I have felt great sadness for the victims, families and cities which have suffered mass shootings. I have been to Gilroy, California; I have been to El Paso, Texas, but the latest one literally hit home. I was born and grew up in Dayton, Ohio. We raised our kids there.

The Oregon District in Dayton is a wonderful community where our son worked while he was attending college. We ate dinner in the restaurants and saw a movie at the theater there. My sister and I shopped for vintage earrings for my birthday there, and my neighbors sold their house and moved into a loft there. We felt perfectly safe, as, I am sure, the people who gathered for a good time there did on Saturday night until nine were shot and 27 injured by a 22-year old with an assault-style rifle in approximately 20 seconds.

The president wants us to believe that “Guns don’t kill; people do.” Of course, we need to do something to help those people with mental illness, and to keep guns out of their hands, but there needs to be gun control legislation to prevent anyone from buying the assault type of guns that are — not for hunting — not for target shooting — but have killed and wounded so many, in no time at all, over and over again. In Dayton, the shooter got off 41 shots in the less than 30 seconds that it took for the police to stop him. He was equipped to fire many, many more rounds before those first responders put their lives in danger to run toward the shooting and to stop him.

Please tell your legislators to ignore partisanship and the NRA and pass legislation to keep those assault-type guns out of the hands of anyone. Then, those who died or were wounded at Columbine, Sandy Hook First Grade, Margery Stoneman Douglas High School, Gilroy, El Paso, Dayton, and all the other scenes of violence by mass shooters, perhaps, will not have died in vain.

(21) comments


The gun lobby and the politicians they support: Donald Trump, John Thune, Mike Rounds, Kristi Noem, etc... have blocked common sense steps we can take after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, after the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, and after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. The mass shooting will continue unless we act.

We're only powerless against gun violence because we choose to be.


dmilroy: You keep putting forward political sound bites. You write as if you possess the magic knowledge of how to stop the gun violence. But you never offer a plan with contingencies . You offer nothing for problem solving. Keep being the broken record, you're good at it.

You whine about being the victim by being the minority side of political debate and then claim that we are powerless against gun violence because we choose to be. You are the only one choosing to be powerless because of your despair about being in the minority of an issue. The weakness of your argument is that you do not provide a plan that reduces gun violence while maintaining the 2nd Amendment Rights of people who have done nothing wrong. How can we count on what you see as common sense as actually being common sense when you do not provide a plan.

Similar to Sen Gillibrand's response when asked , as President how would you reduce gun violence? Her response is through legislation and executive order. Never states what legislation she would bring forward or support and never states what the contents of the executive order(s) will be. How can you find confidence in that?


DLJohnson reducing gun violence doesn't take magic. It takes action. Actions like: 1)Closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands. 2)Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. 3)Making schools safer. 4)Increasing access to mental health services. 4)Passing - Extreme Risk Protection Orders: a process by allowing families, household members, or law enforcement officers to petition a court directly for an extreme risk protection order (ERPO) which temporarily restricts a person’s access to guns. 5)Allow federal research on gun violence and 6)more... https://www.preventioninstitute.org/focus-areas/preventing-violence-and-reducing-injury/preventing-violence-advocacy

Your assertion that the gun lobby represent a majority of Americans is false. https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/ The machine guns laws show regulating firearms does not violate the 2nd Admendment.

Ignoring the latest mass shootings like we did Columbine and Sandy Hook is wrong. The gun lobby is counting pessimism and fatalism to triumph over common sense. We are only powerless if we choose to be. We can reduce gun violence!


Holy cow, sounds like you just explained Trumpism: we have a plan to make a plan about planning a plan that will be the best plan EVER!


dmilroy: Let us discuss your list. 1) What loop holes do you want to close on background checks? Do you want to extend that to transfers of firearms between unlicensed individuals in the same state? Federal law already exists covering transfer across state lines.

2) Ban military type assault weapon with high capacity magazines. Are you actually indicating any semi-automatic rifle, including the Ruger 10/22 .22 cal rifle with box magazine?

3) Making Schools safe. This one confused me a little bit. Are you actually indicating the hardening of the school building limiting access? Or are you indicating training for staff to recognize and to act on evidence of individuals experiencing emotional or psychological crisis.

4) Increasing access to mental health. Are you indicating making it easier to access and receive treatment in a timely manner on a voluntary basis? Or, are you indicating streamlining the emergency committal process?

5) Passing Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO). This one has promise. How do you propose rural and small populated areas will pay for the storage and safeguard of the firearms seized?

6) Allow Federal research on gun violence. Is in't this already complied by the FBI?

Please refer to the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 and its amendments referring to the 2nd Amendment.


1) Universal background checks means - all sales. 2) All firearm designed as military weapons & all high capacity magazines. 3) Limiting access, training staff, adult support, positive peer groups, a welcoming school environment, student commitment to education, etc... 4) Both. 5) Why do you think the cost will be significant? 6) No. In 1996 the gun lobby past the The Dickey Amendment. It mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control." https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599773911/how-the-nra-worked-to-stifle-gun-violence-research The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) and its amendments banned the civilian ownership of new machine guns. FOPA shows gun regulations don't violate the 2nd Amendment.


dmilroy: 1) ATF does not require ATF Form 4473 on transactions between private individuals while occurring within the same state both individuals live which also means no background check. What procedure would you put in place to allow private individuals access to the NCIC system for the background check? Would it be through the ATF or local law enforcement? How will this affect the safe guards of the NCIC System.

2) The AR-15 is not a military weapon. It is a civilian weapon, same caliber but lacking selective fire switch, and bayonet stud. What do you consider high capacity magazine ( 3, 5, 10, 20 rds and etc.)

3) Is this a gun control issue, educational issue, mental health issue or a socialization issue. How do you produce student commitment to education. Are you talking attitude adjustment or indoctrination.

4) A lot of advocacy groups may oppose this due to concerns of civil rights violations.

5) Whoever seizes the weapon becomes liable for the weapon. Requires secure storage for the weapon and care of the weapon. The entity that seized the weapon is responsible for any damage sustained by the weapon while in their possession. The weapon is still the property of the person it was seized from until altered by court order. Lose one law suit for losing or damage to property in your care and then you will understand. Would probably fall on the County, City, Sheriff and or Chief of Police. ( In reality on the tax payers).

6) You keep going back to machine guns. You make it sound like no one in American owns a machine gun. Well there are plenty of old machine guns lawfully owned by people who have a clean background, are mentally stable and who can afford the cost of a FFL required for each. You don't have to worry about the legal owners of machine guns. You have to worry about the criminal/bad guys illegally possessing them.

Dumb question, Why would you want to take money from the CDC intended for the treatment for sickness or injury from disease to promote gun control? If you are suggesting that gun violence is a disease how about giving everyone and injection that would cure it?


dmilroy: You keep mentioning gun laws regarding machine guns from the 1930's and the FOPA 1986 and its amendments banning civilian ownership of new machine guns. You appear to want to set the false impression that machine guns are not owned by civilians in the United states.

The National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association received the following information from the ATF in response to a freedom of information act (FIOA) request in 2016. A total 175,977 machine guns are owned by private citizens in the United States. These machine guns are pre 1986 and are transferable to other private citizens that pass the ATF background check and registration process. Another 297,667 are owned by Civilian Government Agencies and 17,020 are owned by gun dealers as sales sample. Nearly half a million machine guns lawfully owned and registered by civilians in the United States. https://www.nfatca.org/pubs/MG_Count_FOIA_2016.pdf.

The only thing we don't know, how many machine guns and other illegal weapons have been smuggled in to the United States across our southern boarder by gangs such as MS13. It is not the lawfully owned/possessed machine guns that we have to worry about, its is the illegally owned/possessed ones that we need to be worried about. Remember, criminals will not submit to a Universal Background Check. Criminals will not be deterred by new gun laws.


DLJohnson 1)I don't know. I'm sure reasonal procedures can be determined. 2)In 1956, ArmaLite designed a lightweight selective fire rifle for military use and designated it the ArmaLite Rifle model 15, or AR-15. https://gundigest.com/reviews/the-ar-16m16-the-rifle-that-was-never-supposed-to-be 3) How is limiting access to schools, training staff, adult support, positive peer groups, a welcoming school environment, student commitment to education, etc... indoctrination? 4)Streamlining the emergency committal process can be done in ways that respects civil rights. Making it easier to access and receive mental health treatment in a timely manner guantees civil rights of those with mental illness. 5) Again Why do you think the cost will be significant? 6)Congress did not ban funding for gun control, they banned all funding research into gun violence that MAY BE used to advocate or promote gun control. Instead of studying gun violence, they decided to burry their heads in the sand.

The regulation of machine guns show we can reduce gun violence without banning firearms. The deaths in America caused by bad guys with machine guns is very small due to regulations.


You can't "legislate" guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies, you have to physically take them from them. So unless our Congress is willing to suit up and put their boots on the ground, nothing will change. Pass all the useless laws and regulations you want, and we will still see mass shootings on a regular basis. Meanwhile, what about the thousands of people who die every day from other means?


Chromedome42 Your assertion "You can't "legislate" guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies" is refuted by America's regulation of machine guns in the 1930's. We don't stand by an claim to be powerless to reduce deaths caused by Heart disease, Smoking, Car Accidents, etc... Why should are we powerless to reduce deaths caused by guns?


Here are some facts about unnecessary, preventable deaths not attributed to gun violence. Why are we not having a National conversation over all this?

According to a recent study by Johns Hopkins, more than 250,000 people in the United States die every year because of medical mistakes, making it the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer.Feb 22, 2018


Alcohol-Related Deaths:

An estimated 88,0008 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States.


Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.


America’s drug crisis is getting worse. According to newly published figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 70,237 deaths from drug overdoses across the United States last year, a record high. Between 2016 and 2017, the overall rate of overdose deaths increased 9.6% while the death rate from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl grew by a shocking 45%. In 1999, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths in the U.S. was 6.1 per 100,000 people and that soared to 21.7 in 2017.



chromedome42, You logic is not sound. Because many unnecessary, preventable deaths are not attributed to gun violence, does not mean that we should ignore the unnecessary, preventable deaths due to gun violence.


dmilroy; Nowhere did I say that we should ignore deaths by gun violence, nor did I say that we are powerless, you used those words. My meaning is clear, this is not the 1930's. You could destroy every single gun on Earth tonight, and by tomorrow morning someone would be shot to death. Give me a 3D printer and I can make 4 or 5 guns overnight. You see the problem? The genie is out of the bottle. Knee jerk reactions after every shooting are counter productive and do nothing to change the atmosphere.


Chromedome42 Because we can't end all gun violence does not mean we should do nothing. There was no whole sale confiscation of Machine guns in the 1930's. They were heavily regulated and deaths due to machine guns fell sharply. https://www.npr.org/2016/06/30/484215890/prohibition-era-gang-violence-spurred-congress-to-pass-first-gun-law


Chromedome42, I assumed your post about preventable deaths was related to the topic of gun violence rather than an fyi.


DLJohnson The P&D's comment section is clunky and I cannot reply to your comment directly. I didn't intend to mislead you about machine gun regulations. Civilians own lots of machine guns but due to the regulations, their use by bad guys is very small. Machine gun regulations show we can reduce gun violence. It is far more likely that firearms are being smuggled to Mexico that into the US. https://www.insightcrime.org/investigations/gunrunners/


dmilroy: You kind of made my point with your post. There are many people who own assault type weapons. There is relatively a small number of people who use them to murder or mass murder, you consider them the bad guys. I'm all for penalizing the bad guys. I am not for penalizing the good guys. Regulating machine guns only reduce gun violence involving machine guns. Gun violence continued. The majority of mass shootings have involved handguns. You choose to combat the tools (weapons) people use to kill. I believe that combating what causes people to kill, the why, will have more of an impact on reducing gun violence because we will be addressing the cause of violence.


DLJohnson, Of course mass shooters are bad guys. You admit we can reduce gun violence. You understand the killing power of firearms but refuse to do anything but blame video games. We are only powerless to reduce gun violence if we again choose to do nothing. Enough is enough!


dmilroy: You purposely mis-characterize my comments to try to fit the narrative of your propaganda. Restricting certain weapons only reduces the involvement of those weapons in gun violence with LITTLE impact on the overall level of gun violence. In other words, you remove a tool from those on a path to violence will only result in them changing the tool. In the mean time you will be penalizing law bidding citizen owners of weapons who have done nothing wrong.

You do not want to do the hard work of combating the cause of violence to reduce violence. We can call that doing nothing. And that makes you powerless because you choose to be. And that makes you a road block to common sense steps to reduce gun violence. Is your comment, enough is enough, a sign of surrender?

Gun laws did little to stop the criminal in Philadelphia from shooting up 6 cops. I'm sure the criminal shooter did not submit to a background check before obtaining his weapon(s). Maybe that is not important to you because it was cops who were shot up. But it is a good example in of the flaws in your stance of the cure through universal background checks.

Watching video of the conduct of the people in that area made it painfully obvious that it was not important to them that it was 6 cops that got shot. The video of their conduct shows that Philadelphia is no longer the City of Brotherly Love.

Keep on your trek to add more and more power to the criminals and gangs because new gun laws won't deter them. And keep taking power away from the law bidding citizen because new gun laws will affect them.


You admit gun regulations reduce violence in the type of weapon being regulate. You argue that regulations "penalizing law bidding citizen owners of weapons who have done nothing wrong." We know that is not accuracte because as you note "A total 175,977 machine guns are owned by private citizens in the United States." Regulations work to reduce gun violence by taking killing power out of the hands of bad guys while letting responsible law abidding citizens keep their weapons.

The shooting in Philadephia of 6 police officers is another example of why we need to address gun violence. If the criminal gunman did not have access to highpower firearms with high-capacity magazines, he would not have been able to shoot so many and terrorize a major American city for 8 hours.

You write that you are not powerless. That you will not only protect you own family from gun violence but others as well. Yet, you've provide no solutions other than blaming video games. When I provide concrete steps to reduce gun violence, you accuse me of not doing the hard work of combating the causes of violence. Your idea that we should wait for criminals to agree to new gun laws before we act defies common sense. Not only can we reduce mass shooting, but as Americans, it is also our duty.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.