US gun control

Subterms

    Latest story

    200 Shares38 Views

    Chicago organizers say city needs support, not politicalization by Trump: ‘This is not a serious solution’

    by

    For months, Donald Trump and his administration have been using violent crime as a justification for ramping up Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) operations and sending or threatening to send the national guard to blue cities – first in Los Angeles, then Washington DC and, last week, Chicago.But for those who work on the ground to prevent crime, the White House’s approaches will do little to address underlying causes. Instead, they say, increased law enforcement will only lead to harassment and increased surveillance in communities that are already overpoliced.“[Trump doesn’t] mean well for our community,” said Teny Gross, executive director of the Institute for Nonviolence Chicago, a non-profit that offers services for people most at risk of shooting someone or being shot. “Yes, there’s a lot of violence, and it’s because of policies over decades. If you want to go after violence, go to the cities and invest in them, not just send in the national guard.”Gross has worked in violence prevention for more than three decades. Over the years, he’s heard Chicagoans talk about the need for increased law enforcement in their neighborhoods, including deploying the national guard – comments he saw as expressions of understandable desperation. He says residents have grown exhausted from witnessing decades of bloodshed and poverty that go unabated under both Republican and Democratic administrations.Still, he said that these issues won’t be solved through the shows of force Trump is enacting. “We deal with grief daily. We see death daily. This is not a serious solution,” he said.Last year, 574 people were killed in Chicago, primarily from gunshot wounds, giving the city a homicide rate of 17 per 100,000 people. This is far below that of some cities in red states, such as Birmingham, Alabama, and Shreveport, Louisiana, whose rates were 59 and 41, respectively, that same year. Still, Chicago’s reputation for shootings is being exploited to normalize military force on city streets and expand law enforcement in neighborhoods that are already highly policed and surveilled, said Ethan Ucker, executive director of Stick Talk, a Chicago non-profit that approaches youth gun-carrying through a harm reduction lens.“Those narratives are strategically being deployed to justify state violence,” Ucker said. “I worry about increasing and accelerating criminalization. But that won’t stop when the national guard leaves. It’s ongoing.”The Rev Ciera Bates-Chamberlain, who leads Live Free Illinois, a coalition of faith-based organizations that advocate for criminal justice reform and public safety, said if Trump actually wants to help, he would emphasize better clearance rates and community-based support services for victims of crime, and would get gun trafficking under control.“We’ve advocated for more community-based resources to be invested in,” she said. “We’ve advocated to improve clearance rates. But to completely disregard those requests is immoral and not about protecting citizens.”Bates-Chamberlain, a native of Chicago’s South Side who’s worked in the violence prevention space for more than a decade, said that “two things can be true at the same time” when it comes to the current national conversation about crime in the US. While Chicago’s leadership is boasting a more than 30% decline in homicides in 2025 so far, there were still nearly 200 people killed in the city by the end of June and many more injured.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“The numbers are down, yet communities are still feeling the impact,” she said.But the pain these losses and injuries carry and their reverberations throughout the community won’t be addressed by sending more law enforcement to the street, Bates-Chamberlain said.“He’s politicizing our pain and that is diabolical and despicable for the president of the United States to do,” she said. “This is really harmful.” More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares23 Views

      in US Politics

      Utah campus open carry permit under fresh scrutiny after Kirk shooting

      by

      As authorities at the federal and state levels parse the details of the fatal shooting of far-right activist Charlie Kirk at a university in Utah, a recently passed state bill that allows people with concealed-carry permits to carry firearms openly on college campuses has drawn fresh scrutiny.Utah has allowed for permitless open and concealed carry of weapons since 2021. But before the passage of HB 128, firearms had to be concealed when carried on college campuses. The law allowed people with the proper permit to carry them openly.When the law passed in August, university staff voiced concerns about what carrying could mean for classroom emergencies that might require students to act as armed responders and their presence in laboratories where harmful and potent chemicals were stored.While it’s unclear whether the suspected shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was legally allowed to own the hunting rifle used in the shooting, or have one on a university campus, the proximity between the bill’s passing and the shooting has pushed the law into headlines across the US.The bill did not come in a vacuum, but added to Utah’s already second amendment-friendly legislative landscape. The state doesn’t have extreme risk protection orders (Erpo), known as red-flag laws, which allow people such as police officers and family members to petition a judge to have someone’s firearms temporarily taken away. It is one of 29 states that allows people to carry concealed firearms without a permit. It has a law aiming to get guns out of the hands of people in crisis, but requires people to flag themselves in the federal background check system.When Utah lawmakers have addressed campus safety, their efforts have typically centered on K-12 schools, where there is a greater expectation and need for campuses to be largely closed to the public.There, in lieu of policies restricting gun access and training requirements for prospective concealed-carry permit applicants, the state has leaned into legislation meant to make it harder for shooters to enter and move freely around schools – for example, by adding doors with automatic locks, surveillance cameras and fencing. This approach, known as school hardening, is to deter shooters from entering schools and responding quickly to stop them and secure students.For example, HB 119, which passed last year, incentivizes K-12 teachers to get training so they can keep a firearm in their classroom. HB 84, a sweeping piece of legislation passed in 2024, requires classrooms to have panic devices and schools to have at least one armed person – be it a school resource officer or security guard – on campus daily.Advocates of Utah’s gun laws have argued that making sure guns are easily accessible can serve as a deterrent, whether to would-be home invaders, carjackers or shooters hoping to take advantage of “soft targets” like malls, campuses and grocery stores, and allow for armed responses if some start shooting.“We sort of take the view here that the second amendment is very broad and a permit to carry a concealed weapon is just one obstacle in being able to exercise that right. There’s a mentality that there should be as few obstacles as possible,” said Johnny Richardson, a Utah-based attorney and former editor at the Utah Law Review.“In effect, there’s a belief that gun control laws will impede access to those who are already law-abiding and put them at an unfair disadvantage to those who aren’t,” he continued.While permitless carrying may have some effect on deterring offences such as robberies, it is inadequate in the face of grievance and politically driven violence, said Brandon del Pozo, an assistant professor of medicine and health policy at Brown University.“The deterrence effect of concealed carry only applies to rational actors. And you get to a point in political extremism where you’re not dealing with rational people,” he said.Before he went to Brown, del Pozo spent 19 years in the New York police department, and four years as the chief of police for Burlington, Vermont, where, like in Utah, permits to carry and licenses to sell firearms are not required. Del Pozo says that the circulation of guns was on his mind while planning safety for rallies and the annual city marathon, which attracts thousands of people. Through these experiences, he’s found that cities and states where many residents are armed in public can fail to account for the large presence of concealed guns and to plan to provide an accompanying level of screening.“In places like Utah where there’s going to be a lot of guns in circulation, you have to decide when you’re going to carve out spaces where people are screened for guns,” he added.“And if you’re a small police department, it’s hard to secure something outdoors. But if you’re coming to a provocative political rally, you need to be screened.”In a press conference following the shooting, Utah Valley’s campus police chief, Jeff Long, told reporters that there had been six officers assigned to the Charlie Kirk event, which drew a crowd of about 3,000 people. His department coordinated with Kirk’s personal security detail, he said.Students who attended the event noted that there were no metal detectors or staff members checking attendees’ bags, according to the Associated Press.

      This article was amended on 14 September 2025 to clarify the distinction between open carry and concealed carry on Utah college campuses. More

    • 163 Shares56 Views

      in US Politics

      Assassination in Utah, school shooting in Colorado: one day in US gun violence

      by

      At 12.23pm on Wednesday, as the rightwing influencer and provocateur Charlie Kirk was addressing a large crowd at Utah Valley University, a single shot rang out. He was struck fatally by a bullet in the neck, sending thousands of screaming students scattering in all directions and propelling the country into a new and dangerous crisis.Exactly one minute later, at 12.24pm, about 450 miles to the east in Colorado, a 911 call came in to first responders in the mountain town of Evergreen. A 16-year-old student had opened fire with a revolver on high school grounds, critically injuring two fellow students before turning the handgun on himself.The confluence of two bloody incidents just one minute apart – the first taking the life of a key figure in Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again (Maga) movement, the second erupting in the same school district as the notorious 1999 Columbine massacre – underlined America’s dirty little non-secret: the ubiquitous, quotidian, nature of its gun violence.“Yesterday was a dark day in the United States,” the former Republican political strategist and Trump critic Steve Schmidt said on his podcast on Thursday. “It was a day of mass violence, of killing, of gun violence – in other words, in America it was a day like any other day.”The sense of shock that has ricocheted across the US since the Kirk shooting has been palpable. Cable news shows and social media feeds have been overflowing with intense browbeating and soul-searching about the parlous – and perilous – state of the nation.There have been umpteen calls to prayer, plenty of partisan name-calling, and even dark warnings about a coming civil war.What has been noticeable by its absence, though, is virtually any talk about the instrument that lies at the heart of America’s copious ongoing blood-letting: the gun.View image in fullscreen“America is an insanely violent nation,” said Hasan Piker, a progressive influencer who had been scheduled to debate with Kirk at a university in New Hampshire later this month. On his Twitch stream following the shooting, Piker lamented the lack of meaningful debate about reforming the country’s globally lax gun laws.“A bulletproof vest would not have saved Charlie Kirk. Security did not save Charlie Kirk. The only thing that could have potentially saved Charlie Kirk from getting shot in the neck was reasonable gun control.”Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and author of a book on the second amendment right to bear arms, Gunfight, told the Guardian that Americans had shown a stubborn resistance to gun safety reform through equally terrible shooting incidents in the past. They include horrors such as the killing of 20 elementary school children in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, and the mass murder of 60 people five years later at a music festival in Las Vegas.“People’s positions on the second amendment and gun policy have really hardened in recent years,” Winkler said. “It seems like Americans are impervious to shooting-based reforms, we’re just not seeing this. I don’t think this week’s tragedies are likely to shift the substance of the debate or the current stalemate on guns.”Kirk had been discussing gun violence at the moment that he was shot. Sitting on a sparkling cloudless day in the shade of a tent bearing the logo of his “American Comeback Tour”, the Turning Point USA leader was sparring by microphone with students over how many mass shooters in the past decade had been transgender.“Too many,” he said. (In fact, trans people have carried out a tiny fraction of mass shootings, the fact-checking group Politifact found.)Kirk’s own views on guns in America were reflective of the prevailing attitude across the Maga universe which is fiercely protective of the second amendment despite the evident side-effects of such devotion. Kirk being Kirk – his willingness to confront his detractors face to face was summed up in his slogan “Prove me wrong” – he articulated his passion for gun rights in brutally frank terms.In a speech in Salt Lake City two years ago that has been widely resurfaced on social media in the wake of his death, Kirk argued that the benefits of having guns in many American hands outweighed the costs. Gun deaths were inevitable in such a heavily armed society, he admitted, but the prevalence of firearms allowed citizens to “defend yourself against a tyrannical government”.“I think it’s worth it,” he said. “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It’s rational.”Kirk went on to repeat the mantra that the pro-gun National Rifle Association (NRA) touted in the wake of the Newtown tragedy – the solution to gun violence is more guns. “If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don’t our children?”View image in fullscreenSuch a hardline pro-gun posture has been echoed by Trump. In the wake of the 2017 Las Vegas massacre, in the early stages of his first term in the White House, Trump backed raising the age of gun possession to 21, and even lent his name to comprehensive background checks which have long been a central demand of gun control advocates.It is not clear what made him change his mind – was it pressure from the NRA or from his own supporters? – but he quickly and quietly backed off the idea. The only change in gun policy in the second Trump administration has been in the direction of loosening regulations – his recent mega finance bill removed taxes from short-barrelled rifles and shotguns, and he has instructed his attorney general, Pam Bondi, to aggressively roll back measures to reduce gun violence introduced by his predecessor, Joe Biden.In the immediate aftermath of the Kirk assassination, Trump has signaled that he will be guided not by a desire to get to the root of the problem but by a desire for vengeance. He has blamed the shooting on the “radical left”, disregarding recent atrocities against Democrats including the June shooting of Democratic Minnesota lawmakers in which one was killed.In a statement from the Oval Office, Trump has insinuated that he intends to crack down on leftist civil society organisations. There has so far been no talk of similarly cracking down on guns.“There’s just no way that Trump is going to support gun reform,” Winkler said.Meanwhile, one of the bedrock causes of America’s unique struggle with gun violence goes untouched. An analysis by the Trace, a news outlet reporting on the issue, estimates that there are almost 400m guns in circulation in the US – that’s more than the number of people living in the country.More than four in 10 Americans live in households with a gun, according to the Pew Research Center. Though there is a partisan political divide in ownership, with 45% of Republicans owning a gun, that still leaves one in five Democrats also holding deadly weapons.As the number of guns has risen, so too have gun deaths. Almost 47,000 people died by the gun in the US in 2023, the latest year for which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has produced official figures. That’s the third-highest year on record, after a pandemic-induced spike in the previous two years.View image in fullscreenThe argument frequently proffered by second amendment lobbyists that this is just the way it is can easily be squelched by comparison with other rich countries. A 2016 CDC study cited by Pew put the US gun death rate at 10.6 per 100,000 people – more than five times the rate in Canada (2.1 per 100,000), and almost 20 times that of Spain (0.6).Such alarming statistics are set against a powerful subculture in which the gun manufacturing industry and pro-gun groups and magazines actively promote the allure of the sniper. “Best civilian sniper rifles”, was the headline from GunMag Warehouse.The online site Outdoor Life ran a feature on 16 of the “best sniper rifles”, defining the weapon broadly as the one that is “most capable of fulfilling the mission that whoever is carrying it is tasked with”. The author emphasised the huge variety of environments in which the sniper rifle has to operate, including “crowded cities”.First on the list was the AI AXSR which was praised for its “toughness, innovation, and accuracy”. The weapon trades to civilians for $11,000 on online firearms sites.The gun that delivered the single shot that ended Kirk’s life has been described by US investigators as a Mauser high-powered bolt-action rifle. Though it was not a purpose-built sniper rifle it was precise enough to allow the killer to strike from a rooftop about 160 metres away from his target.Josh Sugarmann, executive of the Violence Policy Center which has tracked the proliferation of the sniper subculture, sees its growth as part of the increasing militarization of the gun industry and its civilian offerings. “No one notices or seems to care that there is an industry actively designing and building the weapons that enable shooters to more effectively commit assassinations and mass shootings,” he said.“The gun industry is designing, building and promoting rifles that are effective at much longer range with the goal of ‘one shot, one kill’.” More

    • 163 Shares52 Views

      in US Politics

      Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling Blacks’ and ‘the great replacement strategy’

      by

      Charlie Kirk, the far-right commentator and ally of Donald Trump, was killed on Wednesday doing what he was known for throughout his career – making incendiary and often racist and sexist comments to large audiences.If it was current and controversial in US politics, chances are that Kirk was talking about it. On his podcasts, and on the podcasts of friends and adversaries, and especially on college campuses, where he would go to debate students, Kirk spent much of his adult life defending and articulating a worldview aligned with Trump and the Maga movement. Accountable to no one but his audience, he did not shy away in his rhetoric from bigotry, intolerance, exclusion and stereotyping.Here’s Kirk, in his own words. Many of his comments were documented by Media Matters for America, a progressive non-profit that tracks conservative media.On race
      If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024

      If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022

      Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023

      If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because affirmative action?
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024
      On debate
      We record all of it so that we put [it] on the internet so people can see these ideas collide. When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence. That’s when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil, and they lose their humanity.
      – Kirk discussing his work in an undated clip that circulated on X after his killing.

      Prove me wrong.
      – Kirk’s challenge to students to publicly debate him during the tour of colleges he was on when he was assassinated.
      On gender, feminism and reproductive rights
      Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.
      – Discussing news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement on The Charlie Kirk Show, 26 August 2025

      The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered.
      – Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded, published on 8 September 2024

      We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 April 2024
      On gun violence
      I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.
      – Event organized by TPUSA Faith, the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA, on 5 April 2023
      On immigration
      America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 22 August 2025

      The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 20 March 2024

      The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 March 2024
      On Islam
      America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank: large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 30 April 2025

      We’ve been warning about the rise of Islam on the show, to great amount of backlash. We don’t care, that’s what we do here. And we said that Islam is not compatible with western civilization.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 24 June 2025
      On religion
      There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.
      – The Charlie Kirk Show, 6 July 2022 More

    • 213 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      They hoped their children’s deaths would bring change. Then a Colorado bill to protect kids online failed

      by

      Bereaved parents saw their hopes for change dashed after a bill meant to protect children from sexual predators and drug dealers online died in the Colorado state legislature last month.Several of those parents had helped shape the bill, including Lori Schott, whose 18-year-old daughter Annalee died by suicide in 2020 after consuming content on TikTok and Instagram about depression, anxiety and suicide.“When the legislators failed to vote and pushed it off onto some fake calendar date where they’re not even in session, to not even have accountability for where they stand – as a parent, it’s a slap in the face,” said Schott, who identifies as a pro-second amendment Republican. “It’s a slap in the face of my daughter, and to other kids that we’ve lost.”Had the legislation passed, it would have required social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to investigate and take down accounts engaged in gun or drug sales or in the sexual exploitation or trafficking of minors. It also mandated the creation of direct hotlines to tech company personnel for law enforcement and a 72-hour response window for police requests, a higher burden than under current law.Additionally, platforms would have had to report on how many minors used their services, how often they did so, for how long and how much those young users engaged with content that violated company policies. Several big tech firms registered official positions on the bill. According to Colorado lobbying disclosures, Meta’s longtime in-state lobby firm, Headwater Strategies, is registered as a proponent for changing the bill. Google and TikTok also hired lobbyists to oppose it.View image in fullscreen“We’re just extremely disappointed,” said Kim Osterman, whose 18-year-old son Max died in 2021 after purchasing drugs spiked with fentanyl from a dealer he met on Snapchat. “[Legislators] chose big tech over protecting children and families.”Colorado legislators agree to hold social media companies responsible for protecting childrenProtections for users of social media (SB 25-086) passed both chambers before being vetoed on 24 April by governor Jared Polis, a Democrat, who cited the bill’s potential to “erode privacy, freedom and innovation” as reasons for his veto. Colorado’s senate voted to override the veto on 25 April, yet those efforts fell apart on 28 April when the state house opted to delay the vote until after the legislative session ended, effectively blocking an override and keeping the bill alive.The bill originally passed the senate by a 29-6 vote and the house by a 46-18 margin. On 25 April, the senate voted 29-6 to override Polis’s veto. Lawmakers anticipated that the house would take up the override later that day. At the time, according to those interviewed, there appeared to be enough bipartisan support to successfully overturn his veto.“It was an easy vote for folks because of what we were voting on: protecting kids from social media companies,” said the senator Lindsey Daugherty, a Democrat and a co-sponsor of the bill. She said she urged house leadership to hold the vote Friday, but they declined: “The speaker knew the governor didn’t want us to do it on Friday, because they knew we would win.”The parents who advocated for the bill attribute its failure to an unexpected, 11th-hour lobbying campaign by a far-right gun owners’ association in Colorado. Two state legislators as well as seven people involved in the legislative process echoed the parents’ claims.An abnormal, last-minute campaign disrupts bipartisan consensusRocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) cast the bill as an instrument of government censorship in texts and emails over the legislation’s provisions against “ghost guns”, untraceable weapons assembled from kits purchased online, which would have been prohibited.RMGO launched massive social media and email campaigns urging its 200,000 members to contact their legislators to demand they vote against the bill. A source with knowledge of the workings of the Colorado state house described the gun group’s social media and text campaigns, encouraging Republicans voters to contact their legislators to demand opposition to the bill, as incessant.“[Legislators] were getting countless calls and emails and being yelled at by activists. It was a full-fledged attack. There was a whole campaign saying: ‘This is a government censorship bill,’” they said.The group’s actions were instrumental in a campaign to deter house Republicans from voting against the veto, resulting in the quashing of the bill, and unexpected from an organization that had been facing funding shortfalls, according to 10 people interviewed who were involved in the design of the bill and legislative process. Sources in the Colorado state house spoke to the Guardian on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal from RMGO.The house had delayed the vote until 28 April, which allowed RMGO time to launch a campaign against the bill over the weekend. When lawmakers reconvened Monday, the house voted 51-13 to postpone the override until after the legislative session ended – effectively killing the effort.View image in fullscreenThe gun activists’ mass text message campaign to registered Republican voters asserted the social media bill would constitute an attempt to “compel social media companies to conduct mass surveillance of content posted on their platforms” to search for violations of Colorado’s gun laws, describing the bill as an attack on first and second amendment rights, according to texts seen by the Guardian.A familiar, aggressive foeFounded in 1996, RMGO claims to have a membership of more than 200,000 activists. It is recognized as a far-right group that takes a “no-compromise” stance on gun rights. Dudley Brown, its founder and leader, also serves as the president of the National Association for Gun Rights, which positions itself further to the right than the National Rifle Association (NRA). RMGO has mounted criticism against the NRA for being too moderate and politically compromising. Critics have described RMGO as “bullies” and “extremists” because of its combative tactics, which include targeting and smearing Democrats and moderate Republicans. The group did not respond to requests for comment on its legislative efforts.RMGO is a well-known presence at the Colorado capitol, typically opposing gun-control legislation. Daugherty described its typical campaign tactics as “scary”. She got rid of her X account after being singled out by the group over her work on a bill to ban assault weapons earlier this year.“When we were running any of the gun bills at the capitol, they put my and some other legislators’ faces on their websites,” she said. A screenshot of a tweet from RMGO showed Daugherty with a red “traitor” stamp on her forehead.The group’s campaign resulted in the spread of misinformation about the bill’s impact on gun ownership rights, sources involved in the legislative process said.“The reason I was in support of the bill, and in support of the override, was it has to do with child trafficking and protecting the kids,” said the senator Rod Pelton, a Republican, who voted in favor of the veto override in the senate. “I just didn’t really buy into the whole second amendment argument.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe bill had enjoyed the backing of all 23 of Colorado’s district attorneys as well as bipartisan state house support.RMGO’s late-stage opposition to the social media bill marked a break from its usual playbook. The group generally weighs in on legislation earlier in the process, according to eight sources, including two of the bill’s co-sponsors, Daugherty and the representative Andy Boesenecker.“They really ramped up their efforts,” Boesenecker said. “It was curious to me that their opposition came in very late and appeared to be very well funded at the end.”In recent years, RMGO group had been less active due to well-documented money problems that limited its ability to campaign on legislative issues. In a 2024 interview, the group’s leaders stated plainly that it struggled with funding. Daugherty believes RMGO would not have been able to embark on such an apparently costly outreach campaign without a major infusion of cash. A major text campaign like the one launched for SB-86 was beyond their financial capacity, she said. Others in Colorado politics agreed.“Rocky Mountain Gun Owners have not been important or effective in probably at least four years in the legislature. They’ve had no money, and then all of a sudden they had tons of money, funding their rise back into power,” said Dawn Reinfeld, executive director of Blue Rising Together, a Colorado-based non-profit focused on youth rights.The campaign made legislators feel threatened, with primary elections in their districts over the weekend, Daugherty said, particularly after accounts on X, formerly Twitter, bombarded the bill’s supporters.View image in fullscreen“Folks were worried about being primaried, mostly the Republicans, and that’s kind of what it came down to,” Daugherty said.Aaron Ping’s 16-year-old son Avery died of an overdose in December after buying what he thought was ecstasy over Snapchat and receiving instead a substance laced with fentanyl. Ping saw the campaign against the bill as an intentional misconstrual of its intent.“It was looking like the bill was going to pass, until all this misinformation about it taking away people’s gun rights because it addresses people buying illegal shadow guns off the internet,” he said.Ping gave testimony in support of the bill in February before the first senate vote, alongside other bereaved parents, teens in recovery and a district attorney.“The bill gave me hope that Avery’s legacy would be to help. So when it didn’t pass, it was pretty soul-crushing,” said Ping.States take up online child-safety bills as federal lawmakers falterSeveral states, including California, Maryland, Vermont, Minnesota, Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, South Carolina and Nevada, have introduced legislation aimed at improving online safety for children in the past two years. These efforts have faced strong resistance from the tech industry, including heavy lobbying and lawsuits.Maryland became the first state to successfully pass a Kids Code bill, signing it into law in May 2024. But the victory may be short-lived: NetChoice, a tech industry coalition representing companies including Meta, Google and Amazon, quickly launched a legal challenge against the measure, which is ongoing.Meanwhile, in the US federal government, the kids online safety act (Kosa), which had wound its way through the legislature for years, died in February when it failed to pass in the House after years of markups and votes. A revamped version of the bill was reintroduced to Congress on 14 May.In California, a similar bill known as the age-appropriate design code act, modeled after UK legislation, was blocked in late 2023. A federal judge granted NetChoice a preliminary injunction, citing potential violations of the first amendment, which stopped the law from going into effect. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Florida students lobby to keep 2018 gun control law in wake of recent shooting

      by

      Florida students who were traumatized by the 2018 Parkland school shooting – and last week’s deadly shooting at Florida State University – are urging lawmakers in the Republican-controlled statehouse not to roll back gun restrictions they passed in the wake of the killing at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school.Gun rights activists have been fighting to unravel the 2018 law since it was passed, including a provision that raised the state’s minimum age to buy a gun to 21. Governor Ron DeSantis and some Republican lawmakers have argued that if an 18-year-old Floridian can serve in the military, they should be able to purchase a firearm.In the wake of the FSU shooting, student activists – including some who were in the vicinity of both mass shootings – were walking the halls of the capitol building in Tallahassee, lobbying lawmakers to support gun control policies in the final two weeks of the legislative session, which is scheduled to end on 2 May.“No one should ever have to experience a school shooting – let alone two – just to have to beg lawmakers to care enough to stop the next one,” said Stephanie Horowitz, who was a freshman at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in 2018 and is now a graduate student at FSU.Two people were killed and six others injured in the shooting last Thursday that terrorized FSU’s campus, about a mile from the state capitol. Logan Rubenstein, a 21-year-old junior at FSU, says it could have been much worse, if a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers had not taken action after Parkland.Rubenstein believes gun restrictions passed by the Florida legislature in 2018 helped prevent the FSU shooter from carrying out more carnage – like what happened at Rubenstein’s high school in Parkland seven years ago.Rubenstein was in eighth grade at nearby Coral Springs middle school when a 19-year-old gunman armed with an AR-15-style rifle killed 17 people and injured 17 others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.Investigators say the suspect in the FSU shooting, a 20-year-old student at the university named Phoenix Ikner, armed himself with a handgun that was the former service weapon of his stepmother, a local sheriff’s deputy. Under the state’s current laws, he could not legally buy a rifle from a federally licensed dealer.“The law that we passed after Parkland worked,” Rubenstein said. “Because if he was able to buy an AR-15, body armor and a bump stock and unlimited ammo, how much more deadly would it have been?”About three weeks before the FSU shooting, the Florida house passed a bill that would lower the state’s minimum age to buy a gun to 18. The proposal had stalled in the state senate even before the FSU shooting, and it appears even less likely to advance now.Still, speaking at a rally with student activists on the steps of Florida’s historic old capitol on Wednesday, the Democratic state senator Tina Polsky said she was not letting up. Polsky, whose district includes Parkland, is among the Democrats who have sponsored gun control bills this session that never got a hearing in the capitol, where Republicans hold a supermajority in both chambers.“I am begging them to do something like we did after the horrific Parkland shooting,” Polsky said. “I don’t know if it’s going to happen. But we will continue to fight.” More

    • 263 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      US government cuts imperil life-saving gun violence research. As doctors, we fear for the future | Jessica Beard and Elinore Kaufman

      by

      We don’t have a reliable count for how many people have been shot in the United States this year. We don’t know how many were shot last year either. Or the year before that. These most basic numbers should inform our gun violence prevention efforts. But they don’t exist.This is the void of information that is created and persists when critical research is suppressed.For those struggling to keep up with our erratic news cycle, what we saw unfold in February at the National Institutes of Health – with communication blackouts, funding freezes and cuts that will obstruct life-saving research efforts – may feel inconsequential. But make no mistake: the peril hanging over our country’s research efforts remains, and we in the gun violence research community are bracing ourselves for a dangerous situation we know all too well.Our field has already experienced the devastating consequences of defunding and censorship. The story of how we got here begins in the 1990s.Buoyed by the success of a public health approach in curbing traffic fatalities, researchers were hopeful that the same approach – track the problem, identify and test solutions, share findings and implement what works – could be used to prevent gun violence. The researchers got to work, and that work advanced rapidly. But some of the findings that emerged – in particular, that owning a gun increased one’s risk of being murdered in one’s home – angered the powerful gun lobby.The late congressman Jay Dickey, who served as the National Rifle Association’s point person in Congress, took up the cause, introducing a provision into an omnibus bill that called for no federal funds to be used “to advocate or promote gun control”. The Dickey Amendment, passed in 1996, did not ban gun violence research outright, but research dollars within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were reallocated, and the search for solutions was reduced to a trickle.Sixteen years later, days after the Aurora theatre mass shooting, Dickey co-authored an op-ed reversing his stance. In it, he urged more scientific research, not less, and stated the truly “senseless” part of gun violence “is to decry these deaths as senseless when the tools exist to understand causes and to prevent these deadly effects”.Six months later – and one month after Sandy Hook – then president Barack Obama directed the CDC to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it”.But even with the public outcry that followed these mass killings, even with Dickey’s reversal, even with the president’s directive, the pause in research continued.In 2018, on the heels of yet another high-profile mass shooting – this one at a high school in Parkland, Florida – then president Donald Trump signed a bill clarifying that the Dickey Amendment did not actually prohibit gun violence research.But it wasn’t until 2021 that these policy changes would lead to the first dedicated federal funding for gun violence research in 25 years. By this time, we lacked the most fundamental tools to support gun violence research: expertise, mentorship, basic data, surveillance and the infrastructure to implement that critical public health approach to address and prevent gun violence.The year the funding returned, 2021, was also the deadliest on record for gun violence in the US: 48,830 lives lost to guns over the span of just 12 months. As trauma surgeons in Philadelphia, we witnessed this heartbreaking moment in our country’s history firsthand. We were bombarded by the dying and the desperate and the so many who were harmed by this disease of gun violence – a disease our government had, for 25 years, not deemed consequential enough to cure.Because the CDC tracks gun deaths but not the total number of people with non-fatal firearm injuries each year, we don’t know exactly how many people were shot during that 25-year funding pause. But we do know that hundreds of thousands of lives were forever altered or lost. And the research community could not ask why, could not ask how, could not find the answers we so desperately needed then and so desperately need now.The suffering of our patients motivates us to do research to prevent gun violence – and the suffering we witnessed during the pandemic-related surge of gun violence very nearly brought us to our knees. We want research to stop our patients from being shot. We want research to stop them from dying.The moment we find ourselves in today is especially painful because with renewed research efforts over the last few years, we had finally begun to untangle the root causes of gun violence and identify and test solutions. We had also been making progress with gun violence prevention policy nationally.Three years ago, with bipartisan support, Congress passed the first major federal legislation addressing gun violence prevention in decades. Two years ago, we saw the creation of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which implemented an all-of-government approach to tackling gun violence. And last year brought the landmark US surgeon general’s advisory, which deemed gun violence a public health crisis that demands attention.What’s more, we’ve seen the rate of gun violence decreasing. Here in Philadelphia, the total number of shooting victims over the last year is down about a third from the same point just before the pandemic.We had so much reason for hope, until January, when the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention was shuttered. Then in February, there were broad attacks on scientific research. And this month, the surgeon general’s gun violence advisory disappeared from the government’s website.We loathe to think of what the next news cycle may bring.We were among the first to document the rise in violence in 2020, anticipating the catastrophic years that would follow. Now, as we watch a cascade of executive orders threaten public health and public safety, as we see fears of economic disempowerment sowed across this country, we trauma surgeons are bracing ourselves for another surge in gun violence.We should be filled with hope, not fear.But here we are, fearing for our patients, for our communities and for the countless many who will die from this preventable and treatable disease of gun violence because the research that could have saved them was defunded and censored yet again.No matter your political allegiances, no matter your life experiences, no matter your job, your income, your religion, your age or your race, we must stand firmly, together, in support of research that will help us understand this disease that causes suffering for so many – and one day, find its cure.

      Dr Jessica Beard is the director of research for the Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting, a Stoneleigh Foundation Fellow, and director of trauma research at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University; Dr Elinore Kaufman is the research director for the division of trauma at the University of Pennsylvania and chair of the Pennsylvania Trauma System Foundation Research Committee. Both are trauma surgeons in Philadelphia. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      White House removes advisory defining gun violence as a public health issue

      by

      The Trump administration has removed former surgeon general Vivek Murthy’s advisory on gun violence as a public health issue from the US Department of Health and Human Services’ website. This move was made to comply with Donald Trump’s executive order to protect second amendment rights, a White House official told the Guardian.The “firearm violence in America” page, where the advisory had been posted, was filled with data and information about the ripple effects of shootings, the prevalence of firearm suicides and the number of American children and adolescents who have been shot and killed. Now, when someone reaches the site they will be met with a “page not found” message.When it was originally released last summer, Murthy’s advisory was met with praise from violence prevention and research groups, and was lambasted by second amendment law centers and advocacy groups that argued the Biden administration was using public health as a cloak to push forward more gun control.“This is an extension of the Biden Administration’s war on law-abiding gun owners. America has a crime problem caused by criminals,” the National Rifle Association (NRA) said in a statement posted to X on 25 July 2024.But Daniel Semenza, a firearm violence researcher with Rutgers University, argues that talking about gun violence through a public health lens is meant to “bring the heat down” about a deeply politicized issue and broaden what prevention can look like.In 2023, nearly 47,000 people died by firearms, most of them suicides.“When people read gun violence is a public health problem, they read guns are a public health problem,” Semenza said. “This idea actually removes the politics from the issue and is an engine to get us on the same page. [The removal] feels like an unnecessary and mean-spirited way to politicize something that people have actively been trying to bring people together on.”The removal of Murthy’s advisory and the rest of the information on the page is one of the thousands of pieces of health information and research removed from federal websites. They include information about vaccines, health risks among youth and gender-based violence, the New York Times reported.Some of these pages have been restored following a court order, and it is unclear whether the removal of the “firearm violence in America” will see the same fate.In response to the Guardian’s question about the removal of webpages, the White House said: “Illegal violence of any sort is a crime issue, and as he again made clear during his recent speech at the Department of Justice, President Trump is committed to Making America Safe Again by empowering law enforcement to uphold law and order.”While researchers and violence prevention advocates have described gun violence – including both suicides and homicides – as a public health issue for more than a decade, it’s only recently that this language has entered mainstream discourse. Experts across the field of violence prevention argue that this updated lens is meant to reflect the widespread impacts of shootings on entire communities and offer solutions to violence beyond law enforcement and firearm restrictions and policy.This new framing has also led to more dollars from federal government offices, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health, for research that could illuminate preventive methods. These efforts were supercharged with the passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, passed in June 2022, which allocated millions of dollars for research into the unseen consequences of shootings. It also allowed researchers to evaluate groups that are working on the ground in the nation’s most underserved communities where shootings happen most.If this work doesn’t continue or is severely pared down, years of progress and gun violence status as a public health is at risk of being lost, Semenza said.“The vernacular of gun violence as a public health issue that has shaped in the last five to 10 years of research and advocacy is under direct threat,” he said. “I’m really disheartened and sad to hear about it. But it’s not because I’m surprised. This is a clear example of this administration pulling the wool over people’s eyes and being disingenuous about the things that harm people who are most vulnerable.” More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Joe Biden issues ‘full and unconditional’ pardon to son Hunter

      by

      Joe Biden has issued “a full and unconditional” pardon to his son Hunter Biden covering convictions on federal gun and tax charges, the US president said in a statement released by the White House on Sunday.The decision marks a reversal for the president, who had repeatedly said he would not use his executive authority to pardon his son or commute his sentence.Hunter Biden was scheduled to be sentenced for his conviction on federal gun charges on 12 December. He was scheduled to be sentenced in the tax case four days later.In the statement, Joe Biden said that he had long maintained that he would “not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted”.But, he argued, “it is clear that Hunter was treated differently”, adding that the charges in the case “came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election”.Hunter Biden was found guilty in Delaware in June on three felony counts relating to his purchase of a handgun in 2018. He had written on his gun-purchase form, falsely, that he was not a user of illicit drugs.He pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges in Los Angeles in September, opting for an “open” plea, where a defendant pleads guilty to the charges and leaves his sentencing fate in the hands of the judge.The tax charges carried up to 17 years behind bars and the gun charges were punishable by up to 25 years, though federal sentencing guidelines were expected to call for far less time and it was possible the president’s son would have avoided prison time entirely.The pardon covers all “offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted”.Joe Biden said on Sunday evening that his son had been prosecuted when “without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form”.He noted in the statement that “those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions”.Biden accused his political opponents of singling out his 54-year-old son.“No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong,” he said.“There has been an effort to break Hunter – who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.”Biden departed for Angola later on Sunday evening for what may be his last foreign trip as president before leaving office.Speculation had been mounting that the president would issue a pardon since Hunter was seen with his father in Nantucket over the Thanksgiving break.Donald Trump had said in October that he would not be surprised if Hunter Biden were to receive a pardon.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I wouldn’t take it off the books,” Trump said. “See, unlike Joe Biden, despite what they’ve done to me, where they’ve gone after me so viciously … And Hunter’s a bad boy.”On Sunday, Trump reacted with outrage, writing on his social network: “Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years? Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!” Just one day earlier, though, Trump had reminded Americans that he himself had previously used the pardon power to wipe away convictions of those close to him. In his final weeks in office, Trump pardoned Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in law, Jared Kushner, as well as multiple allies convicted in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. On Saturday, Trump announced plans to nominate the elder Kushner to be the US ambassador to France.Republicans have long zeroed in on Hunter Biden’s difficulties – questions around lucrative foreign consultancies, broken relationships and a crack cocaine addiction – in an effort to politically damage his father.A laptop Hunter Biden left in a Delaware repair shop that made its way into Republican hands formed a scandal in the closing days of the 2020 election. Republicans claimed that the so-called “laptop from hell”, which featured images of Hunter posing with guns, sex workers and crack cocaine, was suppressed by media favorable to Democrats.Hunter Biden later published a book, Beautiful Things: a Memoir, that detailed his struggles as a drug addict. The Biden family denied more serious accusations that Hunter’s profitable financial arrangements with businesspeople in Ukraine and China amounted to graft using the family name.James Comer, one of the Republicans leading congressional investigations into Biden’s family, denounced the pardon. “The charges Hunter faced were just the tip of the iceberg in the blatant corruption that President Biden and the Biden Crime Family have lied about to the American people,” Comer wrote on X. “It’s unfortunate that, rather than come clean about their decades of wrongdoing, President Biden and his family continue to do everything they can to avoid accountability.”“I have admitted and taken responsibility for my mistakes during the darkest days of my addiction – mistakes that have been exploited to publicly humiliate and shame me and my family for political sport,” Hunter Biden said in a statement on Sunday, adding he had remained sober for more than five years.“In the throes of addiction, I squandered many opportunities and advantages … I will never take the clemency I have been given today for granted and will devote the life I have rebuilt to helping those who are still sick and suffering.”Hunter Biden’s legal team filed Sunday night in both Los Angeles and Delaware asking the judges handling his gun and tax cases to immediately dismiss them, citing the pardon.In the statement announcing the pardon, Joe Biden said that for his “entire career” he had followed a simple principle: to tell the truth to the American people.“Here’s the truth: I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice – and once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a president would come to this decision.”Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report. More