Heck Pulls Back on Guns

Yesterday morning, we saw fireworks. Rep. Joe Heck went on KDWN's "Alan Stock Show" and agreed with Stock calling Gabby Gifforda a "prop" as both were decrying President Obama's push for gun violence prevention.





At last night's town hall in Old Henderson, on the other hand, he was singing a very different tune. Last night, he actually started answering questions his constitutents have had on gun safety. And not only that, but he also suddenly found some common ground with President Obama on this matter.





However, there was a catch. While Heck was willing to extend an olive branch on universal background checks and curbing illegal gun trafficking, he was not willing to do the same on the Assault Weapons Ban and ban on high-capacity magazines.



Even though last week's KLAS/SUSA poll showed 57% of Nevadans support a ban on military grade assault weapons (and only 33% opposed), Heck didn't want to budge on this. He even claimed that the previous federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994-2004) didn't work. Unfortunately for Heck, the data on hand shows otherwise.

These so-called “external features” not only themselves allow for faster rates of fire and other more lethal uses of the guns, but also serve as effective proxy definitions for the sort of weapons best suited to kill people as efficiently as possible. The definition of “assault weapon” in the new federal ban proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) with respect to semi-automatic rifles and pistols is focused on two kinds of each. The rifles are civilian equivalents of “assault rifles,” the main class of rifle used by modern militaries. “Civilian” versions are distinguished only by their inability to fire either automatically or in bursts without a conversion kit. The pistols have features that make them liable to be converted to full automatic versions (that is, into submachine guns) or otherwise enhance their lethality (e.g., allow for faster rate of fire).

[The new Assault Weapons Ban] picks out those sorts of weapons in two ways. First, it bans specific guns (like the AR-15s used by James Holmes in Aurora and Adam Lanza in Newtown) that are particularly deadly. Many of these guns are civilian equivalents of military assault rifles, because — as assault rifle expert C.J. Chivers puts it — these guns were “conjured to form solely for the task of allowing men to more efficiently kill other men” because they are “smaller, lighter in weight, more tactically versatile and require a lighter per-man effective ammunition load than the infantry rifles that preceded them.” The Feinstein provisions, unlike in the 1994 federal ban, specify that “altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof” are also banned, so taking out a single screw and calling the weapon something different would not allow manufacturers to skirt the ban. The second provision defines generic features — like barrel shrouds that allow for faster fire or (for pistols) magazines outside the pistol grip —and bans any gun that has more than one of them and a detachable magazine (the old ban allowed a maximum of two features, making it easier to skirt).

These aren’t merely cosmetic features: they’re the ones that mark guns optimized for effective performance in combat-style situations. They also mark guns easily convertible to full automatic fire, like the TEC-9 submachine guns once favored in gang killings. One such kit is fully legal, despite the 1934 National Firearms Act banning the possession of automatic weapons without a permit. The kit produced by the company Slide Fire product allows you to turn your AR or AK series assault rifle into a rapid-fire machine without technically running afoul of the federal definition of “machine gun.”

The notion that assault rifles are similar in caliber to hunting rifles, and hence no more dangerous, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny for similar reasons. As the California Attorney General’s office explains, “Caliber has no bearing on a weapon’s status as a series weapon and should be disregarded when making an identification. For example, upper receiver conversion kits are available to convert almost any AR series weapon into .45 ACP, .40 S&W, 7.62 X 39 mm, 9 mm, 10 mm, or .223 caliber.” [...]

There is evidence that the 1994 federal ban saved lives despite a series of loopholes closed in the Feinstein bill and several state bans. Though there isn’t reliable data on the number of people killed by assault weapons in the United States, there is strong evidence from the Mexican border that both California’s assault weapons ban the federal assault weapon ban lowered the homicide rate. The clearest comes in a 2012 academic paper that treated the expiration of the federal assault weapon ban in 2004 as a natural experiment —California still had its assault weapon ban, but Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona didn’t have equivalents. The authors tracked homicides and weapon seizures in the Mexican provinces bordering the states, finding disproportionately lower homicide rates in provinces near California. This difference remained when other potential causes (like police presence) were accounted for, suggesting the federal and California bans had successful kept assault weapons out of the hands of cartels and other criminals. The expiration of the federal law, on this paper’s model, has gotten roughly 239 people killed on the Mexican border per year since 2004. This is consistent with another paper that found “the expiration of the AWB is responsible for at least 16.4 percent of the increase in the homicide rate in Mexico between 2004 and 2008.”

The 1994 ban, according to a Department of Justice review, also appears to have caused the percentage of crimes involving assault weapons in some major US cities to drop from 72 percent to 17 percent.

Even with its loopholes and other flaws, the 1994 federal ban actually did work to a large extent. And the new proposed ban goes a long way to fix those past flaws.

What's the purpose of civilian ownership & use of military grade assault weapons? And why are high-capacity magazines needed? How are these fit for "recreational use"? Heck didn't really answer that. And his spin falls flat once the facts are brought out.

Otherwise, it seems like Heck at least wants to be seen as "moderate" and "reasonable". So at least he's now open to background checks, curbing trafficking, and even lifting the ban on CDC researching gun violence. So maybe there's a chance of something getting through this Congress? Heck seems amenable to at least some measures, but it remains to be seen if his House G-O-TEA leaders allow a floor vote on anything... And if Alan Stock and the rest of the Nevada "tea party" will tolerate this talk from Heck.

It's Time to Act.

Last night offered a bizarre and jarring juxtaposition. Just as the Christopher Dorner manhunt was reaching its shocking conclusion in Big Bear, California, President Obama delivered his State of the Union Address to Congress. Yet as both stories played out last night, gun violence was front and center.



The President closed on gun safety. He evoked recent victims of gun violence in calling for a vote on gun safety reform. This was perhaps the most emotionally charging part of last night's address.

[... T]he heart of the speech came during his remarks on gun violence. Legislators wore green ribbons to remember the victims of Newtown, but Obama made sure that the victims of violence in urban neighborhoods had their moment here.

He introduced the parents of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, the majorette who was shot in a Chicago park just a mile from Obama’s home. “Just three weeks ago she was here with her classmates, performing at my inauguration,” he said, describing a girl who loved Fig Newtons and her friends. He urged Congress to back gun control legislation for Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, “along with two dozen other Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence.”

“They deserve a vote,” he said three times, and went on:

"Gabby Giffords deserves a vote.

"The families of Newtown deserve a vote.

"The families of Aurora deserve a vote.

"The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence –they deserve a simple vote." [...]

On guns, Obama seemed resigned to only getting part of his agenda, but it’s important that he continues to demand a vote on all of it. OK, so insisting “Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress. If you want to vote no, that’s your choice” may not be the approach of the toughest political boss, but on guns, it’s progress, when leaders of both parties scheme to keep popular measures from coming to a vote. Obama seemed to be arguing with absolutists in both camps when he remarked, “We were never sent here to be perfect. We were sent here to make what difference we can.”

And now, we have families throughout Southern California who have lost loved ones as well.

View more videos at: http://nbclosangeles.com.

Randal Quan, who worked hard as a police captain and then as a lawyer defending his colleagues when their jobs were in jeopardy, must live without his daughter.

Monica Quan had grown up beautifully, becoming an assistant basketball coach at Cal State Fullerton and becoming engaged to a young man who may have followed her father’s footsteps into a law enforcement career.

The Lawrence family was proud of Keith, Monica’s fiancé, who worked as a safety officer at USC and dreamed of a career among the ranks of those who protect and serve.

Two young children will grow up without their father, Riverside police officer Michael Crain, gunned down by Dorner while sitting in his patrol car at a traffic light. Crain’s partner, whom police have not yet named, was injured, and continues to fight for his life at a local hospital.

Crain’s wife, Regina, will have the company of hundreds of her lost husband’s colleagues at a funeral service planned for Wednesday, but she will still have to face a future without him. The scars left on her children, still unknown, will surely haunt all three of their lives.

The family of a San Bernardino sheriff’s deputy killed during Dorner’s last stand will also experience these ripples of grief. The deputy, who was not identified as of Wednesday morning, died after coming to help two state Fish and Wildlife wardens who had spotted the fugitive on the winding, snowy roads around Big Bear Lake on Tuesday.

Remember that Christopher Dorner owned a home here in Southern Nevada, about nine miles from The Strip in the Southwest Valley. And while we still don't know how or where he acquired his weapons, we do know he was a frequent customer at Lock N' Load in Henderson. He may have purchased his suppressors there.

Lock N' Load is near Eastern Avenue & the 215 Freeway, right in the heart of Joe Heck's Congressional District. On Monday, several constituents traveled to his Southwest Valley office to ask that he consider all of President Obama's gun safety agenda, including the Assault Weapons Ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines. Even though California already has strict gun safety laws, Dorner likely circumvented them by accessing assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, suppressors, and other dangerous items from a state where they can be easily found. Nevada happens to be one of those states.

We saw two major stories develop last night, and both highlighted the need for better federal gun safety standards. On Capitol Hill, President Obama asked Congress to hold a vote on life-saving gun safety reform measures that most Americans support. And while he was making his request, Members of Congress sat among survivors of gun violence. Joe Heck and Senators Dean Heller & Harry Reid all had to face Obama and these survivors.

Yet as this was happening, we saw even more gun violence victims mourn their lost loved ones in Southern California as the Christopher Dorner chase reached its stunning conclusion in Big Bear. A fourth victim's life was lost as a San Bernardino County Sheriff was shot down during the final standoff. And it's likely he and his colleagues were initially outgunned by Dorner.

What more must it take for Congress to act? Don't these victims deserve a vote? Last night served as another saddening reminder of what must be done.

Joe Heck('s Office) Gets a Reality Check

This issue isn't going away any time soon. Especially as we see more shootings here in Nevada and across the country, gun safety remains in the headlines. And today, Rep. Joe Heck (R-Henderson) finally broke his silence on the issue that's already been debated by many of his colleagues in Congress for the past two months.

So what did Dr. Heck prescribe as a policy solution? [crickets]

That's why ProgressNow Nevada and some NV-03 concerned constituents paid a visit to Joe Heck's district office in the Southwest Valley. Here's a glimpse of what happened.







Several of Heck's constituents came to make a statement. Yet interestingly enough, Heck's district staff were ready and waiting for them. To their credit, they talked a bit with constituents. But of course, they soon handed out "constituent comment forms" for them to fill out and leave with the staff. There was no actual sit-down time at the office.

Unfortunately for Heck's staff, media cameras were also present. But hey, at least there were also a few counter-protesters there to decry President Obama's gun safety plan... Or at least the NRA's spin on it. Even a couple of the counter-protesters conceded the necessity of universal background checks!

So how much longer can Heck stay mum on gun safety reform?

This likely won't be the last time Heck hears from his constituents on gun safety. President Obama and gun safety advocates plan to highlight this issue in a major way tomorrow during the State of the Union Address. Grassroots groups like Courage Campaign will continue pushing for comprehensive gun safety reform, including the new Assault Weapons Ban proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and President Obama. And as long as a broad majority of Americans demand action on gun safety, Congress will feel the pressure to act.

So is Heck ready to have an honest conversation on real solutions to prevent gun violence? Or will he hide behind empty platitudes while tacitly approving of the latest outbreak of "tea party" madness? How many more gun induced tragedies must Nevada and the nation endure before Heck & his colleagues in Congress take action? Heck's constituents are waiting for answers.

Flashpoint

Yesterday, Assembly Member Steven Brooks was arrested. Again. This time, it was on domestic violence charges. Police also accuse him of attempting to take an officer's weapon when fighting arrest.

Police on Sunday again have arrested embattled Nevada Assemblyman Steven Brooks, D-North Las Vegas, this time after a report that he allegedly attacked a family member.

Officers arrived at Brooks' home around 12:30 a.m. at 6007 Turtle River Avenue to find that he was “agitated and refused to obey officers’ commands,” Metro Police said.

As officers tried to take him into custody, police said, Brooks fought them. In a news release, Metro said the 40-year-old “at one point attempted to secure one of the officers' weapons.”

Police arrested the Las Vegas resident on counts of obstructing police and domestic battery.

Steven Brooks was arrested last month for allegedly making death threats on Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick. And since then, he's exhibited plenty of bizarre behavior. And amidst all the bizarre behavior and lurid scent of scandal, some started asking new questions on the state of mental health care and gun safety here in Nevada.

Even more questions have arisen since last week's Southern California shootings that police suspect Christopher Dorner of committing. Dorner has owned a home in the Southwest Vegas Valley since 2007. And he frequented Lock N' Load, a gun store just south of The 215 in Henderson. Lock N' Load owner Tony Melendez insists his store never sold any actual weapons to Dorner, but he has admitted that the store sold him accessories. Melendez wouldn't specify what they were, but Dorner himself declared in his manifesto that Lock N' Load sold him suppressors. These are often used in gun crimes to reduce the noise of the bullet release, and California is one of 11 states to ban civilian possession and use of them.

The manhunt for Christopher Dorner continues as the City of Los Angeles has now offered a $1,000,000 reward for information leading to his capture. LA police were actually stretched quite thin yesterday as they were simutaneously continuing the manhunt, providing extra security for the Grammy Awards, and proceeding with regular police activity.

View more videos at: http://nbclosangeles.com.

Ever since news broke of the Dorner manhunt, more questions are being asked on how and why this is happening. And again, issue of easy access to firearms has become the central flashpoint. The Los Angeles Times' George Skelton examined how the Dorner incident may soon unravel the gun lobby's central argument for resisting gun safety reform.

Dorner seemingly was law-abiding — until he wasn't.

And that brings up a larger point: At minimum, he is another example of a so-called law-abiding, innocent gun owner who apparently went berserk and used his arsenal to kill people.

It makes such comments as this one recently uttered by National Rifle Assn. executive Wayne LaPierre look particularly inane and off target: "Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals."

News flash: Some law-abiders do become violent criminals. And their kill rate too often increases with their firepower.

Of course, this gets into the whole definition of "law-abiding." Unfortunately, you don't need to be exactly law-abiding to legally purchase a gun.

"It's one of the really pervasive myths," says Garen Wintemute, director of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program. "If you ask people the question, 'Can criminals legally buy guns?' they laugh and say, 'Of course not.' But a large segment of the population has a criminal recordandcan still buy guns."

The NRA has claimed that the only way to "stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun". Supposedly, Christopher Dorner was one "good guy with a gun". And supposedly, Steven Brooks was one as well. So what went wrong?

The NRA has already dismissed the push for real gun safety reform as "The Connecticut Effect". Apparently to the gun lobby, the merciless slaughter of 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown has just been a political nuisance. I guess they will do the same today with the courthouse shooting in Wilmington, Delaware.

Delaware State Police Sgt. Paul Shavack confirmed three people died in the shooting Monday morning at the New Castle County Courthouse in Wilmington. He said the suspected gunmen and two women are dead. Shavack said police had not confirmed that one of the women was the shooter's estranged wife, though earlier in the day the city's mayor said that was the case.

Two police officers suffered non-life-threatening injuries.

Shavack said officers exchanged gunfire with the shooter in the courthouse's lobby before he passed metal detectors. Shavack did not say whether the shooter killed the two women or whether they were killed in the gunfire. Shavack also did not say how the shooter died.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that the nation has a serious problem with gun violence. And it's becoming increasingly obvious that gun industry lobbyists can't simply sweep this matter under the rug. Newtown won't let them. Neither will Wilmington. Neither will Southern California. And neither can Nevada.

While various states are working on gun safety reform legislation, it's become painfully obvious that we ultimately need a national solution. Nevada's Members of Congress must keep this in mind as they tackle this issue on Capitol Hill.

It Keeps Hitting Home.

He may be on his way out, but he refuses to go away quietly. Even as Assembly leaders take steps to force him out, Steven Brooks remains defiant. And he made this surprising comment when speaking to The Sun's Anjeanette Damon.

Asked for reaction to the Democrats’ decision [to remove him from their caucus], Brooks said: “It’s the dumbest thing they’ve ever done.”

Then he added: “No, don’t say that. I love them still.”

Brooks said he has no plans to join the Republican caucus.

“Why would I do that? I just like to fight for my 2nd Amendment rights,” he said, in apparent agreement with a Republican stance. “Other than that, I stand alone. Only God stands with me.”

No really, he said that. And frankly, considering the chain of events there, "fighting for 2nd Amendment rights" takes a chilling new meaning. It's a reminder of how close Carson City might have been to a very dangerous situation.

And that's not all. Back down south, Southern Nevada law enforcement are participating in a massive multi-state man-hunt. A former Los Angeles police officer is wanted on a murder charge in Orange County, California, he's a person of interest in other recent shootings in Southern California, and he now may be hiding here.

View more videos at: http://nbclosangeles.com.

Authorities issued a statewide "officer safety warning" and police were sent to protect people named in the posting that was believed to be written by the fired officer, Christopher Dorner, who has military training. Among those mentioned were members of the Los Angeles Police Department.

"I will bring unconventional and asymmetrical warfare to those in LAPD uniform whether on or off duty," said the manifesto.

Dorner has available multiple weapons including an assault rifle, said [Los Angeles P]olice Chief Charlie Beck. [...]

Dorner is wanted in the killings of Monica Quan and her fiance, Keith Lawrence. They were found shot in their car at a parking structure at their condominium on Sunday night in Irvine, authorities said.

Quan, 28, was an assistant women's basketball coach at Cal State Fullerton. Lawrence, 27, was a public safety officer at the University of Southern California. There was disbelief at three college campuses, Fullerton, USC, and Concordia University, where the two met when they were both students and basketball players.

Dorner was with the department from 2005 until 2008, when he was fired for making false statements.

Quan's father, a former LAPD captain who became a lawyer in retirement, represented Dorner in front of the Board of Rights, a tribunal that ruled against Dorner at the time of his dismissal, LAPD Capt. William Hayes told The Associated Press Wednesday night.

Christopher Dorner owns a home about 9 miles from The Strip, and Metro Police are now participating in the search for Dorner. He is also suspected of killing a Riverside police officer and wounding another early this morning.

Yet again, we're being reminded of what happens when the right guns fall into the wrong hands. Trouble ensues. And real people's lives are at risk. This is not a game.

Unfortunately, the people of Aurora, Colorado, know this all too well. Dave Hoover's nephew was killed in last July's movie theater massacre. And he's now speaking out on gun safety reform.



And he isn't alone. The latest national Quinnipiac Poll shows that 92% (!!!) of Americans support universal background checks. And on top of that, 56% of Americans support both a high-capacity magazine ban and a military grade assault weapons ban.

In recent days, we've been reminded of the real policy problems we have on gun safety. We've especially seen this here in Nevada. Something must change.

House Democrats are releasing their own gun safety plan, but apparently it's very similar to Vice President Biden's and President Obama's. We now know two of Nevada's Members of Congress (Steven Horsford & Dina Titus) support the entirety of President Obama's gun safety plan, including the assault weapons ban, universal background checks, and a ban on high-capacity magazines. It just remains to be seen how brave Harry Reid, Dean Heller, and Joe Heck will be. Perhaps they need to check in on what's happening here in Nevada.

A Sober Reality Check on Gun Violence

So it happened again. We saw yet another shooting yesterday. This time, it hit very close to home.

For years Jim McCarty hid whatever troubles that may have weighed on him behind the rhythms of normalcy.

He lived in a single-story home with his wife and her two children at 2225 La Sombra Street, an aging residential neighborhood. Neighbors say he never missed a day of work as a tractor-trailer driver, leaving each morning at 7 a.m. and coming home at 5 p.m. like clockwork. When he wasn’t at work, they saw him obsessing over his lawn making sure it stayed lush and green despite the dry desert heat. He loved that lawn.

Work and the yard, the “everyman” routine. They were his constants — until Tuesday.

That day, Catrina Garrett, who lives across the street from the family, noticed he missed work. Then, around 3:45 p.m., next-door neighbor Andrew Newkirk heard gunshots. [...]

The Clark County Coroner’s Office identified the first two victims as Jim McCarty’s stepchildren, Bonnie Scherrer, 38, and Robert Scherrer, 41. The third victim, neighbors say, is his wife, Linda McCarty.

It is impossible to know what may have caused McCarty to snap and allegedly shoot his family and then himself, but neighbors who know the family well say underneath his routine was a bleak life.

Believe it or not, gun deaths often occur by way of victims' own guns. Accidents happens. And then in this case, Jim McCarty turned his gun on his own family, then on himself.

This wasn't a topic discussed at yesterday's US Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun safety, but plenty of other issues were brought to the table. What was perhaps most chilling about yesterday's hearing was how the typical decorum of a Senate hearing was interrupted by reminders of all the recent bloodshed from epic gun violence. Salon
's Joan Walsh has more.

I’m sure he never dreamed that barely a month later the carnage would claim a 15-year-old majorette who’d just marched in his inaugural parade. Hadiya Pendleton is only one of 42 people to die of gun violence in Chicago this month, the deadliest January in 10 years. And there’s still another day to go.

Nor did he likely envision that a popular school bus driver in rural Alabama would be killed by a man the Southern Poverty Law Center listed as an anti-government “survivalist,” after he tried to stop him from taking two boys off his bus as hostage (he wound up getting one, a six year old who’s still his prisoner.) The rampage after an office dispute in Phoenixis a little more common: Too many “office disputes” are settled by gunfire.

Hadiya Pendleton’s godfather had a searing if unintended rejoinder to LaPierre’s post-Newtown nonsense that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Duane Stewart, a police officer, told the Chicago Sun-Times about his happy honor-student god-daughter: “As usual, the bad guy aims, but he never hits the other bad guy . . . He hits the one that hurts the most to lose. I changed her diapers, I played with her growing up. My heart is broken.” [...]

But the same forces that block sensible gun laws also block action on other social problems. We have too many guns in this country; we also have too much poverty and inequality and mental illness, and they’re all tied together. It’s galling to watch LaPierre and others on the right pretend they care about mental health treatment, for instance. The same political stalemate that’s blocked action on guns has also made it harder to deal with other social problems that fracture us. While Hadiya Pendleton went to a good school and was shot in an upper middle class neighborhood not far from the president’s Chicago home, her assailants are reportedly gang members, and the plague of gang violence —which springs from generations of chronic, festering and unanswered urban poverty and violence –has been ignored for too long because it rarely touches the people deemed to matter in our country.

Durbin mentioned Pendleton during the hearing, noting that her inaugural parade appearance was “the highlight of her young life.” Then she returned to a city “awash in guns,” he said. “The confiscation of guns per capita in Chicago is six times the number in New York City,” said Durbin. “We have guns everywhere and some believe the solution to this is more guns. I disagree.”

Gabby Giffords didn’t mention Pendleton in her moving testimony, but she did talk about children. “Too many children are dying. Too many children,” Giffords said haltingly. “We must do something. It will be hard, but the time is now. You must act. Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you.”

Last night, Rep. Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas) was on "Ralston Reports" last night to discuss a variety of issues. One of them was gun safety. And while noting the unique challenge of tailoring gun laws to Nevada, he nonetheless made clear why President Obama and various Members of Congress are pursuing gun safety reform.



No one is talking about doing what's described in the gun lobby's crazed conspiracy theories. Rather, Congress is debating common-sense gun safety measures meant to protect communities. It's about preventing unnecessary deaths. It's about taking basic steps to stop the slaughter of innocent children.

The New Republic's Walter Kirn is a gun owner himself. He recently wrote about his own experience with guns, and he explained why he and many more gun owners really don't see eye to eye with NRA lobbyists. Are military style assault weapons actually necessary for "recreational shooting" and deer hunting? Are background checks really "unreasonable"? Is gun trafficking truly a "civil right"?

That's all we're talking about. And that's what Members of Congress should keep in mind... That, and the continuing count of people who've lost their lives to gun violence.

Pay Attention, Senators.

Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee invited a very special guest to testify. And her testimony was quite moving, even with it lasting less than two minutes.

"Thank you for inviting me here today. This is an important conversation for our children, for our communities, for Democrats and Republicans. Speaking is difficult, but I need to say something important. Violence is a big problem. Too many children are dying. Too many children. We must do something. It will be hard but the time is now. You must act. Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you. Thank you."

Gabrielle Giffords knows firsthand the pain of gun violence and the horror of a mass shooting. She was nearly assassinated just over two years ago, when she represented Southern Arizona in Congress and was conducting a "Congress at Your Corner" event just north of Tucson. While Giffords survived the shooting, eight other people passed away. Her husband, retired NASA astronaut Mark Kelly, explained to the committee the impact of the Tucson Massacre, the shock following the Newtown massacre, and why they & other gun owners support common sense gun safety reform.



Of course, the latter particularly frightens the NRA. After all, they claim to be the monolithic voice of America's gun owners. And they really don't like being called out on their nonsenical, idiotic "ideas".

"My problem with background checks is you are never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks. And all the law-abiding people, you'll create an enormous federal bureaucracy, unfunded, hitting all the little people in the country, will have to go through it, pay the fees, pay the taxes," LaPierre said. "We don't even prosecute anybody right now that goes through the system we have. So, we're going to make all those law-abiding people go through the system and then we aren't going to prosecute any of the bad guys if they do catch one. None of it makes any sense in the real world. We have 80,000 police families in the NRA. We care about safety. We support what works."

After a brief interlude by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the committee chairman, Durbin went after LaPierre.

"Mr. LaPierre, that's the point," Durbin fired back. "The criminals won't go to purchase the guns because there'll be a background check. We'll stop them from original purchase. You missed that point completely. It's basic."

Strangely enough, as the hearing continued and Mark Kelly was being questioned, news broke of another Arizona shooting. This time, it was at an office complex in Phoenix. So far, three people have been wounded.

Truth can so often be so much stranger than fiction.



Before today's hearing, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-It's Complicated) insisted he will bring gun safety legislation to the Senate floor. Yet so far, he still hasn't said whether he would vote for the Assault Weapons Ban favored by his good friends, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) & President Obama. We don't even know for sure how he will vote on universal background checks & efforts to curb illegal gun trafficking.

Meanwhile, Nevada's other Senator, Dean Heller (R-46%), has hardly said a peep on gun safety since Newtown. Even with a mountain of evidence illustrating the need for gun safety reform along with overwhelming public support for it, Heller has kept his silence. Wait, isn't "Senator No Labels Postpartisan" supposed to ditch his "tea party" past in favor of a "moderate" new agenda? Well, now is a good time for both Heller and Reid to demonstrate that.

Hopefully, at least some of their staff are paying close attention to today's hearing. This should be a learning experience for the entire US Senate.

Why Congress Must Act on Gun Safety

While there's been plenty of talk in the last 48 hours about other issues in Washington, but that doesn't mean gun safety reform is "dead". Rather, expect more action this week as Senate hearings begin. Oh, and more legislation will soon be introduced as well.

Last week brought stories of Republican Senators crossing the aisle to at least rhetorically endorse some of the president’s top goals on gun control. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is reportedly working with Democratic Senators on legislation to ban the trafficking of illegal guns. He’s also working “to find an amenable background-check proposal,” according to staff.

It is not so surprising that Kirk has joined the push for new gun laws after the Newtown, Conn., school massacre. He has supported a ban on so-called assault weapons in the past and has expressed support for new proposals for one. But there are signs more conservative Republicans are ready to join the push for background checks, which is the central legislative goal of gun control advocates in the current debate. On Friday, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said he’s working with Democrats on a background check plan. (Coburn did not respond to a request for comment from TPM Monday.)

If more Republicans come out in support of expanded background checks, or at least the concept of them, it would bode well for that chunk of the president’s gun violence plan.

Perhaps some Republicans are taking a closer look at what Americans actually want. Yes, yet another poll shows broad support for gun safety!

As Washington begins the fight on gun control in earnest, a new poll from Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health should bolster Democrats pushing for new firearms regulations.

According to the survey, released today, a majority of Americans support a wide array of policies being discussed in Congress: 89 percent support closing the so-called gun show loophole by requiring background checks for all firearms sale; 69 percent support banning the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons; while 68 percent support banning the sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines. Meanwhile, more than 80 percent favor prohibiting “high-risk individuals” from having guns, including those convicted of a serious crime as a juvenile or those convicted of violating a domestic-violence restraining order.

Just contrast many Nevada politicians' fear of the gun lobby with actual public opinion. And for that matter, contrast their fear of the gun lobby with sound public policy. One just can't ignore either any more... Unless one is a politician who's more concerned about one's NRA rating than the safety of the American people.

Speaking of safety, ProgressNow Nevada Executive Director Brian Fadie saw this firsthand when he did a shooting trip with Nevada Assembly Member Michelle Fiore (R-Las Vegas). Fiore wanted to highlight how "safe" semi-automatic assault rifle shooting can be. Yet strangely enough, that exercise more likely proved the opposite.

This emphasis on safety during the class was a point of pride with Fiore and I think one of the two main reasons she wanted me to go through it (the other being to fire a gun). But for all of the practice and repetition of safety procedures I cannot say I came away feeling safer around guns or better about our gun laws.

In the final session of the class, after more than 18 hours of learning about our handguns and practicing safety procedures, two separate people forgot their safety training and their gun fired a bullet when it was not supposed to. They were pointing down range at the time so no one was hurt, but that’s not the point. This was supposed to be the time during class when people would have the most practice safely handling a gun and they still fired bullets unintentionally.

What scared me even more was an incident in which I forgot the safety procedures myself. During one of the drills I was having a problem removing the magazine from the gun. Suddenly everyone around me started giving advice, even reaching over and handling my gun themselves, and it became a hectic situation. In the commotion I forgot to unload my gun at the end of the drill. Luckily, one of the instructors saw my mistake, came over, and unloaded my gun. [...]

How many guns are purchased where the owner never goes through any training? How many guns are purchased where the owner does go through a training course at the time, but then thinks they’re set for life and never return?

After the training I spoke with one of the directors of Front Sight and told him my concerns. He actually agreed and responded “You know how there is drivers ed? We think there should be gun ed.”

At Brian's training day at the range, the instructor noted "The 50% Rule". That states that shooters are only 50% as effective in real world street fights as they are in controlled shootings at designated sites. Because of the incredibly fast-paced nature of a real world shootout and the rush of adrenaline coming from the "fight or flight" mentality of a real gun fight, a shooter typically doesn't remember what one learned during training. And that assumes that the shooter is actually trained. In Nevada, along with other states, gun buyers are not required to attend trainings.

This is why the gun lobby's preferred solution of more guns really won't work. Can untrained civilians handling assault weapons actually prevent tragedies? Or will they just lead to more unnecessary accidents?

And again, what kind of democratic society can properly function in an environment where every public setting is an armed battlefield? How can free trade work in that environment? How can a free exchange of ideas work in that kind of environment? Think about that.

And think about what happens in the real world when these military grade assault weapons and heavy ammunition are so readily accessible. This is why Congress must act on gun safety.

Rethinking Gun Safety & "Freedom"

While we were busy enjoying a lazy, rainy Saturday, this happened in Washington. Yep, that's right. People showed up for a rally for gun safety.



About 1,000 people showed up in the nation's capital, and there were even more "satellite events" across the country. One of the groups that organized yesterday's event was One Million Moms for Gun Control. They've grown from one simple Facebook page to a nationwide movement.

And yes, they're now here in Southern Nevada as well. Yes, even here we're seeing growing support for gun safety reform.

Nationally, there's broad national support for what's essentially President Obama's gun safety plan. Yes, that even includes the Assault Weapon Ban. Yet even after so many polls have been showing so much support for gun safety reform, we're still supposed to believe it's "impossible". Why?

That's what Rachel Maddow asked on Thursday. Both of the US Senators who represent Newtown, Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) & Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), responded with hope for meaningful action.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yet even while most Americans demand comprehensive gun safety reform, the conversation in Washington has mostly revolved around how "impossible" this is. Why?

Even worse has been the conversation in Carson City. While Nevada legislators may be justifiably upset over the media circus that the Steven Brooks affair has become, they can't use that as an excuse for ignoring the real public policy questions behind it. Coolican wondered this morning if the Brooks affair will finally force the Nevada Legislature to better fund mental health care. I'm wondering the same, but I'm also wondering if this will force the Legislature to ask why it's easier in this state to access firearms than mental health care.

On one hand, I get it. I see the "reality" in Carson City and DC where politicians fear the wrath of the gun lobby. Harry Reid doesn't want to jeopardize the reelection of vulnerable US Senate Democrats in 2014, and he doesn't want to hurt his own likely reelection campaign in 2016. Meanwhile, a bunch of freshmen in the Nevada Legislature want to curry good favor with the NRA. Some Democrats don't want to be seen as "anti-gun", and most Republicans don't want to be seen as "betraying their base".

Yet while these politicians live their "reality", we live ours. Children are terrorized in their own schools. Shopping malls become armed battlefields. Inner cities have already felt like war zones for some time. Not even houses of worship seem safe.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again today. This level of armed violence is not conducive to a functioning democracy. Keep that in mind when gun lobbyists cry about "Obama's attacks on FREEDOM!!!" Are we really free when we don't feel free to share ideas at the college campus, buy a gift for the best friend's birthday party, send the kids to school, and/or even visit the Legislature? Think about it.

It's Time to Act.

Just over a week ago, President Obama revealed his comprehensive gun safety plan. Today, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) unveiled her own take on the cornerstone of the President's gun safety agenda. Feinstein shepherded the original Assault Weapons Ban through Congress in 1994, and she's ready to do it again in 2013. But this time, she insists this bill will be even more effective in curbing the dangerous level of access to both military grade weapons and high-capacity magazines.



So what's in it? Let's start here.

“No weapon is taken from anyone,” Sen. Feinstein said on Thursday. “The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”

The bill expands the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that Feinstein approved but Congress declined to renew in 2004, after lawmakers argued that, as it was written, the ban had many loopholes.

The new legislation would ban the sale, manufacture, importation, and transfer of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines as well as ban high-capacity ammunition the holds more than 10 rounds.

It also requires anyone who already owns an assault rifle to use a secure storage and safety device and bans them from selling high-capacity clips. Weapons purchased before the law’s enactment would be grandfathered in, a measure drawn to avoid alienating gun owners.

“Getting this bill signed into law will be an uphill battle, and I recognize that, but it’s a battle worth having,” Feinstein said at a press conference Thursday afternoon.

So is this more effective than the past version? Wonkblog's Brad Plumer has more details. Basically, this version lists more military grade weapons, updates the definition of "assault weapons" (so that gun manufacturers can't sidestep this bill if enacted into law), and sets in place programs (like voluntary buybacks and strict ownership guidelines for current weapons in circulation) to gradually reduce the circulation of these military grade assault weapons. All in all, Feinstein's new bill looks much stronger and less prone to loophole poking than the 1994 bill.

What's likely the bigger challenge is getting this bill passed. Already, the gun lobby is engaging in hysterical fearmongering to build opposition to any kind of gun safety reform. And Nevada's own Harry Reid has been cagey on the subject. (He recently said he'll allow Senate floor votes on Obama's proposals, but he hasn't declared yet what he will personally support.)

We know gun safety reform has broad public support. Yes, even the Assault Weapons Ban has the support of 58% of Americans. This is why Senator Feinstein and progressive grassroots groups like Courage Campaign demand action. So now, it's time for Senator Reid to act.

Food for Thought on Gun Safety

Down here in "Vegasland", the National School Response Conference will be tackling matters of school safety. Here's a sample of what they will be discussing.

[School security consultant Amy] Klinger urged schools to adopt new, more proactive approaches to campus security. The former teacher and principal – who has studied decades of school shootings –showcased a set of new recommendations endorsed by the Department of Homeland Security called "Run, Hide, Fight."

Instead of remaining inside a locked-down campus with a gunman, students and teachers are advised to flee whenever possible, then reconvene at a common area outside of school.

If they can't run, teachers and students can hide, barricading themselves inside a classroom. If a classroom door has a hydraulic system, tying a belt around the mechanism could slow down a gunman, Klinger said.

Students and staff are urged to fight back with improvised weapons as a measure of last resort, Klinger said.

Sadly, it's come to this. No really, it's come to this. And the radical right still want to claim there's no gun safety problem?

Sadly, they still do. Also happening in Las Vegas this week is the SHOT Show, a show that's touted as the nation's largest and "premiere" gun show. Of course, some gun lovers there dismissed any evidence of gun safety problems and harshly condemned President Obama's gun safety reform agenda (though not even everyone there opposes all of it). This shouldn't be too surprising, as the SHOT Show is a nationally recognized hot spot for military grade assault weapons.

Yet even while some SHOT show participants complain about the growing demand for better gun safety, most gun owners actually SUPPORT the core of President Obama's gun safety plan! And even here in Nevada, some actual experts on this matter also support common-sense gun safety.

Washoe County Sheriff Mike Haley agreed that “we should close the loophole on private party purchases of weapons.” But he liked Obama’s proposal to take the gun-control legislation one step further.

“I do believe we should control access to assault weapons and limit access to high-capacity magazines,” Haley said. “In all cases, those who are permitted access to such weapons should be required to keep them in a safe or other locked container.

“Having safes and closing loopholes will go a long way to ensuring criminals do not have access to these weapons.”

Perhaps Sheriff Haley has looked at recent figures showing a strong correlation between tough gun safety laws and lower levels of gun violence. Or perhaps he's just speaking from personal experience. But whatever the case, he's likely onto something.

I've said it before, and I will continue saying it again and again until we see real gun safety reform. When did it become OK for our schools, our market places, and other areas of our community to become armed battlefields? This is just not conducive to a functioning market economy or democracy. Again, something must change.

Something Must Change on Gun Safety.

In recent days, there has been renewed discussion on matters of gun safety. And for the first time in nearly two decades, there have actually been promises of real action. Americans have grown increasingly weary of seeing their communities transform into "armed battlefields".

But sadly, some here in Nevada would rather not be part of the solution. And some seem to be in complete denial over what's wrong.

“Obama’s our best salesman,” Range 702 manager Michael Heck said. “Every time he says the word ‘gun’ on television, sales go through the roof.”

Sales have skyrocketed for military-style rifles in particular, such as the AK-47 and the AR-15, one of the guns 20-year-old Adam Lanza used at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14 to kill 26 students and staff. More people also are signing up for firearms instruction and concealed-weapons permit classes.

Some customers said they fear for their safety after the latest U.S. mass shooting and want to protect themselves, the retailers said. But most cited a fear of increased government oversight and want guns that soon might be outlawed. [...]

In England, Las Vegas gun business received a rash of unflattering attention in the aftermath of Newtown, with several U.K. tabloids publishing stories about “shotgun wedding” services offered by The Gun Store and other shooting ranges. The services include a wedding ceremony, a session at the range and a chance to pose for photos with weapons, including Uzis and Thompson submachine guns.

The tabloids’ stories focused on the fact that no ceremonies had been canceled despite the Sandy Hook tragedy. As suggested by the Sun’s headline — “Guns 'n proposes: What hope for the U.S. when couples can now get married with weapons?” — the subtext of the stories was that the services symbolize an unhealthy obsession with guns.

“Draped in bullets and brandishing shotguns — like the one found in killer Adam Lanza’s car — couples in full bridal wear exchange vows at the Gun Store,” the Mirror reported. “They then go through to a marble-floored shooting range to fire off a few rounds. The bizarre chapel, in a gun-cleaning room decorated with red rose petals, an Uzi and a Tommy gun, hosts 10 weddings a month.”

Yes, yes, I've heard. "Guns are sexy. And guns mean business". Try saying that to the victims of this epidemic of extreme gun violence. The rate of Americans killed by guns is 19.5 times higher than that of other developed countries. Think about that.

That's why there's growing outrage over the NRA's planned closed door "seminar" with Nevada legislators. After so much bloodshed, why are Nevada lawmakers still showing so much fealty to the gun lobby? Some progressives have simply had enough.

Our leaders should act now to make it harder for dangerous people to buy guns and easier for police to stop them. A common sense public safety agenda includes legislation that will get military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines off our streets and require every gun buyer to pass a criminal background check.

The Newtown shooter was armed with enough ammo to kill every student at the school. He used an AR-15 military-style assault rifle to kill the children -- a weapon that could be covered by a strong new assault weapons ban. In Nevada the shooter at the restaurant in Carson City in 2011 used an automatic assault rifle to empty three magazines in 85 seconds, killing four people, including three Nevada National Guard soldiers, and wounding seven other people.

Attending this gun lobbyist event would be a signal to all Nevadans of a willingness to continue to bow to the mythical power of the NRA, when what Nevada needs more than ever is the leadership to stand up to these lobbyists that have worked to make guns more available to shooters in the first place.

ProgressNow Nevada is asking lawmakers not to attend, and I can easily see why. While the entire rest of the country has been looking at common sense gun safety reform, the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby have offered nothing but dangerous delusions. And now, the gun lobby is threatening to blow up sensible reforms that a broad majority of Americans support.

A majority of Americans support strong, new gun control measures—including the assault weapons bans and broader background checks, according to a new ABC/Washington Post poll released Tuesday. The findings found broader support for gun control in the wake of the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., with 52% of people saying they supported further gun restrictions since the shooting.

Since the shooting that claimed the lives of 26 in Sandy Hook Elementary School, there have been cracks in the NRA’s strength, with voices like Sen. Joe Manchin and Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough calling for gun control. Many have skewered the National Rifle Association for supporting assault weapons and limited background checks—something Scarborough says is a move to protect gun manufacturers, not Americans.

The NRA has responded by slamming the White House, claiming the administration is prejudiced against “honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans” and blaming them “for the acts of criminals and madmen.” And many have questioned whether further gun control could pass in Congress.

The broadest support in the poll, however, came for mandatory background checks to purchase firearms at gun shows—88% of Americans polled said they supported that measure. Of those surveyed, 58% said they supported the expired assault weapons ban, while 39% opposed it.

Yet even as most Americans demand action, Congress may just sit on their hands. Last Friday on Vegas PBS' "Nevada Week in Review", Harry Reid urged "caution" in pursuing gun safety.



On one hand, I can see Reid's political concerns. Chief among them is whether or not an assault weapons ban and other more "controversial" (to the gun lobby, that is) gun safety measures have the votes to pass Congress. However, the American people are demanding action. And at some point, Congress has to respond with real action.

Yesterday, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow talked to the parents of one of the children lost in Newtown last month.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Can our federal and state lawmakers really look them in the eye and say that the wishes of gun manufacturers and retailers matter more than the lives of their kids? They should think about that. Perhaps Harry Reid has a point in allowing for more deliberation on this, but he knows that Congress hardly ever rushes to pass anything. Something must change.

Tucson. Gabby. Guns. Two Years Later.

Almost exactly two years ago, this happened.

I'm incredibly horrified by what happened today in Southern Arizona... But sadly, I'm not all that shocked. This was bound to happen. When our political climate becomes so heated, so polarized, and so radicalized, violence is bound to result. In the next few days, I hope Gabrielle Giffords survives surgery and begins full recovery. And I hope all of our political leaders- left, right, and center- condemn this horrid, criminal, possibly terrorist act, and urge Americans not to allow our politics to become so bloody.

Fortunately, Gabrielle Giffords survived that assassination attempt. However, 8 people died that day and several others were wounded. And even since that happened, there have been more horrific mass shootings throughout America.

Back in January 2011, we discussed this.

Yes, yes, I've heard that famous clause: "Guns don't kill. People do." But you know what? When mentally disturbed people can access extremely lethal "weapons of mass distruction" so easily at the neighborhood gun store or local gun show, that's a serious problem.

Unfortunately, nothing happened after Tucson... Other than even more mass shootings. After the July 2012 theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, I just couldn't contain my frustration over a crisis that we let get out of hand.

It's become so easy in most parts of this country (Nevada included) to purchase not just guns, but the very assault weapons that are DESIGNED to kill masses of people. As we've discussed before, it's been easier to buy guns than to access affordable mental health care in most states. There's something seriously wrong with that. [...]

Frankly, I don't think we can afford to keep avoiding this subject. And I don't think it's fair to dismiss all gun safety advocates as "nanny state socialists who want to ban hunting". That's actually not what we're talking about.

Rather, we're asking how logical it is that instruments intended for mass murder are so readily available. And does it make sense that nearly anyone and everyone can access these instruments intended for mass murder? So when will we finally be allowed to have a rational discussion on improving gun safety?

And then, Newtown happened. Apparently, the sight of 20 children and 7 adults slaughtered in their elementary school horrified the entire nation. And it finally led to some deep soul searching on the issue of gun safety.

Of course, there are deranged and disgusting people in this world. Unfortunately, that will never change. However, what has to change is allowing these very people to commit acts of terrorism on our soil. And what has to change is the celebration and downright worship of assault weapons that should have never been allowed to become so commonplace in civilian life.

There. I said it. [...]

[... S]o far, it's looking incredibly likely that Newtown, Connecticut, is now suffering immense loss because of a deranged individual getting one's hands on dangerous assault weapons. There may have been no background check. And clearly, there was no fail-safe to prevent so many bullets from being released so quickly.

Will we ever learn? And will we ever have an honest discussion on how to correct this horrifying failure in public policy? How many more people have to die before we reconsider our extreme allegiance to the gun lobby?

Even Giffords herself, a formerly "pro-gun Democrat" in Congress, has had second thoughts on the extremely permissive attitude towards deadly assault weapons in this country. And she & her husband are now taking action to change that.



And they're not alone. President Obama plans to continue pressing for gun safety reform. And other grassroots voices have emerged in calling for better gun safety. Some of these voices even know firsthand the horrors of extreme gun violence.



Tucson was not the first incident of mass gun violence, nor has it been the last. But as we look back on the last 2 years, we must ask ourselves how much we've done to make our communities safer and free our people from the fear of being "the next victims". And we must demand change.

Something Must Change.

Sorry. I couldn't help it. I just had to say it today.



What happened in Connecticut this morning was tragic. And it was horrific. And yes, it didn't have to happen.

That's what makes the series if events today even more tragic. 18 innocent children are dead, along with at least 8 adults. A small town in Connecticut has been devastated by horrific violence. And it really didn't have to happen. And if we want to prevent future tragedies like this one, then we must act.

You’re not supposed to say this on days like today, but political action is exactly what’s needed. The usual voices will try to shut down the debate by warning against “politicizing” the tragedy. But we should “politicize” it, if by that we mean undertaking a discussion about how our elected officials can act to stop this madness.

Gun violence is one area where something approaching a bipartisan consensus has formed among commentators and observers that reform is imperative, even as the only people who continue to refuse to act are those in a position to actually change things. This time, our public officials —the president included —simply must start an actual policy discussion about the appropriate response to the slaughter caused by the easy availability of guns. Not just a “conversation” about how screwed up our culture is or the usual argument over whether Evil and/or mental illness are the real culprits (as the gun rights advocates tell us) that require addressing. It’s easy access to guns that translates the darkest of human impulses, whatever their cause, into the massacre of innocent children.

Greg Sargent makes a great point here. Even though we've heard plenty of people declare on the cable news channels that "now is not the time" to discuss better gun safety, we just can't do that. How many times have we heard this before when other incidents of mass gun violence occurred? How many more of these must we endure as a nation before we finally take action?

Just this past Tuesday, someone opened fire inside a mall in the Clackamas County suburbs of Portland, Oregon. Two people died, and many more were frightened just as they were doing their Holiday shopping. And then, less than 72 hours after that gruesome act of violence in Oregon, someone else opened fire in an elementary school in Connecticut. And Desert Beacon has a full list of even more mass shootings that occurred just this year. Again, this is truly disgusting. And both events should show us that we can no longer blithely ignore this growing problem of domestic terrorism carried out by easily accessible guns.

While today should be a day to allow those who lost loved ones to grieve, today should also be a day to ponder what happened... And address what's wrong with our gun policies. Here's Salon's Joan Walsh.

Guns in national parks. Guns in church. Guns in schools and day care centers. All over the country, the spaces that used to be gun-free zones are now open to them. According to Mother Jones, in 1995 there were an estimated 200 million guns in private hands. Now there are about 300 million, a 50 percent jump. Yet BuzzFeed found that President Obama only mentioned gun control three times in the last campaign.

It’s not just the NRA who are political villains in this story: the right-wing Koch-funded ALEC has been pushing to weaken gun laws too. In fact, the lame-duck right-wing GOP-controlled Michigan Legislature just passed an ALEC-backed bill allowing concealed loaded guns in schools, churches and day care centers,and abolishing the county panels that controlled concealed-pistol licensing.

After the Aurora, Colo., shootings,in which formerly banned assault weapons were used, even Democratic Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper dismissed talk of renewing the federal assault weapons ban. Stricter gun control measures wouldn’t prevent “acts of evil,” Hickenlooper insisted: “If there were no assault weapons available and no this or no that, this guy is going to find something, right?” In fact, the Aurora shooting inspired more gun control legislation, but it went nowhere, as Alex Seitz-Wald reported this week. Only three days ago, formely banned assault weapons were used in the Clackamas, Ore., mall shootings. Will that trigger a new push to restrict and ban assault weapons and their ammunition? Probably not.

But today, a day when children as young as kindergarteners were told to hold hands, close their eyes and walk past scenes of unspeakable carnage –that’s a perfect day to begin a new conversation about what’s wrong with our gun culture. Clearly, we are getting numb to massive gun violence. It’s hardly inappropriate that the murder of at least 18 children, reportedly between the ages of 5 and 10, might shock us out of our numbness and inspire more activism and legislation –and political courage.

Sadly, we as a society have become far too numb to the brutal reality of gun violence. Can that change today? If the events of this week can't, then I don't know what can. For goodness sake, not even elementary schools are immune from this any more! Children were shot dead inside their classroom! If that isn't repulsive, then I don't know what else can be.

Again, today is a day to grieve lost loved ones. And today is a day to share condolences. However, today is also a day to reflect on this metastasizing crisis of rampant mass shootings and out-of-control gun violence. Something must change.

It's Time to Start Talking About Gun Violence.

How many times have we had to talk about this? And yet, it keeps happening. All this morning, I've been thinking about what Adam Gopnik wrote in a New Yorker blog back in July.

The truth is made worse by the reality that no one —really no one—anywhere on the political spectrum has the courage to speak out about the madness of unleashed guns and what they do to American life. That includes the President, whose consoling message managed to avoid the issue of why these killings take place. Of course, we don’t know, and perhaps never will, what exactly “made him” do what he did; but we know how he did it. Those who fight for the right of every madman and every criminal to have as many people-killing weapons as they want share moral responsibility for what happened last night—as they will when it happens again. And it will happen again. [...]

But nothing changes: the blood lobby still blares out its certainties, including the pretense that the Second Amendment—despite the clear grammar of its first sentence—is designed not to protect citizen militias but to make sure that no lunatic goes unarmed. Make sure that guns designed for no reason save to kill people are freely available to anyone who wants one—and that is, and remains, the essential American condition—and then be shocked when children are killed. For all the good work the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence tries to do, nothing changes. On the last episode of Aaron Sorkin’s “The Newsroom,” Jeff Daniels’s character, in a scene set shortly before the Gabrielle Giffords gun massacre, was thought to display political courage by showing, accurately enough, that it’s a lie to say that Barack Obama is in any way in favor of gun control. This was said in Obama’s defense.

Only in America. Every country has, along with its core civilities and traditions, some kind of inner madness, a belief so irrational that even death and destruction cannot alter it. In Europe not long ago it was the belief that “honor” of the nation was so important that any insult to it had to be avenged by millions of lives. In America, it has been, for so long now, the belief that guns designed to kill people indifferently and in great numbers can be widely available and not have it end with people being killed, indifferently and in great numbers. The argument has gotten dully repetitive: How does one argue with someone convinced that the routine massacre of our children is the price we must pay for our freedom to have guns, or rather to have guns that make us feel free? You can only shake your head and maybe cry a little. “Gun Crazy” is the title of one the best films about the American romance with violence. And gun-crazy we remain.

It happened again. This time, elementary school students in Connecticut were targeted. At least 26 people have died so far.

Multiple fatalities have been reported at a shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., about 65 miles northeast of New York City. One law enforcement offcial said preliminary reports suggested there could be as many as 20 fatalities. [Again, the official fatality count now includes 18 children and at least 8 adults.]

One state official said that an adult gunman was believed to be dead in the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. The gunman was in possession of at least two firearms, the official said.

Meredith Artley, the managing editor of CNN.com, has a friend who works at the school. "She volunteers with the school as well," Artley said on CNNr.

The woman was in close vicinity to the shooting, which happened in the hallway, according to Ms. Artley. "She described it as a 'Pop, pop, pop,''' Ms Artley added. "She said three people went out into the hall and only one person came back, the vice principal, she said, who was shot in the leg or the foot, who came crawling back. She cowered under the table and called 911. She never saw the shooting. There must have been a hundred rounds.''

Danbury Hospital said it was treating three patients from the shooting scene, according to its Facebook page. The hospital, which is not far from the elementary school, said it was on lockdown.

Frankly, I'm horrified right now. How could someone do this? And why has it become so easy for someone to do this?

I keep thinking of my memories of elementary school. We never had to do "mass shooting drills". And I never had to worry about a domestic terrorist arriving in the classroom.

Of course, there are deranged and disgusting people in this world. Unfortunately, that will never change. However, what has to change is allowing these very people to commit acts of terrorism on our soil. And what has to change is the celebration and downright worship of assault weapons that should have never been allowed to become so commonplace in civilian life.

There. I said it.

Obviously, we don't yet know all the facts of this case. But so far, it's looking incredibly likely that Newtown, Connecticut, is now suffering immense loss because of a deranged individual getting one's hands on dangerous assault weapons. There may have been no background check. And clearly, there was no fail-safe to prevent so many bullets from being released so quickly.

Will we ever learn? And will we ever have an honest discussion on how to correct this horrifying failure in public policy? How many more people have to die before we reconsider our extreme allegiance to the gun lobby?

(Not) Standing on Solid Ground

There's been plenty of outcry from across the country in the past month over the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin near Orlando, Florida. There's been growing suspicion both of shooter George Zimmerman and his motives for killing Trayvon, as well as of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law, and just how much that contributed to Trayvon's untimely death.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yesterday, The Sun asked: Can it happen here?

In Las Vegas, officials and academics are taking a close look at the Martin case, and for good reason: Nevada recently passed a law nearly identical to Florida’s, leading many to believe a similar tragedy could play out in the Silver State.

“The circumstances are ripe for a Trayvon situation to happen here,” said Sylvia Lazos, a law professor at UNLV's Boyd School of Law. “We have a lot of crime. We have a lot of people with guns. We have a lot of people who are untrained. We have to watch it. ... These combinations can be quite toxic.”

Nevada is one of 25 states, according to the Legal Community Against Violence, with a law allowing individuals to use deadly force when they feel threatened with no obligation to stand down or try to avoid violence once reasonable fear is established.

Nevada’s “stand your ground” law was approved by the 2011 Legislature and took effect in October. It allows that as long as a person who feels threatened didn’t initiate the altercation and isn’t doing anything criminal, that person can stand and use deadly force and it would be considered “justifiable homicide.”

Such laws “are all designed to allow for some expanded notion of self-defense,” Lazos said. “The problem that you have when regular people engage in self-defense ... is that people make decisions fairly quickly about whether they are, in fact, in danger.”

Last year, our Legislature passed AB 321, which was a somewhat modified version of "Stand Your Ground" that formalized the already accepted view (in this state) that people can shoot to kill if they feel their lives and/or property is at stake. While AB 321 may "feel good" in that it supposedly empowers potential crime victims to "stop a crime before it starts" (along with providing politicians who support it with plenty of praise from the NRA), it may soon lead to some frightening unintended consequences. Case in point: Trayvon Martin.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Last session, all but three Nevada legislators (for both houses COMBINED!) voted for AB 321. Assembly Members Maggie Carlton (D-East Las Vegas), Richard Carrillo (D-Paradise), and Peggy Pierce (D-Las Vegas) were the only ones to vote against AB 321, while all their Assembly colleagues either sponsored or co-sponsored this bill in addition to voting for it. The Senate passed AB 321 unanimously. Sadly here in Nevada, "trigger happy" on steroids can be prevalent in both parties, and it especially reoccurs when NRA and other gun lobby endorsements are at stake.

So far, there's been no hard evidence proving George Zimmerman was in danger of losing his life or any of his property when he spotted Trayvon Martin in his gated community. However that didn't stop certain folks in law enforcement from letting George Zimmerman go without charging him for homicide, simply because Zimmerman's lawyers claimed "Stand Your Ground" as his defense. There's a good chance we can see cases like this occur here in Nevada thanks to AB 321.

And frankly, that's why state statutes like Nevada's AB 321 and Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law frighten me. They set up a dangerous slippery slope for justifying as "self-defense" what would otherwise be declared manslaughter or murder. After all, what we may consider murder can be twisted by a smart criminal defense attorney into a "Stand Your Ground" situation just by insinuating that the homicide victim was somehow threatening the shooter's life and/or property, even if there's little or no evidence that the shooter was really at risk.

So why are we now falling down this slippery slope? Why did we have to take this downhill course in the first place? And can we afford to keep making decisions out of political convenience while ignoring future public safety crises?