US Politics

Eighteen-year-old Americans can’t drink. Why can they buy assault rifles?Ross BarkanThe solution to mass shootings isn’t increased policing or an expanded surveillance state or runaway anti-terrorism legislation. It’s making it harder to buy a gun The mass shooting at an elementary school in Texas, killing 19 children and two teachers, was a reminder of all the ways the United States has failed its people. A nation that still retains promise, America is now held captive by political polarization and a fanatical gun lobby. There are more firearms in the US than people.It’s important to remember, as these mass shootings continue to occur, that the problem is guns: all of them, not just assault rifles, but handguns too. The assault weapon ban, which lapsed in 2004, should be renewed. Somehow, it must become much harder in this country to buy a weapon. No 18-year-old, especially one with such a deeply troubled history as the alleged Texas gunman, should be able to buy a firearm.My daughter was killed at Dunblane. I know that gun controls save lives | Mick NorthRead moreAfter the racist shooting at a Buffalo supermarket earlier in the month, the Democratic establishment temporarily swung away from the scourge of guns to the scourge of online misinformation and how to crack down on it. Democrats of all ideological stripes swiftly backed new legislation that would “improve intelligence-sharing” between law enforcement agencies, building on a bill that passed the House Judiciary Committee that would create permanent offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and FBI to “monitor, investigate and prosecute cases of domestic terrorism”. The proposal would also improve training for local police to detect and investigate what they believe is terrorism.Since the motivations of the Texas killer are more opaque, there has been less talk about such measures. This is for the best. Measures to empower federal surveillance state apparatuses inevitably backfire, leading to the abuse of civil liberties, particularly endangering vulnerable populations. American Muslims after 9/11 understand the danger of unleashing DHS or the FBI on so-called terrorism suspects. The term remains vague enough to encompass all kinds of people who may, for whatever reason, appear suspicious to overzealous federal officials.Using mass shootings to expand the power of DHS would be a serious error, one that would inevitably punish the left when Republicans take power again. Donald Trump or another rightwing president would not hesitate to reclassify various progressive organizations or movements as domestic terrorism, especially if they reside beyond the political mainstream.The focus must remain on guns. It’s understandable, in one sense, that Democrats would shift to fretting about expanding the purview of a Bush-created agency: taking action is immediately plausible. There may be enough votes to pass the bills and invite bipartisan support. Banning assault weapons or even instituting increased background checks has been a political dead-end for so long because the gun lobby owns the Republican party and many rural voters are gun-owners.This is the intractable challenge. Democrats do not have the votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. The recurrence of mass shootings – Sandy Hook, Parkland, El Paso – has not budged Republicans, who continue to deny the reality that America is the only affluent nation that grapples with such gun violence and death. Mental health initiatives are fine, but the problem is the number of people who are able to, without any effort, buy guns and shoot them. Mass slaughter is not as easy with a knife. Armed security at every school building in America, logistically impossible, still could not stop a determined murderer with military-grade weaponry.The handgun dilemma must also be solved. Democrat-run states have cracked down on them and are chasing after the ghost-gun manufacturers that create untraceable weapons. But guns continue to flow across state lines, avoiding detection from police. Gun violence of the more regular kind plagues cities everywhere. Every one of those murders is deeply tragic.If the federal government is paralyzed, Democrats must redouble their efforts in various state legislatures to flip chambers and win executive offices. This may be the only answer. States individually can do a great deal on the gun control front. If limiting access to guns is unpopular in conservative states, Democrats must find ways to campaign on other issues and implement safety laws once in power. For starters, there should be more bipartisan consensus around raising the age of gun purchases. If 18-year-olds cannot legally drink, why can they buy firearms? Since most violent crime is committed by the very young, cutting off guns to teenagers could make a small difference.No matter what, Democrats cannot succumb to nihilism or seek dangerous, stopgap measures that infringe on civil liberties. Runaway terrorism investigations will not stop gun violence. Making it far harder to acquire a weapon will.
Ross Barkan is a journalist based in New York City. He is the author of Demolition Night, a novel, and The Prince: Andrew Cuomo, Coronavirus, and the Fall of New York
TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS gun controlGun crimecommentReuse this content More

Columbine happened 23 years ago. How is America still no further forward?Hamilton NolanThere is no generous interpretation for the past 23 years of inaction. We all bear some of the blame If you want to ponder how deeply broken and dysfunctional our system of governance is, all you have to do is to reflect upon the fact that our nation experiences regular mass murders of schoolchildren by gunmen, and these mass murders are followed by no meaningful political action. To sit with that basic fact for even a few moments is to feel like you are beginning to lose your grip on reality. It sounds like the gut-roiling reveal from a horror movie, or a dystopian novel about the wealthiest country in the history of the world, which has at its heart a horrible secret. We are that country, and our wealth is soaked in blood. Our learned helplessness on the issue of guns is so deeply rooted that many people – including, unfortunately, our elected leaders – cannot even see how much of our system must be ripped apart, if we ever want to stop seeing massacres.It should make all of us queasy that we are still here, wringing our hands. The school shooting at Columbine happened 23 years ago. There is no generous interpretation for the past 23 years of inaction. We all bear some of the blame, in the sense that we have acquiesced to a cycle in which many of the people in charge today have failed over and over again to make serious gun control a reality, as thousands and thousands of Americans have lost their lives. But that’s a little too pat to get at the heart of what is really happening. The cold truth is that our political system does not care about dead children; it cares about money. We don’t have gun control for the same reason we don’t have many other things that are plainly necessary and good and that would save many lives, like public healthcare: because not having those things enables a certain group of people to get rich. And that class of rich people funds an even smaller class of politicians, who are tasked with protecting their interests, in exchange for living the nice life of a congressman or governor. This straightforward and cozy arrangement, multiplied by many dozens of industries, is at the heart of how our political system operates. It just happens to be the case that the weapons industry forces its handpicked politicians to step over dead bodies before they walk into the office. It’s clear by now that no matter how many murdered children are laid at their doorstep, they are untroubled by taking that step.Americans own more than twice as many guns per capita as any other country on earth, a good demonstration of what happens when you give unfettered capitalism an entire constitutional amendment to use as an advertising slogan. We have allowed ourselves to become a paranoid and insane nation, where millions of people arm themselves because they live in fear of the millions of other people who armed themselves in fear. At the heart of this circular firing squad, smiling, sits the gun industry, which sold nearly 20m guns in America last year alone, earning itself tens of billions of dollars. What separates the gun industry from more mundane businesses is that in order to sustain and grow itself, it must foster both a constant atmosphere of fear, tied together with a carefully nurtured sense of grievance. Customers must be afraid – afraid of imaginary home invaders, and afraid that any gun control measure will deprive them of the ability to defend their families from imminent death. Such fear is good for business. The fact that this deliberately provoked thirst for self-defense is itself fueling the countless bloody deaths of innocent people is just a cost of doing business for gun manufacturers, who would prefer that you not recognize or remark upon the grim irony of it at all.The paranoid heart of all of this is the NRA, which turns money into political influence and has done more than any other organization to keep us all trapped in this nightmare. Despite their best efforts, though, a majority of Americans say they support stricter gun laws. The average citizen’s experience of a gun is far more likely to be being shot by one, or killing themselves with one, or having a family member or friend do so, than it is to be some “good guy with a gun” fantasy of saving innocents from crime. So why, after all of the logic and outrage and dead bodies, are we still in the same miserable place?Marches are not going to change it. We have marched. Anguished people full of pain and loss marched for gun control after the mass shootings at Columbine, and at Virginia Tech, and at Sandy Hook, and at Parkland, and in Las Vegas. The worst pictures imaginable and the greatest grief on earth have not changed it. The system is immune to this sort of influence. So we need to change the system. That means that when we speak of gun control, we need to speak of campaign finance reform, to prevent a heartless and deadly industry from buying a protective shield of venal congressmen who exist to block any bills that might save lives at the cost of reducing profits. When we speak of gun control, we need to speak of ending gerrymandering, so that political minorities cannot consolidate power in ways that prevent desperately needed reforms from being passed. When we speak of gun control, we need to speak of how the existence of the US Senate gives white, rural states disproportionate power, and we need to speak of how the cynical pleas for “civility” towards the powerful serve to insulate them from the consequences of their own policies, and we need to speak of how unregulated capitalism has allowed behemoth tech companies to suck so much money out of the journalism industry that the public doesn’t hear these things spoken about much at all.We need to talk about the whole system. When we find ourselves in a situation so interminably resistant to change in the face of the most extreme catastrophes, the problem is that we have built a system that serves money instead of humans. March for gun control, by all means. But then turn your attention to the companies and the politicians who live well while so many people die, and think about what it is going to take to dislodge them from the place they have been perched so comfortably for so long. Reality is proof that we are not yet radical enough. We have an entire political system that doesn’t work. We need to break it in order to change it. If we can’t do that, the price is more broken bodies.
Hamilton Nolan is a writer in New York City. He is currently writing a book about the labor movement
TopicsUS newsOpinionUS politicsUS school shootingscommentReuse this content More

How lawmakers in thrall to the NRA stifle gun safety laws The powerful lobbying groups spent nearly $5m million last year to expand gun rights while limiting restrictions on who can have a firearm and how they can carry itIn Texas, where guns are already a deeply ingrained part of the cultural landscape, a powerful political force is helping to stifle regulations aimed at limiting access to high-powered firearms.The National Rifle Association (NRA) is one of America’s most powerful lobbying groups, spending nearly $5m last year to expand gun rights while limiting restrictions on who can have a firearm and how they can carry it.Now, the NRA is again at the center of a heated American debate over guns after an 18-year-old with two rifles he purchased legally walked into an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, killing 19 children and two adults.That was Tuesday. Today, the NRA will welcome 55,000 members at its annual meeting in Houston, just a few hours from Uvalde. Attendees will browse exhibits of firearms paraphernalia and hear from Republican politicians like Texas senator Ted Cruz, Texas governor Greg Abbott and former US President Donald Trump.A majority of Americans – 54% according to a CBS News poll before the shooting in Uvlade this week – want stricter gun control laws, but that majority is highly partisan. Just 27% of Republicans say the same.Among Texans that margin is even slimmer. In a 2019 University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll after mass shootings in El Paso and Midland-Odessa, just 51% of registered voters in Texas said they wanted stricter gun control laws.The majority of gun owners are responsible with their weapons, says Nicole Golden, the executive director of the state’s only organization advocating for policies to reduce gun violence. Texas Gun Sense was founded in 2007 by survivors of a mass shooting at Virginia Tech, and expanded in 2013, after the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.Now, Golden’s bipartisan group focuses on finding common ground with gun owners to support initiatives at the state and local level. They work with the Texas Department of Public Safety, for example, on a campaign to promote safe gun storage to keep firearms locked up and away from others.“I don’t think the issue is hopeless,” Golden said. “You have to redefine what success looks like. You can’t give up because I don’t think giving up is an option.”She said that this week, like after other mass shootings, her organization has seen an influx in new interest from Texans. Many gun owners, she says, recognize that America’s epidemic of gun violence needs some kind of change. After a 2018 mass shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, that killed 10 churchgoers, Abbott suggested new regulations including “red flag” laws that would allow courts to take away someone’s guns if they pose a threat to themselves or others.Golden said she was excited to work with the governor on the issue, but it quickly failed to pick up any traction in the state capital.“We watched those things fail, and this time there’s been no interest at all of dealing with safe gun laws,” Golden said. “It can often feel like you’re just beating your head against the wall or shouting into the void.”There is little doubt that Texas has a historical obsession with fire arms dating back to it being a frontier state where white settlers used guns to take land from Indigenous groups and used them to fight the Mexican government, and then the US government when the state seceded during the American civil war.“We have this long tradition of firearms,” said Jerry Patterson, a former Texas land commissioner and NRA member who helped push for concealed carry in the state after a mass shooting at a Luby’s restaurant in 1991.But that tradition isn’t just a Texas-specific phenomenon, says Harel Shapira, a professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin who studies gun culture in America. He says that from a very young age, gun ownership becomes part of many people’s identity across the country. Families go hunting together. Fathers teach their children to shoot and how to be safe with firearms.“Guns are a source of death, but also a source of [cultural] life in America,” Shapira said. Regulations may address who can purchase or use guns, he said, “but the question of American gun culture is a larger issue.”He said that in recent decades, gun rights have become entrenched as a rightwing political issue. If you want to win as a Republican, he said, you have to embrace pro-gun rhetoric. Plus, that culture of firearms means that when mass shootings create a call to regulate guns, gun owners often have an emotional reaction.“It’s very personal, it’s very visceral, it’s very emotional,” Shapira said. “They see it as an assassination of their character.”That culture has helped build strong support for groups like the NRA in Texas. There are 5 million members nationwide, but the group says that 400,000 of them are in Texas. The NRA did not respond to the Guardian’s questions about its support in the state.Last year, the organization cited financial struggles in an effort to leave its headquarters in New York to reorganize in the more friendly political climate of Texas.That bid at reorganization was part of a bankruptcy suit tied to an effort by New York’s attorney general to put the group out of business, according to the Associated Press. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the NRA laid off dozens of employees while its leaders used the group’s funds as their own piggybank, including a $17m post-employment contract for NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre.Yet those problems, Patterson said, won’t change how the NRA or politicians think about access to firearms in America. He said that in Texas and across the US, primary electoral politics force candidates to take extreme positions on all kinds of issues, like gun rights. Not all gun owners may approve of extreme measures, he said, but the rhetoric that brings primary voters to the polls swings to the right in Republican races.“There are a lot of people on the gun control side that are not as excited about things as they appear to be,” Patterson said. “But they vote for it anyway because the elections are decided in the primary.”The NRA’s recent financial troubles didn’t stop the group from spending $786,052 in the 2020 election cycle. The group has already spent $217,596 in 2022 – paid exclusively to Republican candidates.Three of the five lawmakers that have benefited the most from gun rights groups like the NRA are Texans, according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit that tracks US political spending. Cruz has received the most – $442,333 since joining the US Congress in 2012. Texas’s other senator, John Cornyn, has received $238,875 during his tenure in the US Senate. Pete Sessions, a congressman from Waco, Texas, has received $202,926 in donations from the NRA and similar groups.Those donations were smaller in 2020, as the organization began facing some of its mostly self-inflicted financial hurdles. Cornyn received $9,900 from the NRA in the last election cycle. Cruz was not up for re-election at that time and did not receive any donations, according to OpenSecrets.Uvalde’s representative in the US House is Tony Gonzales, who said earlier this week that he was not interested in discussing gun policy so soon after 19 children were killed in his district. The NRA donated $4,950 to his campaign in the 2020 election cycle.Abbott, Texas’s governor, is one of the most gun-friendly governors in the US. Even after mass tragedies like in Uvalde, he has signed laws making guns more and more accessible in the state. Last year, after signing a law allowing most Texans to carry a gun without a permit, he bragged that the measure “instilled freedom in the Lone Star State”.He is up for re-election this year. The NRA donated $2,500 to his campaign during his last race in 2018.Much of the rhetoric used by these and other conservatives after mass shootings like in Uvalde rely on a playbook partially developed by the NRA more than two decades ago. Soon after the shooting at Columbine high school in 1999, the NRA was scheduled to host its annual convention in nearby Denver.According to a secret tape released by NPR last year, the group’s leaders met to consider a response, focusing on de-politicizing the tragedy and convincing lawmakers to delay action until the immediate firestorm of bad press had passed. It’s a playbook the group has returned to again and again as more Americans have been killed by gun violence.After so many mass shootings – more than 200 in the US already this year – the responses on both sides of the issue have become predictable, Patterson said. He, like many political observers, doubt any real change will come from the aftermath of the horrors in Uvalde.“We should do that which makes a difference,” Patterson said. “I fear we’re going to do the same shit we did before. It’s the cliches, the bumper stickers, and that’s all that’s going to happen this time.”TopicsNRATexas school shootingUS gun controlUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

The killing of at least 19 schoolchildren and two teachers in the town of Uvalde on Tuesday has reignited the gun control debate in the US. Jonathan Freedland speaks to the chief correspondent for the Washington Post, Dan Balz, about why, after yet another tragedy involving firearms, the Republican party is still unwilling to talk gun reform

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

Archive: CNN, NBC, Channel 4 Listen to the Guardian’s Weekend podcast Listen to Today in Focus Send your questions and feedback to [email protected] Help support the Guardian by going to gu.com/supportpodcasts More

A briefing Thursday afternoon by the Texas Department of Public Safety created more questions than answers about a “missing” hour during which the Uvalde gunman was in the school but not confronted by law enforcement officers.Victor Escalon, the department’s regional director, deflected reporters’ questions about why officers did not attempt to stop the gunman in that time.During the short, and sometimes chaotic briefing, Escalon appeared defensive when challenged about the delay. Parents of victims have expressed distress at the apparent hesitation of law enforcement to storm the school, and some begged officers to move in.“There’s lot of possibilities,” Escalon said, insisting that investigators needed time to interview officers from multiple jurisdictions who were eventually present.“At the end of the day our job is to report the facts. We don’t have all the answers. We’re not there yet”.But in laying out a preliminary timeline of the shooting, he did indicate that the gunman appeared to have been able to gain entry to the school through an unlocked back door, and that, contrary to earlier reports, there was no armed police officer on duty at the campus when the shooter walked in and began Tuesday’s deadly rampage that killed 19 students and two teachers.“The majority of the gunfire was in the beginning,” Escalon said, adding that officers first on the scene prioritized calling for back up and trying to evacuate students and children. “He did not respond [to officers trying to speak to him],” Escalon said.Escalon ended the briefing by promising to get back to the media when he had more information to give.‘More could have been done’: Texas police under scrutiny over response to school shootingRead moreWe have more details on Joe Garcia, who died of an apparent heart attack two days after the Robb elementary school gunman killed his wife, 46-year-old Irma Garcia, a teacher who was sheltering with her students. Guadalupe “Joe” Garcia – the husband of 46-year-old Irma Garcia, who was shot and killed while sheltering children in her classroom – died two days after the mass killing that shattered his family, a cousin of his wife confirmed on a verified GoFundMe page.The Garcias had been together for more than 30 years. They were high school sweethearts before marrying and having four children, the cousin, Debra Austin, wrote.“I truly believe Joe died of a broken heart and losing the love of his life … was too much to bear,” Austin wrote.The Garcias’ nephew, John Martinez, said via Twitter that the couple’s children – ages 13, 15, 19 and 23 – had now lost both parents.Irma Garcia taught fourth grade at Robb. On her profile on the school’s website, she wrote that she and Joe, 48, enjoyed barbecuing, listening to music, and vacationing at the nearby community of Concan, which sits along Texas’ Frio River.The couple’s first child – one of two boys – was completing boot camp with the Marines, and their second, another son, was attending Texas State University, according to the profile. The two youngest children, both daughters, are a high school sophomore and a seventh grader.Husband of teacher killed in Texas school shooting dies of heart attackRead moreA dispatch from the Guardian’s Dani Anguiano who is reporting from Uvalde: The tears started before anyone even spoke. Inside a Uvalde county building that usually hosts the rodeo in this part of south-west Texas, young children and parents cried and held each other. Together, they waited for a group of pastors to offer some words of comfort for their unfathomable loss.This week in Uvalde began with a mood of celebration. The high school graduation was to be held on Friday – giant senior portraits lined the lawn outside city hall. Younger children were wrapping up the school year as well, attending classroom parties and awards ceremonies. But on Tuesday, life in this largely Latino town was upended when a gunman barricaded himself in an elementary school classroom and slaughtered 19 children and two teachers.With all schools in the district cancelled for the remainder of the year and the town mourning for those it lost, hundreds of people came to a vigil at the Uvalde County Fairplex arena on Wednesday. There, pastors, seated on a stage on the dirt normally reserved for horses, tried to offer solace to their community.“Pray for those children that saw what happened to their friends … pray for each of us as we help them,” said Pastor Tony Grubin, feeling nervous as he addressed the crowd of adults and children, many of them wearing red school shirts. “Evil will not win.”‘Evil will not win’: sorrow and disbelief as Uvalde mourns its childrenRead moreThe AP has more details on Jacklyn Cazares, a nine-year-old girl who was killed in the shooting alongside her cousin, Annabelle Rodriguez:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Jacklyn Cazares hadn’t yet reached her 10th birthday, but she was already a tough-minded “firecracker” always looking to help people in need, her father said. Jacklyn and her second cousin, Annabelle Rodriguez, were especially tight with three other classmates at Robb elementary school.
“They are all gone now,” Javier Cazares said. “All her little best friends were killed too.”
Jacklyn would have turned ten on 10 June. Despite her young age, she was equal parts tough-minded and compassionate.
“She had a voice,” her father said. “She didn’t like bullies, she didn’t like kids being picked on. All in all, full of love. She had a big heart.”More about the victims here: ‘He was just a loving little boy’: the victims of the Texas school shootingRead moreAs criticisms mount over the police response to the massacre, one mother who was outside of the school as the attack was unfolding says that officers handcuffed her after she urged police to enter.Angeli Rose Gomez, who has children in the second and third grade in the school, told the Wall Street Journal she drove 40 miles to the school when she heard there was a shooting and that when she arrived, “The police were doing nothing. They were just standing outside the fence. They weren’t going in there or running anywhere.”She told the paper that after a few minutes of her urging officers to act, federal marshals approached and put her in handcuffs, alleging that she was being arrested for interfering in an active investigation. She said she was released after she talked to Uvalde police officers she personally knew who convinced the marshals to let her go. At that point, she said she entered the school and got her two children. Gomez also told the Journal that after the gunman was killed, she saw police use a Taser on a local father who was approaching a bus to find his child. Gomez described it this way: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}They didn’t do that to the shooter, but they did that to us. That’s how it felt.”A mom of two children at Uvalde was put in handcuffs after urging police and law enforcement to enter the school.Once freed from her cuffs, she jumped the school fence, ran inside and sprinted out with her kids.New from @WSJ: https://t.co/SYdgysw0gF pic.twitter.com/ZCadllw9aT— Megan Menchaca (@meganmmenchaca) May 26, 2022
Officials have not offered a clear explanation as to why the gunman was in the school for up to an hour before he was stopped and killed, even while officers were on scene. Authorities admitted that police officers had assembled outside the room where the gunman was located, but did not make any attempt to break through the door during that hour. Instead, they decided to pull back and wait until a specialist tactical unit arrived, while evacuating other children and staff from the building. More on the police response here: ‘More could have been done’: Texas police under scrutiny over response to school shootingRead moreBiden’s press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, said the White House was “disappointed” that Republicans in the Senate blocked the domestic terrorism prevention bill that the Democratic-controlled House last week. .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}We need Congress to act. We need Congress to advance commonsense measures that we know will save lives.She later added, “Commonsense gun safety laws work. We know this. They save lives. The public supports this. They are behind this.” A reporter asked whether Biden would be doing anything differently to reflect the urgency of the gun violence crisis, the press secretary responded, “The president has already declared gun violence to be a public health epidemic. This is a president who has been working on gun violence, comprehensive gun reform since he was a senator.” When the reporter followed up and asked whether it was indictment of Biden that he has been involved in the issue for so long and so little has changed, she said, “He understands we need to do more, but Congress also has to act … The president is doing everything that he can to get this done.” The White House is declining to weigh in on the concerns about the Texas law enforcement response to the school shooting. Asked at the briefing whether Joe Biden would call for an investigation into police’s actions at the shooting, Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, responded: “The president has the utmost respect for the men and women of law enforcement … We won’t pre-judge the results from here at this time.”The gunman was in the school for up to an hour before he was killed, even while officers were on scene, and officials have not offered a clear explanation of the timeline or what police were doing during that hour. Asked about the NRA convention scheduled to begin in Texas, Jean-Pierre said: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}It’s not about the convention. What is inappropriate is that the leadership of the National Rifle Association has proven time and time again that they are contributing to the problem of gun violence, not trying to solve it … [They are] marketing weapons of war to adults. They don’t represent gun owners who know we need to take action. The NRA and their allies have stood in the way of [gun safety measures]. It is shameful. About the response from some Republicans calling for more armed people, the press secretary said, “If more guns were the solution, we’d be the safest country in the world.”Hi all – Sam Levin here, taking over our live coverage: The White House has announced that Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden will be traveling to Uvalde, Texas on Sunday to “grieve with the community”. Officials did not have further details on the visit, though a press briefing is due to start momentarily. Follow along here for updates. Here are today’s developments so far from Tuesday’s mass shooting at Robb elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, that killed 19 children and two teachers:
Investigators at an afternoon media briefing were unable to say why the gunman was not confronted during a “missing hour” between entering the school and being killed by a SWAT team.
Parents and other locals expressed distress at the apparent hesitation of law enforcement to storm the school, with some having begged officers to move in as the massacre was still ongoing.
However, US Border Patrol chief Raul Ortiz said agents “didn’t hesitate” when responding to the shooting. “They came up with a plan. They entered that classroom and they took care of the situation as quickly as they possibly could,” he told CNN.
Democratic senator Chris Murphy called for a “popular uprising of citizens” to pressure Republicans to support gun laws following the shooting.
Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said he would delay a vote on background checks for weapons buyers while bipartisan talks progressed, but warned Republicans he would move ahead if no deal was reached.
March for Our Lives, the student-led gun reform activist group set up in the wake of the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school shooting in Florida, is planning protest events in several US cities on 11 June.
Texas Republican senator Ted Cruz confronted a British reporter and angrily left an interview after he was asked why school shootings like the one in Uvalde happen so often in the US.
Before attacking the school, the gunman, named as Salvador Ramos, shot and wounded his grandmother at her home. Neighbors called police when she staggered outside and they saw she had been shot in the face.
The gunman sent three online messages in the half-hour before the mass shooting, according to Texas governor Greg Abbott. The messages were sent via Facebook and “discovered after the terrible tragedy,” company spokesman Andy Stone said.
The gunman had legally bought the rifle and a second one like it last week, just after his birthday, authorities said.
Thanks for following. My colleague Sam Levin will guide you through the next few hours. Just days after the deadliest mass school shooting in Texas history, the National Rifle Association (NRA) – America’s leading gun lobbyist group – will meet a few hours away in Houston on Friday.Ashton P Woods says they are not welcome in his home town.“These people are coming into our community. The city of Houston needs to kick them out,” said Woods, an activist and founder of Black Lives Matter Houston. “We have to be just as tough about these things as they are.”Woods is helping organize one of several protests planned just outside the George R Brown Convention Center, where NRA members will browse exhibits of firearms and gun paraphernalia and hear speeches from Republican leaders including Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas.The goal of the Black Lives Matter protest, Woods said, is to “get loud” outside while powerful speakers take the podium inside. Woods said the issue of firearms was particularly important to the civil rights group that primarily tackles issues of police brutality in America.“Whether it be death by suicide, death by cop, death by mass shooter, we need to control the access people have to deadly weapons,” Woods said. “These things are interconnected.”Democratic Texas congressman Colin Allred was another on Wednesday to attack the NRA conference, and its prominent attendees.“It’s a disgrace that these Republicans are choosing to attend the NRA convention, when they should be in their respective legislatures doing everything in their power to prevent the next attack like this,” he said in a video address from the Democratic party’s war room.“When it comes to Ted Cruz, let’s just say he’s one of the biggest recipients of gun lobby spending and was the top recipient of campaign donations from so called gun rights backers in the 2018 election cycle.“We know who Ted Cruz is serving, and it’s not Texans.”Full story:Outrage as NRA to gather in Houston just days after Texas school massacreRead morePolice in Toronto shot and injured a man who was walking down a street carrying a gun in a city neighborhood, and five nearby schools were placed on lockdown, officials in Canada said, according to Reuters.The suspect, whose condition was not immediately clear, was described as a male in his late teens or early 20s, the Toronto police department said. The incident occurred in Port Union, a residential area north of Toronto’s city center. Three of the schools remained on lockdown Thursday afternoon, and two others were declared “hold and secure” due to ongoing police work. A briefing Thursday afternoon by the Texas Department of Public Safety created more questions than answers about a “missing” hour during which the Uvalde gunman was in the school but not confronted by law enforcement officers.Victor Escalon, the department’s regional director, deflected reporters’ questions about why officers did not attempt to stop the gunman in that time.During the short, and sometimes chaotic briefing, Escalon appeared defensive when challenged about the delay. Parents of victims have expressed distress at the apparent hesitation of law enforcement to storm the school, and some begged officers to move in.“There’s lot of possibilities,” Escalon said, insisting that investigators needed time to interview officers from multiple jurisdictions who were eventually present.“At the end of the day our job is to report the facts. We don’t have all the answers. We’re not there yet”.But in laying out a preliminary timeline of the shooting, he did indicate that the gunman appeared to have been able to gain entry to the school through an unlocked back door, and that, contrary to earlier reports, there was no armed police officer on duty at the campus when the shooter walked in and began Tuesday’s deadly rampage that killed 19 students and two teachers.“The majority of the gunfire was in the beginning,” Escalon said, adding that officers first on the scene prioritized calling for back up and trying to evacuate students and children. “He did not respond [to officers trying to speak to him],” Escalon said.Escalon ended the briefing by promising to get back to the media when he had more information to give.‘More could have been done’: Texas police under scrutiny over response to school shootingRead moreThe chief question arising from that brief briefing is why law enforcement did not enter the school and try to save children in the hour between the gunman entering the school and his being killed by a SWAT team from Customs and Border Protection.Victor Escalon of the Texas Department of Public Safety did not discuss what happened in that hour in any detail.He did say “the majority of the gunfire was in the beginning” and said the gunman then fired to keep officers at bay but did not respond to attempts to negotiate. He also said officers made efforts to evacuate other children and teachers.Escalon’s words might suggest that most of the children who were killed were killed shortly after the gunman entered the room. Nonetheless, officers seem not to have attempted to take the gunman down.Escalon answers questions.It appears the door to the school the gunman used was unlocked, he says. “The majority of the gunfire was in the beginning,” Escalon says. The gunman then fired to keep officers at bay but did not respond to attempts to negotiate.There was not a readily available armed officer at the school when the gunman arrived, Escalon says.“At 11.30am the PD got a crash and a man with a gun and you have responding officers.”He can’t say yet what happened in the next 10 minutes with certainty, he says, adding: “There’s a lot of possibilities.”All the officers who were present need to be interviewed, Escalon says, asked about questions about what was done to stop the shooting which are growing with the hour.A British reporter asks: “Is it accurate eyewitnesses were urging police to go in while a SWAT team was awaited, and even asking to borrow police armour to go in and try to rescue their children themselves?” “I’ve heard that information that we have not verified it,” Escalon says.Questions are shouted but Escalon has no answers. He says he needs time.That briefing didn’t clear up much about how police responded to the shooting.Victor Escalon, regional director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, begins the briefing. He says law enforcement are “hurting inside”, as are other officials and of course the victims and family members and describes how an investigation works.He recounts what is known about the shooting.Salvador Ramos’s grandmother is still alive, Escalon says, in stable condition after being shot in the face.The shooter entered Robb elementary school at 11.40am, after shooting at the building and “numerous rounds are discharged inside the school”. Four minutes later, Uvalde police are inside. They take rounds, move back and get cover, and call for additional resources, as the gunman enters a classroom.Escalon says that during the time the calls for help are being made, officers are also evacuating teachers and students. Approximately an hour later, Escalon says, US Border Patrol tactical teams arrive and shoot and kill the suspect.Now it turns into a rescue operation, he says, the officers asking themselves, “How do we save these children?”Escalon says reports the gunman was confronted by an officer on the way into the school are not accurate. He says he will take questions.A briefing has begun in Uvalde. We’ll follow it here.The chief of the Uvalde police department, Daniel Rodriguez, has just issued a statement defending his officers over the response time to the Robb elementary school shooting.Rodriguez said officers “responded within minutes” and that several of them received non-life threating gunshot wounds from the suspect.A press conference in Uvalde is scheduled to begin within the next 15 minutes or so, and you can expect questions about the timeline of the massacre.NEW: The chief of the Uvalde Police Department has a released a statement saying his officers responded “within minutes” along with school officers. “I know answers will not come fast enough,” he said. pic.twitter.com/8m7GvLZQo0— Tony Plohetski (@tplohetski) May 26, 2022
Read more:‘More could have been done’: Texas police under scrutiny over response to school shootingRead moreMore desperately sad news from Uvalde, as if things weren’t bad enough already:Joe Garcia, the husband of Irma Garcia, one of two teachers shot and killed in Uvalde, TX on Tuesday, has reportedly suffered a fatal heart attack. Joe and Irma were high school sweethearts and married 24 years. They leave behind four children. pic.twitter.com/Rlk0M2B8nR— Ernie Zuniga (@Ernie_Zuniga) May 26, 2022
His death was confirmed on Twitter by Garcia’s nephew John Martinez, who asked for prayers for his family:EXTREMELY heartbreaking and come with deep sorrow to say that my Tia Irma’s husband Joe Garcia has passed away due to grief, i truly am at a loss for words for how we are all feeling, PLEASE PRAY FOR OUR FAMILY, God have mercy on us, this isn’t easy pic.twitter.com/GlUSOutRVV— john martinez ❤️‍🔥 (@fuhknjo) May 26, 2022
Here’s more on Joe Garcia and this tragic, apparently deadly case of broken heart syndrome.Republicans in the senate have, as expected, blocked the domestic terrorism prevention bill that passed the Democratic-controlled House last week.Chuck Schumer, the senate majority leader, changed his vote to no in a procedural move so he can bring the measure back again. Senators voted 47-47, well short of the 60 votes needed for it to advance.The bill was seen as the Democrats’ opening attempt to pass some kind of gun restrictions following the massacre of 10 Black people by a white supremacist gunman at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, almost two weeks ago.It would have established a new domestic terrorism office at the homeland security department that would track and analyze domestic terrorist activity, and require regular reporting of threats from white supremacists and neo-Nazis.Republicans argued the bill was partisan and not needed because of existing laws to tackle domestic terrorism.One of the hosts responding to the Texas shooting on late-night TV on Wednesday, Jimmy Kimmel, became visibly upset as he did so. “Once again, we grieve for the little boys and girls whose lives have been ended and whose families have been destroyed,” he said.While the right will “warn us not to politicise” the shooting, Kimmel added, it’s important to remember “they know what they’ve done and they know what they haven’t done”.The “very least we can do” is insist upon background checks for those seeking to purchase a gun, a law that has been stalled in Congress. “They won’t pass it because our cowardly leaders just aren’t listening to us, they’re listening to the NRA, they’re listening to those people who write them checks who keep them in power,” Kimmel said.“If your solution to children being massacred is armed guards, you haven’t been paying attention to what’s going on,” the host said before reminding viewers of the many times armed guards and police officers have not prevented school shootings.Kimmel then zeroed in on the Texas senator Ted Cruz, who is scheduled to speak at an NRA event in Houston this weekend. “I refuse to believe he’s unaffected by this,” he said. “He’s not a monster, he’s a human being.”To Cruz and the many others who refuse to recognise the danger of guns, Kimmel said: “It’s OK to admit you made a mistake, it’s not just OK, it’s necessary.”He continued: “Do I think these men are brave people? No I don’t but man I would love it if these guys surprised me.”Kimmel also said “it isn’t a time for moments of silence, this is a time to be loud”, before reminding viewers there have been 27 US school shootings this year and it’s still only May. “How does this make sense to anyone?” he asked. “These are our children.”Kimmel on gun control: ‘Our cowardly leaders just aren’t listening to us’Read more More

Senator Chris Murphy has spoken with confidence on ‘finding that common ground’ with Republicans to support gun laws following the Uvalde school shooting on Tuesday.
Murphy called for a ‘popular uprising of citizens’ to put pressure Republicans when he attended a Thursday gun safety rally and press conference on Capitol Hill.
Democratic Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer is expected to bring expanded background checks and potentially ‘red flag’ laws to Congress that allow people to petition a court to temporarily take guns away from a person at risk of hurting themselves or others.

Texas shooting: latest updates
How the push for US gun control rises and falls with each school shooting More

With the carnage in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York in May 2022, calls have begun again for Congress to enact gun control. Since the 2012 massacre of 20 children and four staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, legislation introduced in response to mass killings has consistently failed to pass the Senate. We asked political scientists Monika McDermott and David Jones to help readers understand why further restrictions never pass, despite a majority of Americans supporting tighter gun control laws.

Mass killings are becoming more frequent. Yet there has been no significant gun legislation passed in response to these and other mass shootings. Why?

Monika McDermott: While there is consistently a majority in favor of restricting gun access a little bit more than the government currently does, usually that’s a slim majority – though that support tends to spike in the short term after events like the recent mass shootings.

We tend to find even gun owners are in support of restrictions like background checks for all gun sales, including at gun shows. So that’s one that everyone gets behind. The other one that gun-owning households get behind is they don’t mind law enforcement taking guns away from people who have been legally judged to be unstable or dangerous. Those are two restrictions on which you can get virtual unanimous support from the American public. But agreement on specific elements isn’t everything.

This isn’t something that people are clamoring for, and there are so many other things in the mix that people are much more concerned about right now, like the economy. Also, people are insecure about the federal budget deficit, and health care is still a perennial problem in this country. So those kinds of things top gun control legislation in terms of priorities for the public.

So you can’t just think about majority support for legislation; you have to think about priorities. People in office care what the priorities are. If someone’s not going to vote them out because of an issue, then they’re not going to do it.

The other issue is that you have just this different view of the gun situation in gun-owning households and non-gun-owning households. Nearly half of the public lives in a household with a gun. And those people tend to be significantly less worried than those in non-gun households that a mass shooting could happen in their community. They’re also unlikely to say that stricter gun laws would reduce the danger of mass shootings.

The people who don’t own guns think the opposite. They think guns are dangerous. They think if we restricted access, then mass shootings would be reduced. So you’ve got this bifurcation in the American public. And that also contributes to why Congress can’t or hasn’t done anything about gun control.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut speaks on the Senate floor, asking his colleagues, ‘Why are you here if not to solve a problem as existential as this?’

How does public opinion relate to what Congress does or doesn’t do?

David Jones: People would, ideally, like to think that members of Congress are responding to public opinion. I think that is their main consideration when they’re making decisions about how to prioritize issues and how to vote on issues.

But we also have to consider: What is the meaning of a member’s “constituency”? We can talk about their geographic constituency – everyone living in their district, if they’re a House member, or in their state, if they’re a senator. But we could also talk about their electoral constituency, and that is all of the people who contributed the votes that put them into office.

And so if a congressmember’s motive is reelection, they want to hold on to the votes of that electoral constituency. It may be more important to them than representing everyone in their district equally.

In 2020, the most recent congressional election, among citizens who voted for a Republican House member, only 24% of those voters wanted to make it more difficult to buy a gun.

So if you’re looking at the opinions of your voters versus those of your entire geographic constituency, it’s your voters that matter most to you. And a party primary constituency may be even narrower and even less in favor of gun control. A member may have to run in a party primary first before they even get to the general election. Now what would be the most generous support for gun control right now in the U.S.? A bit above 60% of Americans. But not every member of Congress has that high a proportion of support for gun control in their district. Local lawmakers are not necessarily focused on national polling numbers.

You could probably get a majority now in the Senate of 50 Democrats plus, say, Susan Collins and some other Republican or two to support some form of gun control. But it wouldn’t pass the Senate. Why isn’t a majority enough to pass? The Senate filibuster – a tradition allowing a small group of Senators to hold up a final vote on a bill unless a three-fifths majority of Senators vote to stop them.

Monika McDermott: This is a very hot political topic these days. But people have to remember, that’s the way our system was designed.

David Jones: Protecting rights against the overbearing will of the majority is built into our constitutional system.

GOP Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan said he ‘had to have police protection for six months’ after voting in 1994 for an assault weapons ban.
AP Photo/Susan Walsh

Do legislators also worry that sticking their neck out to vote for gun legislation might be for nothing if the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the law?

David Jones: The last time gun control passed in Congress was the 1994 assault weapons ban. Many of the legislators who voted for that bill ended up losing their seats in the election that year. Some Republicans who voted for it are on record saying that they were receiving threats of violence. So it’s not trivial, when considering legislation, to be weighing, “Yeah, we can pass this, but was it worth it to me if it gets overturned by the Supreme Court?”

Going back to the 1994 assault weapons ban: How did that manage to pass and how did it avoid a filibuster?

David Jones: It got rolled into a larger omnibus bill that was an anti-crime bill. And that managed to garner the support of some Republicans. There are creative ways of rolling together things that one party likes with things that the other party likes. Is that still possible? I’m not sure.

It sounds like what you are saying is that lawmakers are not necessarily driven by higher principle or a sense of humanitarianism, but rather cold, hard numbers and the idea of maintaining or getting power.

Monika McDermott: There are obvious trade-offs there. You can have high principles, but if your high principles serve only to make you a one-term officeholder, what good are you doing for the people who believe in those principles? At some point, you have to have a reality check that says if I can’t get reelected, then I can’t do anything to promote the things I really care about. You have to find a balance.

Wouldn’t that matter more to someone in the House, with a two-year horizon, than to someone in the Senate, with a six-year term?

David Jones: Absolutely. If you’re five years out from an election and people are mad at you now, some other issue will come up and you might be able to calm the tempers. But if you’re two years out, that reelection is definitely more of a pressing concern.

Some people are blaming the National Rifle Association for these killings. What do you see as the organization’s role in blocking gun restrictions by Congress?

Monika McDermott: From the public’s side, one of the important things the NRA does is speak directly to voters. The NRA publishes for their members ratings of congressional officeholders based on how much they do or do not support policies the NRA favors. These kinds of things can be used by voters as easy information shortcuts that help them navigate where a candidate stands on the issue when it’s time to vote. This gives them some credibility when they talk to lawmakers.

David Jones: The NRA as a lobby is an explanation that’s out there. But I’d caution that it’s a little too simplistic to say interest groups control everything in our society. I think it’s an intermingling of the factors that we’ve been talking about, plus interest groups.

So why does the NRA have power? I would argue: Much of their power is going to the member of Congress and showing them a chart and saying, “Look at the voters in your district. Most of them own guns. Most of them don’t want you to do this.” It’s not that their donations or their threatening looks or phone calls are doing it, it’s the fact that they have the membership and they can do this research and show the legislator what electoral danger they’ll be in if they cast this vote, because of the opinions of that legislator’s core constituents.

Interest groups can help to pump up enthusiasm and make their issue the most important one among members of their group. They’re not necessarily changing overall public support for an issue, but they’re making their most persuasive case to a legislator, given the opinions of crucial voters that live in a district, and that can sometimes tip an already delicate balance. More

Why Brad Raffensperger’s victory in Georgia’s primary is surprisingAs late as a few weeks ago, it was widely believed he would face an uphill battle against Trump-backed Jody Hice Hello, and Happy Thursday,You’ve probably heard by now – on Tuesday night Brad Raffensperger won a surprise victory against Jody Hice in the Republican primary for secretary of state.Raffensperger was one of three candidates in Georgia that won over Trump-backed candidates who had embraced the idea of a stolen election. My colleague Lauren Gambino wrote about how those victories were a major blow to Trump in his quest to punish those who refused to overturn the election.I can’t emphasize how much of a surprise it was that Raffensperger won the GOP primary outright on Tuesday. As late as a few weeks ago, it was widely believed that Raffensperger faced an uphill battle in fending off Hice. “Ultimately, it’s gonna be Hice that’s gonna win that thing,” Jay Williams, a Republican strategist in Georgia told me earlier this month. If Raffensperger had a chance, it was believed he would have to win in a runoff election.One takeaway I have from Raffensperger’s victory is that support for Trump and uncertainty about the election doesn’t necessarily translate into voting for other candidates. When I began to see Raffensperger doing well on Tuesday evening, I kept hearing the voice of Carolee Curti, an 82-year-old retiree in Rome, a city in Marjorie Taylor Greene’s deeply conservative district, who told me she voted for the secretary of state. “I felt that under all that pressure, he did a good job,” she said after casting her vote. “I know it upset Trump, and I’m a Trump person, but fair is fair.”Raffensperger also found a way to appeal to Republican voters concerned about fraud in elections while defending the 2020 election results. The central issue in his campaign was preventing non-citizen voting, which is virtually non-existent in Georgia. He also championed SB 202, Georgia’s new law that imposes new restrictions on mail-in ballots and drop boxes, and prevents handing out food or water within 150 feet of a polling place.“He has been threading this needle from the outset of the 2020 election,” Andra Gillespie, a political science professor at Emory University, told me earlier this month. “From the moment he announced that the election results were what they were and that Joe Biden had won the election in Georgia, he immediately pivoted towards pledging to do more to improve election security, I would argue in an attempt to appease conservative voters who probably were not gonna be satisfied with him.”The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also has a good rundown of some of the other reasons Raffensperger won. Georgia voters can choose to cast their votes in either party’s primary, and there appear to be tens of thousands of Democrats who cast ballots in the GOP contest. Hice also campaigned poorly, the AJC noted, never expanding his base and saving money for a runoff that never came.A few weeks ago, when I spoke with Raffensperger in Georgia, I asked him if he ever got tired of having to continue to debunk baseless claims about the 2020 election. When he said no, I asked him if he could continue to do it forever.“Don’t have to,” he said. “May 24. Then it’ll be decided.”Also worth watching …
Democrats are headed for a runoff in their nominating contest for secretary of state.
A Republican who was part of a fake set of electors for Donald Trump in Wisconsin wants to be the chair of the agency that oversees elections in the state.
Five Republicans running for governor in Michigan face potential disqualification from the ballot after submitting fraudulent signatures.
TopicsGeorgiaFight to voteDonald TrumpRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More