Cracked, from July 2012 (Newtown was December 2012):
The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control
"Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People"
I almost didn't include this, because it's such a silly and empty dodge of the real conversation behind it. I hear and read it so often, though, that I decided to include it. You can tell by you reading this now. Here I am, including it.
Perry Bacon Jr/Five Thirty Eight:
How The Media Bungled The John Kelly Story
The media narrative around Kelly’s appointment had two central ideas, one outward- and one inward-facing: He would calm and professionalize the White House, and he would provide a more measured leadership style than his boss. Kelly’s views on policy were largely downplayed — he would simply be implementing Trump’s agenda and was “non-ideological” and “apolitical” anyway.
But the media got it wrong, myself included. Kelly seems to have deeply-held views, particularly on immigration, that he has asserted — and they are not those of the McCain-like GOP establishment. Unlike past chiefs of staff, he hasn’t been careful to avoid bombastic comments. There was the attack on Wilson. But more recently, Kelly suggested that undocumented immigrants who had not yet signed up for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program were “lazy.” He has also praised Confederate general Robert E. Lee. You might even call Kelly’s rhetoric Trumpian.
Harvard School of Public Health:
Guns & Suicide The Hidden Toll
The public health message is neither anti-gun nor pro-gun. It’s pro-data.
David Roberts/Vox:
Why mass shootings don't convince gun owners to support gun control
It's not even clear that opinions on guns and gun violence remain amenable to argument. Over the past few decades, gun ownership in the US has evolved from a practical issue for rural homeowners and hunters to a kind of gesture of tribal solidarity, an act of defiance toward Obama, the left, and all the changes they represent. The gun lobby has become more hardened and uncompromising, pushing guns into schools, churches, and universities.
This has taken place in the context of a broader and deeper polarization of the country, as Red America and Blue America have become more ideologically homogeneous and distant from one another. The two sides are now composed of people who quite literally think and feel differently — and are less and less able to communicate. The gun issue is a salient example, but far from the only one.
This suggests that if the status quo on guns in the US is to change, it will be through overwhelming political force, not through evidence and argument. Guns have now ascended to the level of worldview and identity, areas largely beyond the reach of persuasion.
This is likely true. And/but you can make it worse with shame (which won’t work.)
David Brooks/NY Times says a lot of things wrong including in this piece, but this bit is right:
In a session Lawson attended, a Trump supporter acknowledged that the G.O.P. has had a spotty record on racial matters, but it’s important to him that Blues know that’s not why he holds his opinions.
Doherty says that the Reds feel shamed by the Blues to a much greater degree than the Blues realize. Reds are very reluctant to enter into a conversation with Blues, for fear of further shaming, but they often come to the table when they are told that this will be a chance to “de-monsterize” themselves.
At that session one Blue said she was really grateful to hear a Red acknowledge the Republican history on race. When Blues are asked about the stereotypes thrown at them, they tend to list “against religion and morality,” “unpatriotic” and “against personal responsibility” among their responses. They, too, relish the chance to clear the air.
Paul Waldman/WaPo:
Republicans may finally be feeling the heat on guns
More importantly, even if he [Donald Trump] does support the bill Cornyn and Murphy have written, it would be only a small step toward saner gun laws. If you suspect that Cornyn wouldn’t support a gun law if it did all that much, you’d be right. This bill was proposed in the wake of the mass shooting in a church in Sutherland Springs, Tex., last November, when we learned that the Air Force failed to report the shooter’s domestic violence conviction to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Because of that oversight, he was able to purchase the guns he used to kill 26 people. The bill reiterates the requirements of federal agencies to report infractions to the NICS and offers incentives for states to do the same.
In other words, it doesn’t change the shape of federal gun laws at all. It isn’t a bad thing, but it’s just about the least you could do if, say, you’re a Republican wanting to make it seem like you’re taking action on guns without doing much of anything. It’s so modest even the National Rifle Association doesn’t oppose it. …
As before, the key question is whether Republicans will stand in the way. And whether, if they do, the voters will toss them out of office and put in representatives who actually believe this is a problem we ought to be trying to solve.
Mark Pazniokas/CT Mirror with a look at a blue state that might turn red:
Weighing unpopular governor against unpredictable president
“Of course, Connecticut is in play in the governor’s race,” said Mark Bergman, a Democratic consultant whose clients have included Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, the Democrat leaving office with one of the lowest approval ratings of any U.S. governor. “But that being said, I feel a lot better about our chance in Connecticut than I did on Nov. 6, 2016.
That was the day before Donald J. Trump was elected president.
One of the great ironies in politics is that the election of a Republican president has injected uncertainty into what had seemed to be an inexorable, 10-year march by the GOP from irrelevance to dominance at the State Capitol. Anger at Trump now competes with dissatisfaction over Democrats’ stewardship of the state’s finances and economy.
Greg Sargent/WaPo with some uncomfortable speculation:
Writing at Crooked Media, Brian Beutler points to a deep tension in the media debate over the Mueller indictment. Observers are struggling to come to terms with how extensive the Russian sabotage effort really was, while simultaneously avoiding grappling with whether it might have helped tip an extremely close election to Trump — an uncomfortable topic, because that might place a question mark over Trump’s legitimacy.
And that raises another related uncomfortable question — a forward-looking one. Trump and his media allies have gone to enormous lengths to discredit and hamstring a full reckoning into what happened. Numerous Republicans in Congress have perverted and weaponized the oversight process to lend an assist to that effort. Because Trump refuses to take Russian sabotage of the 2016 presidential election seriously, Trump is conspicuously failing to organize a response to the threat of Russian meddling in upcoming elections, even though intelligence officials warn this effort is already upon us.
Finally, Storify may be going away bout tweet storms are still with us. I wrote one, an update, for Parkland, FL, the link is to the one page version.
Matt Grossmann/NY Times:
Missing Conservatism? Just Wait for a Democratic President
The typical conservative cycle runs from backlash to embrace to disappointment — and we are right on schedule. After opposing government expansion and social change under Democratic presidents, conservatives typically give new Republican presidents the benefit of the doubt. By the time of the next counterattack against a new Democrat, historical revisionism sets in: Republican leaders are seen as part of the problem, being too accommodating to liberalism and selling out their principles.
The cycle is born of the infeasibility of conservative goals, especially the American right’s attempt to reverse the growth of the welfare and administrative state (which even the world’s most right-wing parties accept) and its tendency to start unwinnable culture wars against inevitable change (a typical conservative foible). The public shares conservatives’ broad desire for limiting government growth and social upheaval, but that does not translate into support for specific policies to achieve those goals. The international and historical norm is that the size and scope of government grow over time and new social changes are codified; conservative resistance slows this liberal policy drift but does not reverse it.