting has no bearing on the massacre. The paper noted that Holt has sponsored multiple gun bills, including one recently passed into law that gives full-time employees at Tennessee colleges and universities the ability to carry weapons on campus.

“It has nothing to do with the style of weapon,” he told the paper.

[braying jackass]

As Reuters noted, the Dunblane massacre led within two years to gun control laws that effectively banned civilians from owning handguns.
Britain had tightened regulations after the 1987 Hungerford massacre, which also killed 16 people, said CNN. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, as it’s known, made registration of shotguns mandatory and banned semi-automatic and pump-action weapons. Firearms amnesties after Hungerford and Dunblane netted thousands of firearms and rounds of ammunition.

CNN noted that while the ban initially seemed to have little impact, the number of crimes involving guns have dropped in recent years. In 2010/2011, there were 11,227 offenses, 53 percent below the peak number. Crimes involving handguns also dropped 44 percent between 2002/2003 and 2010/2011.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/do-gun-control-debates-ever-change-anything-in-these-countries-they-did/ar-AAgZeKM?li=BBnba9K

The tightening of Australia’s gun laws was prompted by the worst mass murder in Australian history. On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in Port Arthur, Tasmania, killing 35 people and wounding 23 more. Just twelve days later, Australia’s government responded by announcing a bipartisan deal along with state and local governments to enact gun control measures, according to Slate.

A massive buyback program yielded more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, roughly one-fifth of the firearms in Australia. The laws also outlawed private sales, required that guns be individually registered to their owners and mandated that buyers present a “genuine reason” for purchasing the guns.

According to research published by Australian Labor Member of Parliament Andrew Leigh in 2010, the buyback program reduced firearm suicides by 74 percent and gun-related homicides by 59 percent, said The Sydney Morning Herald.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/do-gun-control-debates-ever-change-anything-in-these-countries-they-did/ar-AAgZeKM?li=BBnba9K