Nothing that consumes the rest of us matters, again, this time to hundreds of students and their families at Evergreen High School.
The Epstein files, FBI gaffes and the future of TikTok do not matter today for the families of two students injured when they were shot at school in Evergreen last week. The shootings have likewise consumed the hundreds of students and their families who were terrified during the gunfire, taking the events of Sept. 11, 2025 with them for the rest of their lives.
Mattering least of all are the meaningless, hollow and cruel offerings of “thoughts and prayers” from political leaders who tout their five-star rating from the National Rifle Association for working to undermine gun-control laws that might have spared two injured students and the life of the student gunman, and lives lost every day to guns all over the nation.
The Evergreen shooting victims join the millions of other parents and children terrorized every day by the thought of being inside the next school, the next classroom, chosen by a shooter with a gun on a mission to kill.
The Evergreen school shooting also affected students, teachers and parents who suffered similar aching losses that have previously struck Aurora, Littleton, Boulder, Highlands Ranch, Bailey and Arapahoe County, as well as dozens of schools across the nation.
Each time someone guns down people in a store, a school, a theater or even a town square, past victims and families are terrorized again, along with the rest of us.
These past surviving school shooting victims and their families remember back to the “thoughts and prayers” they, too, received from people like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and GOP Senate Minority Leader John Thune and a long list of fellow Republicans and Democrats alike who have offered nothing else to stem the plague of gun violence in the nation.
Instead, the country has for years been awash in political leaders who gaslight the nation by insisting that it’s not the guns.
Only liars and fools hold onto that trembling thread of nonsense.
Of course it’s the guns.
It’s the guns, the lack of mental health care, the lack of education, the poverty and our national obsession with violence. But more than anything, the easy access and promotion of handguns, assault rifles, tactical gear and more are what have led to the shooting of more than 100,000 Americans each year and become the leading cause of death among children and teens in the country.
Facts compiled by Brady United from the Centers for Disease Control reveal just how much it is the guns in this country:
Every day, 327 people are shot in the United States. Among those:
• 117 people die from their gunshot wounds
• 210 survive gunshot injuries
• 23 are minors
• 95 are intentionally shot by someone else and survive
• 46 are murdered
• 67 die from gun suicide
• 1 is killed unintentionally
• 90 are shot unintentionally and survive
Americans are 26 times more likely to be shot and killed than people in any other high-income country. There are more gun dealers than McDonald’s restaurants. There are 126 guns for every 100 Americans.
It’s the guns that are killing us and they come from an industry that makes billions promoting a misguided rewriting of history, implying that the founding fathers of the nation somehow supported our right to murder each other by the tens of thousands each year.
All of the survivors of gun violence, and the friends and families of those who were slaughtered, do not care about the deceitful and irrelevant excuses offered by craven political leaders who care only about gaining power, remaining in power by appeasing the minority of Americans who believe guns are not a problem and the gun industries that prop up these soulless “leaders.”
The only thing preventing the nation from escaping endless shootings and massacres is signaling that those who refuse to act against the gun industry to protect Americans will be removed at the ballot box from power.
It means people who normally sit out the trouble it takes to vote or who shrug their shoulders when confronted with pro-gun-industry propaganda and lies can no longer stand on the sidelines.
Few things are as certain in this world as the absolute guarantee that if a majority of American voters push back against elected leaders refusing to budge on gun control, gun control will come swiftly and widely.
But until those who refuse to succumb to our national fate as withering victims of gun massacres, school shootings and violence become the majority on Election Day, the gun industry, their lobbyists, their bullies and their lackeys will continue to offer thoughts and prayers to the tens of thousands of shooting victims they do nothing for each year.
Funny how Colorado passes gun restriction after gun restriction, claiming “this time we did something!” and somehow deaths from guns don’t stop.
Same hysteria that got Prohibition passed, and it will have the same result. As for school shootings, if the media hadn’t crafted a false narrative about bullying being the cause, it wouldn’t have become a touch point for every outcast and malcontent in the last 25 years to justify it.
America is too cowardly to go the way of Australia and just melt them all. We can repeal Constitutional amendments. We’ve done it before – we can do it again.
We may have to repeal the Second Amendment – the problem being that it has nothing to do with gun control. It has to do with people who don’t look into what the amendment was about.
The Amendment was written to guarantee the existence of armed militias. It had nothing to do with individuals owning firearms, outside of any connection to militia service. It was written while most of the population, who were originally Englishmen, relied on the militia for military protection (as well as a host of other things). It is written in a style that Americans understood at the time, but we don’t use today. (All languages and language usage change over time.)
The late Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Warren Burger, called the NRA claims about the Amendment’s purpose a “fraud”.
He was right.
Re: “The Amendment was written to guarantee the existence of armed militias.
No, the purpose of all the Amendments including the 2nd was clearly stated by the founding fathers in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights where it specifically states: “The convention of a number of states having at the time of their adopting of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse, of its powers that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”
Re: “It had nothing to do with individuals owning firearms, outside of any connection to militia service”
If that were true it would have said the right of the “militia” or the “state” or the “state militia” and NOT the “right of the people”
Also according to 10 USC 246 there are 2 types of militias – organized and unorganized. The National Guard is part of the organized militia and everyone who is not in the organized militia is in the unorganized militia. So technically all citizens are serving in the militia.
However this is really irrelevant as the SCOTUS Heller decision ruled gun ownership is an individual right independent of membership in a militia.
Re: “The late Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Warren Burger, called the NRA claims about the Amendment’s purpose a “fraud””
And Chief Justices can be wrong. Apparently he never read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights
If you were right, one would think the Congress that approved it would have been clear about it. Read the debates from the House of Representatives. For that matter, read the original proposed text of the amendment, which contained the provision that conscientious objectors would not be compelled to render militia service in person. Why would a conscientious objector need an exemption?
Because the entire amendment is military in purpose. In none of the congressional records that survive did the Representatives even suggest the amendment concerned more than the militia.
You elide the fact that the Constitution established a standing army. And that was of FAR more concern than any “personal right” to own firearms.
The whole point of firearm ownership was for personal protection, dingbat. In medieval Europe, common citizens weren’t allowed to own weapons because they would have been considered a threat to the nobility. After they came to the US, those colonists had to become familiar with firearms if they lived in frontier areas due to the need for survival.
There’s no argument that the militia isn’t already “well-regulated” because there are dozens of federal and state laws already on the books for their purchase and use.
The latest school shooting wasn’t even done with those EBIL ASSAULT RIFLES your side is always spazzing about. It was done with a revolver. You dips going to outlaw speedloaders now, too?
But ultimately, school shootings come down to your lefty allies in the media doing their bog-standard “oppressed/oppressor” lying narrative that “jock bullying” caused the Columbine shooting and turning it into a justification for future school shooters, when the reality is that Harris was a sociopath and Klebold was simply a follower that went along with whatever he did.
Lefty Supreme Court judges have always wanted the peasants to be disarmed. Firearm ownership is the essence of the class struggle.
Re: “The whole point of firearm ownership was for personal protection”
Not true. As the Preamble to the Bill of Rights states it is to deter or “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (i.e. the government’s) powers”.
The other “points” people state for “ownership” are corollaries to the main reason that exist because if you have “arms” to deter or “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the government’s powers, you can also use them to hunt, target shoot or for self defense.
Re: “You dips going to outlaw speedloaders now, too?”
Not sure who your post is aimed at. I never said anything about outlawing any firearms or firearm accessories
“Not true. As the Preamble to the Bill of Rights states it is to deter or “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (i.e. the government’s) powers”.
You do realize that personal firearm ownership, when they could be acquired, preceded the Bill of Rights for about 150 years, yes?
“Not sure who your post is aimed at. I never said anything about outlawing any firearms or firearm accessories”
You really need to figure out how a comment thread works.
Re: ” America is too cowardly to go the way of Australia”
The homicide rate in Australia was decreasing before the 1996 ban and continued to decrease at the same rate afterwards for a short period and then leveled off. If it had really made a difference it would have decreased significantly and not leveled off. In addition since the 1996 ban (during 1997 to 2010 period) the number of guns grew by 45% (back to pre-ban levels) and the population grew by 19%, and as I said the homicide rate leveled off and if it was really about guns it should have drastically increased. A logical conclusion as to why this occurred is because only law abiding citizens honored and participated in the buyback
LOL, we actually did repeal an amendment restricting alcohol, which kills 2.5 times more people than firearms. But I realize you lefties are okay with THOSE deaths.
Something doesn’t fit here: The same editorial board that advocates the reduction of gun violence by getting rid of guns is also complaining about restrictions on their right to openly and freely celebrate their latest successful political assassination by a gun.
You need to reacquaint yourself with reality. Your claim is not only wrong, it is also puerile.
Grow up.
Congratulations on calling out the problem. Will part II be the solution? As in do you have a way to remove these weapons? All I hear is “confiscate” when this comes up. Which is fine, but who’s gonna do it? In rural America, that would likely fall to deputies. Is Deputy John really going to go knock on Uncle Bill’s door and tell him that he can’t keep his 9mm and his deer rifle? Nope, because he’s not going to give his up either.
How about we enforce the gun laws that are out there, and stop antagonizing firearms owners by passing other laws that are meaningless and will have little effect.
Want to really stop the problem? Mandatory life in prison for anyone who kills anyone else with a firearm not in a clear self defense situation with no exceptions, and enforce it on the first strike. Add 25 years in prison for anyone commiting a robbery with a firearm. And enforce it. Kill 2 people-death penalty. And enforce it.
And add to that the mental health services that we desperately need, and the problem will be reduced rather quickly without affecting a single legal gun owner.
What color is the sky in your world?
Yeah, Jeffy-poo is all for gun control. He’s for his side controlling the guns so his political opponents can’t offer any resistance.
Pretty telling that passive-aggressive belch was your response to a post with actual policy proposals. But since your side cheers political assassinations now, it’s not all that surprising.
Thank you for calling out the elephant in the room. First, I come from the sticks and used to own and use 20 different guns and rifles. Most came from my Grandpa and were solely used for hunting. I’ve never thought I needed a weapon for protection. We hunted deer with shotguns (by law we used slugs), muzzleloaders, and I also used a bow. My Grandpa and Dad were safety-conscious, so I understand how to use them safely. But I’ve since decided that as I grew older and moved to the city, I no longer enjoyed hunting that much, so I got rid of them all! But when the article pointed out the ubiquity of guns and our lack of inhibition to grab a gun and use it to solve a dispute, soothe our isolation, or solve some other perceived personal issue, I realized that I completely agreed with the author. In the UK, a gun owner must have a license to own a gun, must possess a valid reason to own it, and must store it in a locked cabinet. Many handguns and long guns are banned. It doesn’t interfere with hunting with a gun or the freedom of citizens to voice their opinions and vote, so why are we so afraid to reduce the number we own or to legislate registration and storage laws? Each day in the US, many people grab a gun that is way too handy in an attempt to solve some perceived threat. I submit that if we Americans logically reviewed our “need” to own so many guns, and subsequently reduced the number we own, there would be a reduction in deaths and severe injuries. All we have to do is listen closely to emergency room personnel to learn about the catastrophic deaths and injuries that prevail in our society!
Re: “I submit that if we Americans logically reviewed our “need” to own so many guns… there would be a reduction in deaths and severe injuries”
The problem you have is that in 2016 (for example) there were 667300 violent criminals in state prisons and 20900 in federal prisons. This works out to a total of 688200 or about 0.214% of the US population which means that about 1 out of every 466 people in the US that have been caught have no qualms about ignoring whatever laws you pass and killing or injuring someone and the gun is often their tool of choice. So the bottom line is (1) The human race in the US produces a few bad individuals prone to violence who just refuse to play by whatever rules you promulgate and until you find some way to identify these individuals and the courage to permanently eliminate them from society, innocent people are going to be killed (2) Because of these bad individuals, bad things happen every day to people who through no fault of their own were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Criminals will always have guns if they want them. If worst comes to worst they will be smuggled into the US from Mexico inside a bale of marijuana or shipment of fentanyl and sold on the black market.
Re: “access…of handguns, assault rifles, tactical gear”
As it should be. The purpose of the Second Amendment was clearly stated by the founding fathers in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights where it says “The convention of a number of states having at the time of their adopting of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse, of its powers that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”.
Note that when the Second Amendment was written, every weapon was a weapon of war, there were no restrictions on the private ownership of weapons by law abiding, private citizens and the citizen militia (i.e. the people) were equally matched with the Continental Army. After all, if they weren’t equally matched, it would be pretty hard to deter or “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the government’s powers – so in reality, the citizen militia of today should have the same firearms as the current US military.
Unfortunately we are no longer equally matched because we have let our gun rights be eroded by buying into this notion if we just “compromise” to accommodate the people who – for whatever reason – don’t like guns they will quit trying to take away our gun rights. History has shown that no matter how much we “compromise”, it’s never enough so we need to stop “compromising”.
There is so much wrong here one hardly knows where to begin.
First, not “every weapon” was a weapon of war. Many were fowling pieces, which would be a joke in a combat situation. The “citizen militias” were not only NOT equally matched with the Continental Army, they were largely unarmed themselves. States conducted gun censuses and reported their findings: Muskets, the best proper “military” arms of the time, were often inoperable, when they existed at all. Thomas Jefferson, when he was president, ordered the states to conduct gun censuses. The results were disappointing. While laughable fowling pieces weren’t rare, proper muskets were.
As Garry Wills has pointed out, personal possession of firearms prior to the Revolution was also scattered. Few people could afford muskets. Gun censuses revealed privately owned guns, when they were actually found, were in terrible condition. People skilled in maintaining firearms properly were rare.
When the British came for guns, they went to Lexington and Williamsburg because that’s where the militias kept their weapons in armories, not in their homes. (In Boston, firearms were not allowed in the home due to the danger of fire.)
I suppose, though, that you would have no problem if, as the colonists had to, civilians have to report what weapons they possess suitable for war? And allow the government to inspect them?
Re: “When the British came for guns, they…kept their weapons in armories, not in their homes.
No, they kept the gunpowder in armories because of the danger of fires or explosions
Re: ” First, not “every weapon” was a weapon of war”
Sure it was if that’s all they had and it could be used to their advantage over someone attacking them
Re: ” The “citizen militias” were not…equally matched with the Continental Army”
Some were and there were no restrictions on what “arms” private citizens could own to become equally matched if they could afford it. Some merchant shippers and private citizens called privateers reportedly owned cannons
Re: ” Few people could afford muskets”
And the government didn’t say a private citizen couldn’t own them
Re: “I suppose, though, that you would have no problem if, as the colonists had to, civilians have to report what weapons they possess suitable for war”
In the 1700’s probably not. But today, as the forefathers predicted, too many people in government are addicted to power and want to confiscate firearms from private citizens which is why the Bill of Rights Preamble and Second Amendment were written the way they were. And in every case of firearm confiscation I can find, it was preceded by firearm registration
Re: ” Muskets, the best proper “military” arms of the time”
In many cases the citizen militia had better capabilities than the regulars with “muskets” because many militia members had Kentucky rifles with rifled barrels that provided better range and accuracy than a musket
Jeff’s resorting to repeating the long-debunked “Arming America” thesis of Bellesiles. That argument’s about 20 years past its sell-by date.
Re: ” There are 126 guns for every 100 Americans”
Yes – and in the US with an estimated 109 million gun owners with 434 million guns and billions or trillions of rounds of ammunition – if legal gun owners were a problem, you would know it and there would be a lot more than ~15-20000 firearm homicides each year
Re: “guns that are killing us and they come from an industry that makes billions”
So what? Gun manufacturers make a product that people want and there are several laws on the books to restrict their sale or transfer to the wrong individual. Unfortunately, criminals don’t follow the laws and many of the laws aren’t enforced or are plea-bargained away.
The feds are especially guilty of this. Straw purchases and lying on the 4473 form you have to fill out for a background check to purchase a firearm is a felony punishable by 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine – yet in 2010 76142 people failed the background check, 4732 were deemed worthy of prosecution and only 62 were prosecuted.
And if you have a problem with bad people using guns, you can start by advocating for a law that would impose a mandatory death sentence on any recidivist with a violent criminal history that uses a firearm to commit a crime regardless of childhood upbringing, economic impoverishment, mental health, age, IQ or ethnicity.
Re: “political leaders who gaslight the nation by insisting that it’s not the guns”
It’s NOT the guns. Guns don’t shoot anyone unless A PERSON pulls the trigger. And these current problems with mass school shootings didn’t seem to exist in the 50’s and 60’s when firearms were less regulated and more prolific – so what changed? One change was prior to the late 1960’s parents, and to a lesser extent teachers, were free to discipline their kids pretty much any way they wanted. It was not unusual for the school assistant principal to spank misbehaving kids with a paddle or have disruptive kids openly embarrassed and reprimanded in class or have them stand in a corner by themselves in the classroom or in a hallway facing a wall in view of their peers.
On the home front, punishments, which could be more severe, lead to the rise of interventions by social services. Once kids realized they could bring the wrath of the government down upon anyone (parents or school) who disciplined them, efforts to punish bad behavior degenerated into cajoling and kids acknowledgement of and respect for authority vanished.
Positive reinforcement over the years has now allowed this situation to morph into where even differences of opinion are considered excessive punishments to the point kids demand (and get) “safe spaces”. I don’t pretend to know if this is the only cause of today’s problems – but it does address the heart of the problem, which is lack of tolerance and respect for other people and authority.
And note also that the worst mass killing in a US school occurred on May 18, 1927 in the Bath schoolhouse in Michigan where the killer used dynamite. And rather than immediately rush in an emotional tizzy to pass new laws to restrict the sale of dynamite, cooler heads prevailed and it took 43 years until October 15, 1970 when the law was changed. Up until that date anyone over 21 could walk into a hardware store or farm coop and buy dynamite and blasting caps
I heartily agree that the erosion of cultural norms and mores amongst our youth is where the problem resides. Too many of our young people grow up entitled and unable to cope with their feelings. This appears to be a direct result of an increasingly liberalized society where anything goes and those who seek to limit you should be punished. Isn’t it funny that those seeking to eliminate guns because they claim to hate gun violence are increasingly turning to guns to silence their opponents.
Re: ” the lack of mental health care”
This started with JFK’s Community Mental Health Act of 1963 that set up government grants for community mental health facilities across the US that encouraged the treatment of mental health patients outside of institutions, which led to the closure of several expensive, state run mental health institutions.
A final blow was the ACLU”s effective lawsuit against mental health hospitals in 1972 that mandated expensive reforms that eventually forced several to close down. Maybe the reforms were justified but the end result was an increased reliance on psychotropic drugs to be self medicated by potential patients who were turned loose on the streets
Re: “become the leading cause of death among children and teens in the country”
Not surprising since the average age range of adolescents recruited by gangs is 11-14 and it is estimated that somewhere between 15% to 22% of all gang members are under 15 years of age.
Re: “117 people die from their gunshot wounds”
And about half are suicides and since there are numerous other options for someone to take their own life, it’s not clear that restricting firearms would have any effect on the number of suicides.
There are 22,000 gun laws on the books. Most of which are going unenforced. Laws are just words on paper and when it counts, they simply don’t work. You know what will work? A police presence at every school. The deterrence value of a police car parked at the front entrance of a school will be more effective than any unenforced, redundant gun legislation. This is the fix – it’s been sitting right in front of us for decades, but people are too stupid to take advantage of it. They’d rather leave their kids vulnerable and take a victory lap over some useless new law that’s not going to do a thing to prevent the next school shooting.
While this discussion of the Second Amendment is enlightening, it’s a bit pointless. There aren’t enough states willing to ratify a change to make it worth the effort to call a convention. It’s also worth noting the history of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence does not support the collective right interpretation: This includes James McReynold’s majority opinion in U.S. v. Miller.
What is worth discussion, however, is the incredible collision of arrogance and ignorance in the editorial.
High on its hobby-horse of self-righteousness, the editorial board launches almost every gun control trope and meme to denigrate expressions of compassion and to excoriate the NRA, gun industry, and politicians that block the laws gun control fans have been trying to shove down our throats for years.
Many (most?) of those laws are already on the books in Colorado and the state has enacted new restrictions in each session since 2013.
It’s possible this was overlooked to hide a very inconvenient truth: The laws haven’t worked. Colorado could be a poster child for the failures of the most common gun control measures.
From 2013, when the universal background check law became effective, to 2014, the number of gun murders soared 126% and the rate per 100,000 doubled. The firearm suicide rate rose 22%, driving the total “gun violence” rate up 48 percent. The gun violence death rate among children jumped 113 percent.
According to UCR reports from the Aurora Police Department, the firearm murder rate in that city rose by 146 percent.
This isn’t pro-gun propaganda: All data was sourced from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the FBI and can be easily verified.
Frankly, this is the dumbest take possible (given the likely legal reversal). I absolutely hate how armchair liberals are taking our rights away. Fruity failures.