# data[].attributes.body
izzy dinon

# data[].attributes.headline
Blueprints for 3-D Printed Guns Cannot Be Posted Online, Judge Says

# data[].attributes.subject
Blueprints for 3-D Printed Guns Cannot Be Posted Online, Judge Says

# data[].attributes.body
sophie marini

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The judge said the Trump administration did not follow the right procedures when it moved to allow the blueprints to be posted. The organization that wants to publish the blueprints plans to appeal.

On Tuesday, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from allowing blueprints for making plastic guns on 3-D printers to be posted on the internet. Above, a Liberator pistol that was made on a 3-D printer. Credit... Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman, via Associated Press

A federal judge in Washington State on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from allowing blueprints for making plastic guns on 3-D printers to be posted on the internet, ruling that the move violated federal procedures.

The judge, Robert S. Lasnik of United States District Court in Seattle, said that the government violated federal law in July 2018, when the State Department said the blueprints could be posted online. The department previously held that export laws banning the foreign distribution of firearms prevented the publication of the blueprints.

Among the procedural steps the State Department should have followed was a requirement to give Congress advance notice of such an action, Judge Lasnik said. He said that the federal government did not offer a "reasoned explanation" for its reversal.

Judge Lasnik said in the 25-page order that the federal government "must do more than simply announce a contrary position."

"The Department of State concluded that the worldwide publication of computerized instructions for the manufacture of undetectable firearms was a threat to world peace and the national security interests of the United States and would cause serious and long-lasting harm to its foreign policy," Judge Lasnik said, referring to the department's earlier findings.

Tuesday's ruling, which is likely to be appealed, stoked a long, fierce debate over 3-D printed firearms. Proponents have asserted that there is a First Amendment right to publish such materials, while critics have argued that allowing 3-D printed firearms could lead to increased gun violence and allow criminals and terrorists to skirt gun control legislation.

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia sued last year over the State Department's move.

"It is baffling that the Trump Administration continued to work so hard to allow domestic abusers, felons and terrorists access to untraceable, undetectable 3D-printed guns," said Bob Ferguson, the attorney general of Washington, one of the states that sued the department.

Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, another state in the lawsuit, said on Twitter that the decision was "a victory for gun safety and the rule of law, and a defeat for Donald Trump, who is afraid to stand up and protect Americans from gun violence."

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday evening.

The State Department said Tuesday evening that it was "continuing to review the Washington court's order," and referred further questions to the Department of Justice, which has declined to comment.

Judge Lasnik's order came as the Trump administration is separately working on new rules to revise and streamline the process for exporting consumer firearms that some gun control advocates worry could increase the accessibility of 3-D printed guns.

Jonas Oransky, legal director for the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety, said Judge Lasnik's ruling should push the government to "stand down from finalizing its rule that weakens oversight of downloadable gun blueprints."

Judge Lasnik's ruling also did not directly settle the First Amendment arguments raised by those who support the blueprints' publication because the State Department "has not attempted to justify its action as compelled by the First Amendment," the judge's order stated.

The roots of the case stretch back to 2012, when Defense Distributed, a nonprofit based in Austin, Texas, began publishing schematics for certain weapons on its website.

Cody Wilson, a champion of gun rights and anarchism from Texas who founded Defense Distributed, had claimed a First Amendment right to publish the blueprints. Mr. Wilson declined to comment on Tuesday.

Chad Flores, a lawyer for Defense Distributed, which is a party in the case, said that while federal procedures were important, the "Constitution is always paramount."

"With today's unprecedented ruling, a few rogue state officials have commandeered the State Department to do their unconstitutional bidding nationwide," Mr. Flores said. "Defense Distributed will be appealing and fully expects a swift reversal."

Since at least 2013, the State Department said it could regulate the blueprints and restricted their publication online. The State Department also asked Defense Distributed to remove some of the files it had uploaded, Judge Lasnik said.

Defense Distributed sued the State Department in 2015, spurring years of rulings and appeals until June 2018, when the State Department reversed itself and concluded the schematics did not violate controls meant to keep certain military technology out of the hands of the country's enemies.

A court-approved settlement in July 2018 between the State Department and Mr. Wilson ended the legal case and gave Mr. Wilson the right to distribute the schematics.

Then Washington and other states sued to prevent the publication. Judge Lasnik issued a temporary order against the Trump administration in July 2018.

Tuesday's ruling was a motion for summary judgment, meaning that the case would not have to go to trial, Mr. Ferguson said.

Sandra E. Garcia contributed reporting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Blueprints for 3-D Printed Guns Cannot Be Posted Online, Judge Says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The judge said the Trump administration did not follow the right procedures when it moved to allow the blueprints to be posted. The organization that wants to publish the blueprints plans to appeal.

# data[].attributes.body
Meghan Wilhelm
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/opinion/police-shootings-guns.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Better gun laws could save thousands of lives, major non-partisan US study finds

# data[].attributes.subject
Better gun laws could save thousands of lives, major non-partisan US study finds

# data[].attributes.body
ella sargent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Passing an assault weapons ban might prevent 170 mass shooting deaths a year in the US, experts who support gun control estimate. Passing a universal background check law could prevent 1,100 gun homicides each year. Raising the age limit for buying firearms could prevent 1,600 homicides and suicides.

These are some of the new estimates in a groundbreaking study of the potential impact of American gun control laws. The non-partisan analysis, based on a review of existing gun policy research and a survey of the best guesses of both gun rights and gun control experts, was conducted by the Rand Corporation, which spent two years and more than $1m on the project.

Rand's review of the existing research concluded that only a handful of gun control laws were backed by strong research evidence. Child access prevention laws, which are designed to keep guns out of the hands of children, had the strongest evidence behind them, the researchers concluded, and appeared to reduce gun injuries and suicides. The review also found "moderate evidence" that background checks reduce firearm suicides and homicides, and that certain mental health gun prohibitions reduced violent crime.

NRA members on Trump's plans for gun control: 'Every word of it was a betrayal'

The Rand review also found "moderate evidence" that "stand your ground" laws, which allow Americans to use guns to defend themselves without first attempting to retreat from a confrontation, may increase state homicide rates.

What the two-year project revealed most starkly were the gaping holes in both the research and the basic data needed to understand what gun laws might save the most lives.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Photograph: Rand Corporation

There was only "inconclusive" research evidence about the impact of a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines on mass shootings and on violent crime. There was no rigorous research of any kind about the impact of gun-free zones. The research on the impact of laws making it easier to carry concealed firearms was "limited" or inconclusive".

That lack of evidence is not an accident, but a political choice, shaped by more than two decades of opposition to federally funded gun research from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun rights advocates.

Having no research to answer crucial gun debate questions "creates a fact-free environment, where people can make claims that make problems for legislation moving forward", Andrew Morral, the lead researcher on the project, said.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Photograph: Rand Corporation

Congressional Republicans passed the 1996 Dickey amendment to pressure the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) away from conducting public health research on gun violence. The political pressures have never amounted to a total ban on federal funding for gun-related research. The justice department, for instance, has continued to fund important studies in this area, often focused on policing and community strategies for preventing shootings. But the amount of money the US government spends on research to prevent gun deaths is a fraction of the amount it spends on comparably prevalent causes of death and injury.

Why do people cling to their guns? We need to get inside their minds | Emma Brockes

To fill in those gaping holes in what Americans know about how different gun control laws might work, Rand did what policymakers might do when there is no study offering a simple answer: they surveyed longtime gun policy experts about their best guesses about the impact of different laws.

The experts, who included gun policy researchers and affiliates of advocacy groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety, the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, provided their best guesses about how much a given law might affect gun homicides, gun suicides, gun accidents and mass shooting deaths, as well as how much each policy might affect gun industry sales.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Photograph: Rand Corporation

Rand sorted out experts by their self-described affinity to gun rights or gun control groups, and these two groups of experts often provided opposite estimates of what impact the policies might have. Gun rights advocates guessed than a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines might lead to a 1% increase in gun homicides, or 100 more lives lost.

Unlike most in-depth research studies, Rand's project is designed to be accessible to the public. It includes a website that allows users to explore the potential human impact of passing individual gun laws, or packages of potential gun law compromises.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Better gun laws could save thousands of lives, major non-partisan US study finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Passing an assault weapons ban might prevent 170 mass shooting deaths a year in the US, experts who support gun control estimate. Passing a universal background check law could prevent 1,100 gun homicides each year. Raising the age limit for buying firearms could prevent 1,600 homicides and suicides.

# data[].attributes.body
erin callaghan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

gun control, politics, legislation, and enforcement of measures intended to restrict access to, the possession of, or the use of arms, particularly firearms. Gun control is one of the most controversial and emotional issues in many countries, with the debate often centring on whether regulations on an individual's right to arms are an undue restriction on liberty and whether there is a correlation between guns and crime. Proponents of gun-control legislation assert that the strict enforcement of gun-control laws saves lives and reduces crime. By contrast, opponents of gun control assert that minimal restrictions on guns ensure that individuals have adequate means for self-defense and that a wider distribution of firearms results in safer communities.

International considerations

Gun control is an issue throughout the world, with each country having the sovereign authority to regulate firearms within its borders. The vast majority of industrialized countries have strict gun-control regulations. For example, Japan places restrictions on the possession and use of all firearms except in limited instances (e.g., hunting, athletic events, and research). Canada permits the possession and use of firearms for competitions and target practice, but it forbids the possession of handguns unless an individual can show that a handgun is needed for self-defense. The United Kingdom has banned handguns altogether and limits the possession of firearms to activities such as hunting, target shooting, pest control, and slaughtering. Meanwhile, Germany permits the ownership of certain firearms so long as an individual meets the requirements for a firearms ownership license, which include that the applicant be age 18 or older and have expert knowledge in the handling of firearms and have the necessity to possess such firearms.

Historical origins of gun control

If gun control is defined as placing legal restrictions on arms to protect civil society, its origins can be traced back to ancient Rome. In Rome arms were seen as the means to maintain standing armies. To prevent these armies from undermining and overthrowing civil authority, Roman law forbade military arms from crossing the Rubicon. This law would remain in effect until Julius Caesar violated it when he maintained a standing army to assume power as emperor of Rome, a historical event that was etched as the beginning of the decline of the Roman Empire. In fact, this historical event is of such significance that both the English Bill of Rights (formally An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown; 1689) and the U.S. Constitution (1789) include provisions that prevent the maintenance of standing armies during times of peace without the consent of the legislative branch.

In England arms were always controlled by Parliament and the crown according to socioeconomic status. As English reformer and MP John Sadler wrote in 1649 in his pamphlet titled "The Rights of the Kingdom," "Men ought indeed have Arms, and them to keep in Readiness for Defence of the King and Kingdom," but Parliament defined which men were to "provide and bear arms, how, and when, and where." It should be emphasized that arms were primarily seen as tools for the common defense of the realm. Even for this purpose, however, arms were strictly regulated by the government to ensure that they were readily available for the common defense and were out of the hands of dangerous persons. For example, during the reign of Henry VIII (1509-47), restrictions were placed on "weapons" and "defensive armour" being brought to any town, church, market, or other congregation except upon the hue and cry (a practice whereby criminals were pursued with cries and sounds of alarm). Henry VIII had enacted other gun-control laws, including restrictions on the length of guns, on who was qualified to possess guns, and on when and where they may be fired.

Gun restrictions in England were rarely the subject of parliamentary debate. However, from the mid-17th to the late 18th century, members of Parliament periodically proposed laws that would remove gun restrictions and allow English householders to have and maintain guns for the defense of the realm. For instance, during the convention in 1689 that drafted the English Declaration of Rights, Thomas Erle, who had served as a general and was a member of Parliament, proposed that "every substantial householder in any town or city should be provided of a good musket in case of invasion." In 1693 a similar proposal was made to allow every Protestant to keep a musket "for the security of the government." Such proposals failed, however, because they would "arm the mob" and thus were considered "not very safe for any government."

Naturally, the safety of the government was not the only reason restrictions on guns were imposed in England. Gun-control restrictions sometimes supported the hunting of game or the access of hunters to game preserves, as well as to prevent crime and murders. In the 1750s the Scottish philosopher and historian Adam Ferguson opposed such restrictions as preventing the establishment of a national militia because, although a "few domestic inconveniences" would occur, this should not "deter us from the necessary Steps" in arming the people for "our own Defence, against a foreign Enemy." The English writer and MP Soame Jenyns also justified the removal of gun restrictions to further the establishment of a national militia. Although "Accidents [such as murder] may sometimes happen," it did not matter, he argued, because "every man" in the militia will "beget three Children before he kills one Man."

In the end, neither of these arguments affected the well-established gun restrictions in England. In fact, when mid-18th century militia reform was finally adopted, George II (1727-60) ensured that all militia arms were kept by local lord lieutenants and only distributed during times of militia muster and training. This was a practice that dated to the 1550s, during the reign of Mary I, when the law required that all guns and arms in cities, boroughs, towns, parishes, and hamlets were to be kept by local government officials and in places of safekeeping.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun control | Laws, Debate, Pros, Cons, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gun control, politics, legislation, and enforcement of measures intended to restrict access to, the possession of, or the use of arms. Debates over such measures often center on whether regulations are an undue restriction on liberty and whether there is a correlation between guns and crime.

# data[].attributes.body
sydney kwiatkowski
https://gun-control.procon.org/

# data[].attributes.headline
Is Gun Control Likely to Reduce Violent Killings?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is Gun Control Likely to Reduce Violent Killings?

# data[].attributes.body
Alyssa Barnak

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Gun Control Likely to Reduce Violent Killings?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Frank Zimring, Is Gun Control Likely to Reduce Violent Killings?, The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Summer, 1968), pp. 721-737

# data[].attributes.headline
After School Shooting, Bill Focuses on Banks and Guns

# data[].attributes.subject
After School Shooting, Bill Focuses on Banks and Guns

# data[].attributes.body
Anna Thompson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Students and parents embrace after a shooting Thursday at Saugus High School in Santa Clarita, Calif. Credit... Mario Tama/Getty Images

Good Friday. (Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up here.)
A day after two students were killed at a school in Santa Clarita, Calif., Representative Jennifer Wexton, Democrat of Virginia, is planning to introduce a bill in Congress this morning that would require banks and other financial institutions to work with the government to help identify and report suspicious or illegal financial activity related to firearms.

The bill was inspired, in part, by Andrew Ross Sorkin's columns on the role that banks could play to help end gun violence.

"Banks, credit card companies, and retailers have unique insight into the behavior and purchasing patterns that can help identify and prevent mass shootings," Ms. Wexton said in a statement. "We know that financial intelligence can be an effective tool to combat gun violence in the same way it is for money laundering, human smuggling, and fentanyl trafficking."

Here's how it would work: The bill, called the Gun Violence Prevention Through Financial Intelligence Act, would require the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, to work with financial companies to develop a framework to identify suspicious firearms transactions. The bill says that if FinCEN determines that banks do not have enough data to identify suspicious activity, it "must submit a report to Congress detailing the process and identifying barriers to data collection."

Andrew Ross Sorkin's take: "When I first started writing about this issue, my thought was that the private sector might lead the way. Nonetheless, it's gratifying to see Representative Wexton and nine co-sponsors pursue this. It will be interesting to watch the financial industry's reaction. Send me your thoughts."

Image

Lloyd Blankfein Credit... Brian Snyder/Reuters

The former Goldman Sachs C.E.O. Lloyd Blankfein and the billionaire investor Leon Cooperman, both targets of Senator Elizabeth Warren's new campaign ad about her planned wealth tax, struck back yesterday, Bloomberg News reports.

Ms. Warren's ad singled out the two men. It referenced, for instance, Mr. Blankfein's $70 million payday at the height of the financial crisis.

Vilifying the rich is bad for the country, Mr. Blankfein wrote on Twitter.

* "Maybe tribalism is just in her DNA," he wrote. His comment was seen as a reference to the controversy over Ms. Warren's taking a genealogy test to prove she's part Native American. She later apologized to the Cherokee Nation.

"We don't need another fabricator in the White House," Mr. Cooperman said on CNBC.

Ms. Warren has recently faced criticism from other Wall Street leaders, including Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, Ray Dalio of Bridgewater and Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone, the FT reports.

How the Democratic candidates view wealth is becoming a central issue in the primary race. "The likes of Blankfein and Cooperman may think that they're fighting their corner by lashing out at Warren, but they could be miscalculating where the public's sympathies lie," according to a separate analysis by the FT's Due Diligence.
More: Would wealth tax proposals, elegant in theory, work in practice? Tax experts say it's not that simple.
The company yesterday announced that it planned to officially challenge the Pentagon's surprise decision last month to award a $10 billion cloud-computing contract to Microsoft, Kate Conger of the NYT writes.

Amazon suggested that political motivations clouded the decision over the contract for the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure project, known as JEDI. Drew Herdener, an Amazon spokesman, said in a statement:

* "It's critical for our country that the government and its elected leaders administer procurements objectively and in a manner that is free from political influence."

* "Numerous aspects of the JEDI evaluation process contained clear deficiencies, errors and unmistakable bias - and it's important that these matters be examined and rectified."

Amazon had broadly been considered the favorite, as the country's biggest cloud provider and the builder of the C.I.A.'s cloud services. But President Trump, who has openly criticized Amazon and its C.E.O., Jeff Bezos, said publicly that other "great companies" should have a chance at the contract.

Amazon's protest should prompt an internal Pentagon review of the procurement decision, Daniel Ives, the managing director of Wedbush Securities, told the NYT. He said it should take 45 to 60 days and would delay the beginning of work by Microsoft. "The decision is likely to be taken to court by the loser, but work should begin on the cloud contract as the court battle plays out," Ms. Conger adds.

Google announced yesterday that it would limit some of the information it shared with advertisers as a concession to claims made by E.U. officials that the company's ad auction violated the bloc's privacy laws, Patience Haggin of the WSJ writes.

* "The changes will affect the process behind the electronic auction that happens in milliseconds to determine which ads show up when users load a website."

* "In that time, hundreds of potential bidders can find out information about users."

* "After the changes, which take effect in February, advertisers will still have access to data such as locations and unique device numbers, but no longer the contextual category describing the website on which the ad would appear."

It sounds like a small change, but the FT reports that it could "stop advertisers from tying sensitive categories - such as religion, politics and sexual orientation - to individual users," according to Chetna Bindra, a member of Google's user trust and privacy team.

But it has been criticized as a self-serving decision. "This decision will at least enhance value of first-party data and Google Search is the most dominant place for first-party data, so it will hurt everyone except Google," Jason Kint, the C.E.O. of Digital Content Next, a U.S. trade association for online publishers, told the FT. "No company tracks the public across the web and our digital lives more than Google."

Michael Bloomberg Credit... Brian Snyder/Reuters

The billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg still has not declared whether he is running for president in 2020 - but he is about to become the single-biggest spender in the presidential race anyway, Shane Goldmacher of the NYT reports.

Mr. Bloomberg is "beginning a $100 million digital campaign designed to attack and define President Trump in the top battleground states seen as likely to decide the 2020 election," Mr. Goldmacher writes.

* "The ads will go online on Friday in four states - Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - and run through the end of the primary season, even if Mr. Bloomberg is not in the race."

* "Mr. Bloomberg himself will not be featured in the ads beyond legally required disclaimers, even as he actively lays the groundwork for a campaign."

* "The $100 million ad buy will be in addition to whatever Mr. Bloomberg may spend on efforts to promote himself to become the Democratic nominee."

It"is an unprecedented financial show of force and a pre-emptive strike to undercut the expected Democratic complaints that Mr. Bloomberg's money would be best spent on Democratic priorities, rather than his own presidential ambitions," Mr. Goldmacher writes. "It also delivers the unsubtle message that if Democrats were to nominate Mr. Bloomberg, his immense wealth could tilt the financial playing field of 2020 in their favor."

SoftBank's Z Holdings (formerly known as Yahoo Japan) announced that it was in talks to merge with the nation's messaging app operator Line - a deal that could create a $27 billion tech giant, Reuters reports.

Both companies are "worried by the growing penetration of U.S. tech companies in their home market of Japan, rising pressure throughout Asia from Chinese 'super app' operators such as Tencent, and stagnant growth throughout their businesses," according to Nikkei Asian Review.

* "Line would contribute the 82 million Japanese users of its messaging app."

* "Yahoo Japan would meanwhile contribute its popular news portal and an e-commerce business."

Few details were officially disclosed, but unnamed sources cited by Reuters claim that a deal could be announced by the end of the month. The final deal, they said, could see SoftBank and Line's parent, Naver Corporation, form a 50-50 venture that would control Z Holdings, which would in turn operate Line and Yahoo.

Investors certainly liked the news, with shares in Z Holdings rising 17 percent and those in Line rising 15 percent.

Credit... Achmad Ibrahim/Associated Press

In Hong Kong, storefronts are shuttered, critical thoroughfares for commuters and commerce are cut off and university semesters are being cut short. Many now wonder how the city can heal from the turmoil of recent protests, report Alexandra Stevenson, Edward Wong and Keith Bradsher in the NYT.

"Life in Hong Kong has dramatically changed, pushing the economy into recession, fraying faith in the authorities and pitting neighbors against one another," they write. And some of the wounds may be lasting.

The economy will eventually recover. Shoppers from mainland China will return to buy Tiffany rings and Chanel bags, lured by low taxes. But the healing process cannot begin until the protests end.

"Nobody wants blood on his or her hands," said a member of Hong Kong's cabinet. "But because no decisive action is taken, Hong Kong is being destroyed."
More: Deals Hong Kong's position as the largest market for Swiss watch exports won't last, the C.E.O. of Officine Panerai said.
* Shareholders voted yesterday to approve the merger of Gannett and GateHouse Media, which will create the largest newspaper publisher in the U.S. ( NYT)

* Venture-capital fund-raising in China is heading toward its lowest level since 2013. ( WSJ)
Trump impeachment inquiry

* The French telecommunications company Orange is reportedly preparing to split its mobile towers into a separate company. ( FT)

* Berkshire Hathaway disclosed an investment in the home-furnishings company Restoration Hardware. ( Reuters)

* The European Investment Bank will end all lending to fossil fuels by the end of 2021. ( Forbes)

* Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that testimony "corroborated evidence of bribery" by President Trump in his dealings with Ukraine. ( NYT)

* Senate Republicans are split over how quickly to move on an impeachment trial. ( NYT)

* Facebook and YouTube said they would block attempts to name the Ukraine whistle-blower on their platforms, but they are struggling to keep up. ( NYT)

* What to expect from Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, who will testify publicly today. ( NYT)

* Rudy Giuliani, Mr. Trump's personal lawyer, joked that he had good "insurance" in case the president turned on him. ( Guardian)
Politics and policy
* President Trump asked the Supreme Court to block the release of his tax records, setting up a major decision on presidential power. ( NYT)

* The threat of automation is real, says Andrew Yang, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. ( NYT Op-Ed)

* The Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, once an adviser to Republican leaders, explains why he plans to vote in the Democratic primary. ( NYT)

Trade
* The White House economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, said that negotiations between the U.S. and China over the "Phase 1" trade agreement were "down to the short strokes." ( Bloomberg)

* The U.S. threatened Egypt with sanctions over Cairo's decision to proceed with a purchase of Russian warplanes. ( WSJ)

* President Trump's increasing reliance on economic sanctions to solve foreign policy problems is fueling concern that the U.S. is abusing its financial power. ( NYT)
Tech
* How Amazon's quest for more products and lower prices has resulted in a flea market of fakes. ( WaPo)

* Uber has been fined $649 million by New Jersey for years of unpaid employment taxes for its drivers. ( NYT)

* How Apple's iPhones and apps are being used by researchers to carry out large-scale medical research. ( NYT)

* TikTok has taken its lobbying to Europe. ( Politico)

* The U.K.'s opposition Labour party said that, if it wins the December election, it would nationalize some of the telecoms provider BT's network to offer free broadband across the country. ( Reuters)

* The 50 attorneys general investigating Google for potential antitrust violations will reportedly expand their inquiry to examine the Android and search businesses, not just advertising. ( CNBC)
Best of the rest
* Nestlé, the world's largest food company, is trying to show investors and consumers that it can be both environmentally sustainable and profitable. ( NYT)

* The Fed Reserve chair, Jay Powell, reiterated that he thought the central bank's interest rate cuts would buoy the U.S. economy. ( WSJ)

* Daimler, the maker of Mercedes-Benz, plans to cut €1.4 billion, or about $1.55 billion, in personnel costs and 10 percent of managers worldwide. ( FT)

* Jeffrey Epstein's estate plans to establish a voluntary resolution program for the late sex offender's accusers. ( NYT)

* Taylor Swift accused the music manager Scooter Braun of preventing her from performing her old songs. ( Forbes)
Thanks for reading! We'll see you next week. We'd love your feedback. Please email thoughts and suggestions to business@nytimes.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
After School Shooting, Bill Focuses on Banks and Guns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Good Friday. (Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up here .)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.body
Ainsley Campbell

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Gun Control Laws
Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, enslaved people, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned.

Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the American Revolutionary War. Several colonies' gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

The Second Amendment is not an unlimited or individual right to own guns.

Further, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals to own guns. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, wrote, "the Framer's single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee 'to keep and bear arms' was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias," hence the inclusion of the phrase "well regulated militia."

Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed.
Read More

Pro 2

More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths.

Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members.

Five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States.

Researchers found that a "general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed."

Gun licensing laws were associated with a 14% decrease in firearm homicides, while increases in firearm homicides were seen in places with right-to-carry and stand-your ground-laws.

More gun control leads to fewer suicides. When US gun ownership goes down, overall suicide rates drop; meanwhile, each 10 percentage-point increase in gun ownership is linked to a 26.9% increase in the youth suicide rate. In Indiana and Connecticut, after "red flag" laws to remove guns from people who may pose a threat were enacted, gun suicides decreased by 7.5% and 13.7% respectively, while suicides by other means did not decrease during the same time. A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable.

The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired.

Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children's behavior around guns, stated, "We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves.... [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot 'gun-proof' them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children."
Read More

Pro 3

The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent.

The FBI found that arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total).

An editorial published in the American Journal of Public Health noted, "gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns." A study published in the same journal found that "the weapons used [in altercations]... were those closest at hand." And thus, according to another study, "[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

Common sense gun control laws can decrease the likelihood of a violent situation turning deadly. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on Sep. 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012.When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%.
Read More

Pro 4

A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines.

According to a Feb. 20, 2018 Quinnipiac Poll, 97% of American voters and 97% of gun owners support universal background checks. 67% support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, and 83% support mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases.

As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the "gun show loophole").

53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans. 89% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 82% approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists.

77% of Americans support requiring a license to purchase a gun.

Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, "As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns."

Many would like to see the U.S. enact more laws like other countries, citing the fact that countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements. In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total). In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people). Finland ranked fourth in international gun ownership rates with 45.3 guns per 100 people (about 2,400,000 guns total). In 2007 Finland had 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people).
Read More

Con 1

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."
Read More

Con 2

Gun control laws are discriminatory and infringe on citizens' rights

Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, poor, black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners. Charles Gallagher, Chair of Sociology at LaSalle University, stated that some gun control laws are still founded on racial fears: "Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1."

Background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy. Background checks require government databases that keep personal individual information on gun owners, including name, addresses, mental health history, criminal records, and more. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worried that Senator Harry Reid's 2013 proposed background check legislation (the bill failed 54-46) would have allowed the government to keep databases of gun purchases indefinitely, creating a "worry that you're going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected." Micro-stamping similarly requires a database of gun owners and the codes their personal guns would stamp on cartridge cases. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote that they would oppose any legislation that infringes "on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance."

Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s.

Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban "assault weapons," infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, "So-called 'Assault weapons' are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term 'assault weapon' was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie... [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled 'assault weapons,' are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer." According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting.
Read More

Con 3

Gun control laws simply do not work.

Gun control efforts have proved ineffective. According to David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, "there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates." Banning high-capacity magazines will not necessarily deter crime because even small gun magazines can be changed in seconds.The "gun show loophole" is virtually nonexistent because commercial dealers, who sell the majority of guns at shows and elsewhere, are bound by strict federal laws. According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, most state-level gun control laws do not reduce firearm death rates, and, of 25 state laws, nine were associated with higher gun death rates.

Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.

The main reason gun control doesn't work is because laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. A Secret Service analysis found that of 24 mass shootings in 2019 at least 10 (42%) involved illegally possessed guns.

The logical conclusion is that gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A study in Applied Economics Letters found that "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law... Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'"

More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation-not violence." [82] [85] [154]
Read More

Con 4

Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens.

57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people."

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."

Concurring, Alex Jones, radio host, stated, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs... 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"

Marco Rubio (R-FL), US Senator, speaking about gun control laws during his 2016 presidential campaign, stated, "If God forbid, ISIS visits our life, our neighborhood, our school, any part of us, the last thing standing, the last line of defense could very well be our ability to protect ourselves."
Read More

Did You Know?

1. A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer, and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer.

2. The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks.

3. The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2015, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (67.3% of all homicides) and by suicide (51.9% of all suicides).

4. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people).

5. Carrying a concealed handgun in public has been permitted in all 50 states since 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation.

6. Five women a day are killed by guns in America. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Opponents say the amendment protects individual gun ownership.

# data[].attributes.body
Analise Thomas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.body
sydney kwiatkowski
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tfh&AN=123738153&site=ehost-live

# data[].attributes.headline
Gun Control : Preventing Violence or Crushing Constitutional Rights?

# data[].attributes.subject
Gun Control : Preventing Violence or Crushing Constitutional Rights?

# data[].attributes.body
mia buonadonna

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gun Control : Preventing Violence or Crushing Constitutional Rights?

# data[].attributes.subject
Gun Control : Preventing Violence or Crushing Constitutional Rights?

# data[].attributes.body
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e865sww&AN=386714&site=ehost-live Delaney Armstrong

# data[].attributes.headline
US gun laws: Why it won't follow New Zealand's lead

# data[].attributes.subject
US gun laws: Why it won't follow New Zealand's lead

# data[].attributes.body
Audrey Allen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US gun laws: Why it won’t follow New Zealand’s lead

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A mass shooting in New Zealand has led to an assault-weapon ban six days later, drawing contrasts with the US.

# data[].attributes.headline
Final Report of the Federal Commission on School Safety. Presented to the President of the United States

# data[].attributes.subject
Final Report of the Federal Commission on School Safety. Presented to the President of the United States

# data[].attributes.body
sienna demedio

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.body
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e865sww&AN=386714&site=ehost-live

# data[].attributes.body
tolu

# data[].attributes.body
Analise Thomas

# data[].attributes.headline
Gun Violence and Background Checks: The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

# data[].attributes.subject
Gun Violence and Background Checks: The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

# data[].attributes.body
Alyssa Barnak

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.body
Izzy Dinon

# data[].attributes.body
Tolu

# data[].attributes.headline
The Truths about Mass Shooters That Gun-Control Advocates Ignore

# data[].attributes.subject
The Truths about Mass Shooters That Gun-Control Advocates Ignore

# data[].attributes.body
Sophia Marini

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On May 31, a Virginia Beach city employee went into the city's municipal center and shot 16 people, killing twelve of them.

For many Americans, this mass shooting may have gotten lost in the blur of the El Paso mass shooting, the Dayton mass shooting, and all of the other all-too-frequent cases of horrific mass-casualty violence. But in Virginia, locals reacted strongly. Governor Ralph Northam called a special session on gun control, but the Republicans who controlled the chamber quickly voted to adjourn, asking a bipartisan commission to come up with recommendations and postponing the report until after Election Day. Virginia Democrats accused Republicans of shirking their duties and subsequently enjoyed big wins in state legislative elections earlier this month.

Virginia Democrats knew that the proper response to Virginia Beach shooting was gun control - and didn't need to wait until the full investigation of the shooter had concluded.

Unnervingly, law enforcement officials say they still have no idea why the shooter launched his attack. The city asked a security risk management firm to conduct a comprehensive review to see if any warnings or "red flags" were missed. The extensive report concluded the shooter's "actions, behaviors and communications before the attack did not include many known pre-incident risk factors for targeted workplace violence . . . We found no evidence that the subject communicated his violent intentions to others before the attack . . . The subject had no known history of mental health care and treatment . . . The subject left no clear evidence of a plan or manifesto detailing his intent and rationale or revealing any observable pre-attack behaviors."

The report added, "some of the subject's coworkers described him as reserved, with little emotional affect and socially withdrawn. No one, however, described him, his behaviors or his communications as overtly aggressive or violent. None of the coworkers interviewed thought the subject posed a threat or would commit such a violent act."

This man had nothing more than seemingly mundane problems at work, a reprimand for poor performance. He begun the process of filing a formal grievance over his assessment, but then dropped his efforts, nine months before the incident. He had completed a divorce nearly two years earlier. But the report cautions "the three risk factors associated with this attacker - weapons skills and/or access, recent job problems and personal stressors - in their reported context of his professional work environment would not normally rise to a perceived level of concern for violence toward others." Not every gun owner in the country who's annoyed with boss or went through a divorce is a threat to others.

But there's still that little detail that nothing Virginia Democrats are proposing would have changed what happened in Virginia Beach if it had been law.

Universal background checks? The shooter passed a background check, as he had no criminal record or institutionalization for mental health issues. He had a concealed handgun permit.

"Red flag laws"? As noted above, no one around the shooter perceived him as a violent threat until he opened fire.

Ten-day waiting periods? He bought his firearms at least a month before the attack, in some cases years earlier.

Limits on the number of guns that can be purchased each month? The shooter never purchased more than one gun in a month.

A ban on "assault" weapons? The shooter used two pistols in his attack. (Note that Governor Northam has not specified which firearms he considers to be "assault weapons.")

Raising the legal age to purchase a firearm? The shooter was 40, well over 21.

Requiring lost or stolen firearms to be reported to police within 24 hours? This was not a case of lost or stolen firearms.

Barring people under final protective orders from having guns? Again, the shooter was not under any protective orders.

Making it illegal to "recklessly" leave loaded, unsecured firearms around children under 18? The shooter was 40.

Letting localities regulate whether guns are allowed in government buildings? A regulation barring firearms from the building would not have deterred the shooter any more than existing laws banning murder.

Even if all of the Democrats' desired laws had been in effect for the past few decades in Virginia, none of them would have prevented or even mitigated the actions of the Virginia Beach shooter.

Jim Geraghty is the senior political correspondent of National Review. @jimgeraghty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Truths about Mass Shooters That Gun-Control Advocates Ignore | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On May 31, a Virginia Beach city employee went into the city's municipal center and shot 16 people, killing twelve of them. For many Americans, this mass shooting may have gotten lost in the blur of the El Paso mass shooting, the Dayton mass shooting, and all of the other all-too-frequent cases of horrific mass-casualty violence.

# data[].attributes.body
rileigh

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.headline
Police Seize Guns From Man Thought to Be Neo-Nazi Leader

# data[].attributes.subject
Police Seize Guns From Man Thought to Be Neo-Nazi Leader

# data[].attributes.body
mia buonadonna

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SEATTLE - When Kaleb J. Cole landed at Chicago O'Hare International Airport after a trip to Europe last year, federal officials were waiting at the gate for a chance to question him. In his luggage was the trefoil flag of a neo-Nazi hate group. On his phone, a photo of two people posing at the site of the Auschwitz death camp.

The officials did not charge Mr. Cole with any crimes that day, or in the months to come, despite information that he was a leader of the Atomwaffen Division, one of the most violent extremist groups in the country. But last month, according to records provided by a prosecutor's office Thursday, the authorities in Seattle moved to seize a cache of weapons from Mr. Cole, using a state law intended to prevent gun violence.

"This was an individual who had access to firearms and was preparing for a race war," Kimberly Wyatt, a prosecutor in King County, Wash., said in an interview on Thursday.

The move was part of a larger effort by investigators around the country, including the F.B.I., to crack down on members of Atomwaffen, as officials seek to counter the rising threat from hate groups. The Atomwaffen Division has been linked to a series of killings.

The group's members are scattered in cells nationwide, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which describes the group as seeking a societal collapse and race war to achieve its goals.

In petitioning to seize Mr. Cole's weapons, law enforcement officials said Mr. Cole was believed to be the cell leader of Atomwaffen's chapter in Washington State. They wrote that Mr. Cole had participated in firearms training and recruiting at "hate camps," where members performed military-style exercises and wore skull masks over their faces. In a video, they chanted anti-Semitic slurs and "race war now."

Officials seized the firearms using a so-called red-flag law, which in a number of states including Washington allows law enforcement or civilians to get a court order to confiscate weapons when there is evidence that people are at high risk of harming themselves or others. Ms. Wyatt said the law provided a temporary intervention, allowing the seizure of the guns for up to a year.

At the end of 2018, Mr. Cole went on a 25-day trip that took him throughout Eastern Europe, according to the records filed by Seattle officials. He told federal officials who stopped him on his way home that the main reason was to see historical architecture and museums.

In a report filed by United States Customs and Border Protection about that day, officials wrote that Mr. Cole identified himself as an Atomwaffen member who had fascist ideology and that he had been carrying the group's flag.

Federal officials also examined Mr. Cole's cellphone, finding a recent image of a group of people performing Nazi salutes while holding the Atomwaffen flag, and another of two people standing on the railroad tracks leading into the complex that housed the Auschwitz concentration camp operated by the Nazis during the Holocaust.

Seattle officials filed their petition on Sept. 26 and seized the guns from Mr. Cole in Snohomish County the same day, Ms. Wyatt said. He did not show up for a subsequent hearing. Mr. Cole could not be reached for comment Thursday and did not appear to have an attorney.

Ms. Wyatt said law enforcement officials have continued discussing what criminal laws might apply to Mr. Cole's case. She said criminal statutes focus on threats made to an intended victim.

"What do you do when there's a general threat versus one specific individual?" Ms. Wyatt said. She said officials were discussing their options under state law.

Federal investigators have also faced this issue as they struggle to balance First Amendment protections that allow hate speech and actions that could be an indicator of future violence. In some cases, the F.B.I. has turned to local prosecutors to handle the cases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Police Seize Guns From Man Thought to Be Neo-Nazi Leader

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SEATTLE - When Kaleb J. Cole landed at Chicago O'Hare International Airport after a trip to Europe last year, federal officials were waiting at the gate for a chance to question him. In his luggage was the trefoil flag of a neo-Nazi hate group.

# data[].attributes.headline
Framing the Gun Control Debate:Press Releases and Framing Strategies of the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign

# data[].attributes.subject
Framing the Gun Control Debate:Press Releases and Framing Strategies of the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign

# data[].attributes.body
Anna Thompson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Pros and Cons of Background Checks and Background Checks and Gun Control Measures.

# data[].attributes.subject
The Pros and Cons of Background Checks and Background Checks and Gun Control Measures.

# data[].attributes.body
Ainsley Campbell

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gun Control : Preventing Violence or Crushing Constitutional Rights?

# data[].attributes.subject
Gun Control : Preventing Violence or Crushing Constitutional Rights?

# data[].attributes.body
Audrey Allen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Important User Information: Remote access to EBSCO's databases is permitted to patrons of subscribing institutions accessing from remote locations for personal, non-commercial use. However, remote access to EBSCO's databases from non-subscribing institutions is not allowed if the purpose of the use is for commercial gain through cost reduction or avoidance for a non-subscribing institution.

# data[].attributes.headline
Teachers Are Using #ArmMeWith to Demand They be Armed With Supplies, Not Guns

# data[].attributes.subject
Teachers Are Using #ArmMeWith to Demand They be Armed With Supplies, Not Guns

# data[].attributes.body
Ella Sargent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teachers Are Demanding They be Armed With Supplies, Not Guns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
U.S. teachers are responding to calls to arm teachers with guns by using hashtag #ArmMeWith and demanding better school resources

# data[].attributes.headline
Parkland Shooting: Where Gun Control and School Safety Stand Today

# data[].attributes.subject
Parkland Shooting: Where Gun Control and School Safety Stand Today

# data[].attributes.body
sienna demedio

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Parkland students became a force for gun control legislation and boosted the youth vote. Here's how they changed America's response to mass shootings.

One of the many supportive signs that still surround Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Credit... Eve Edelheit for The New York Times

On Feb. 14, 2018, a former student slaughtered 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

The next day, David Hogg, a student who survived the attack, expressed his frustration at the pattern of political inaction that seems to follow mass shootings in the United States. He was not surprised that there had been another school shooting, he said, and that fact alone "says so much about the current state that our country is in, and how much has to be done."

"We need to do something," he said. In the course of the next year, students would change the way the nation handles mass shootings, spurring new gun legislation and school safety measures, and holding to account the adults they felt had failed them.

Here's a look at where they made those changes happen, and where they were disappointed.

With Parkland, it was the students who set the agenda. Their openness about their pain made them formidable leaders of the movement for gun control, and their displays of strength and utter grief struck a chord with a nation numbed by repeated acts of violence.

In the weeks after the shooting, busloads of Stoneman Douglas students took their case to the Florida capital and to Washington. With a rallying cry of "Never Again," they gathered support from other young people and activists, and their March for Our Lives campaign spurred huge rallies and hundreds of protests, including a nationwide school walkout. The students' pleas reached the White House, imploring President Trump to better protect schools and limit access to guns.

Video

Back

transcript

What Makes #NeverAgain Different?

The protests calling for stricter gun control measures come on the heels of other youth movements, but the momentum they have gained makes them stand out.

"Children are dying." "I will fight every single day." "I just want to speak." "We call B.S." These students survived a shooting at their school. Now they're leading a national movement for stricter gun control. Just days after the shooting, they called for school walkouts around the country, traveled to the Florida State Capitol - "You failed us" - and planned a nationwide march. Some of them can't even vote yet. It's clear these students are doing things differently. Here's how. #NeverAgain is leveraging social networks to mobilize faster than most movements before it, according to experts who study the rise of social and political movements. One week after the shooting, the #NeverAgain Twitter handle is verified and has more than 81,000 followers. In just a few days, student leaders have crowdsourced more than $3 million through online campaigns and celebrity donations. They're also handling their own crisis control by directly responding to critics. "I lost a best friend who was practically a brother, and I'm here to use my voice because I know he can't." These survivors are presenting their personal stories of loss as part of their fight, converting grief into power by getting in the face of adults. "So, Senator Rubio, can you tell me right now that you will not accept a single donation from the N.R.A. in the future?" The #NeverAgain movement wasn't formed in a vacuum. It's riding on the most recent wave of youth activism, which picked up speed around 2010. Student protests ebbed after the antiwar movement of the '60s and '70s. "We are fed up." Young people today are getting involved to change systemic inequalities they were raised to believe had already been taken care of. The Dreamers, students against sexual assault, Occupy Wall Street, and the Black Lives Matter movement all had strong involvement by college-educated millennials. These groups have had modest success. President Barack Obama made sure campuses did more to investigate cases of sexual assault. And he later protected Dreamers from deportation. "You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law." It's too early to tell if the #NeverAgain movement will sustain the momentum it needs to bring tangible change. But it's an election year, so politicians might find their demands difficult to ignore.

The protests calling for stricter gun control measures come on the heels of other youth movements, but the momentum they have gained makes them stand out.

Stoneman Douglas students and parents were outraged by what they viewed as gross incompetence on the part of school and law enforcement officials. Video showed that a sheriff's deputy assigned to the school did not enter the building as the attack unfolded. Seven other deputies remained outside as gunshots rang out, a state commission found. And another officer prevented paramedics from entering.

Surveillance video showed the only armed sheriff's deputy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., remaining outside during the massacre on Feb. 14, 2018.

The school district also appeared to have missed several warning signs about the former student charged in the massacre, Nikolas Cruz. The parents of two 14-year-old students who were killed decided to run for the school board to fix what they thought went wrong. One of them won.

And in January, Florida's new Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, suspended Sheriff Scott Israel for his "neglect of duty" and "incompetence." Mr. Israel, who is a Democrat and a vocal opponent of the National Rifle Association, continues to insist that the criticism of him is politically motivated and that "there was no wrongdoing on my part." Multiple deputies have also been suspended, and one ultimately resigned.

At that time, there was no law in Florida that would have prevented Mr. Cruz from buying a gun or would have allowed the police to take away his weapon. A gun control bill the state passed in March now allows law enforcement - with judicial approval - to bar a person deemed dangerous from owning guns for up to a year. Florida courts granted more than 1,000 such orders in the first nine months after the law took effect, according to The Associated Press. Eight other states have passed similar "red flag" laws in the last year, bringing the total with such laws to 14. Several more states are expected to take up measures in 2019.

State legislatures, both Republican- and Democratic-controlled, passed 76 gun control laws in the past year - from bans on bump stocks and caps on magazine sizes to new minimum-age requirements and expanded background checks. Among the victories for gun control advocates was an omnibus bill in Florida that raised the minimum age to purchase a firearm in the state to 21 and extended the waiting period to three days. In all, more than half the states passed at least one gun control measure in 2018, with Washington and New York joining the trend in 2019.

At the same time, there were significantly fewer new state laws expanding gun rights in 2018 than the year before, according to an end-of-year report by the national advocacy group Giffords. Data provided by the N.R.A. also indicated that the number of enacted gun control measures outnumbered pro-gun measures for the first time in at least six years.

Video

Back

transcript

How the N.R.A. Fought Gun Control After Parkland

After the shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., that killed 17 people, the N.R.A. used its political clout and a powerful P.R. campaign to fight gun control efforts.

It was supposed to be the mass shooting that finally galvanized the country and forced lawmakers into action: 17 people dead after a massacre inside a high school. Emotional calls for gun reform. "I want to feel safe at school." Then, in came the N.R.A., with a slick campaign and access to the Oval Office, to grind momentum almost to a halt. So how did the N.R.A. pull this off? The president needs N.R.A. endorsement to rally his support base, especially in an election year. Because of that, the N.R.A managed to secure meetings with Trump in the immediate aftermath of the Parkland school shooting, when calls for reform were the loudest. The N.R.A. has catchy, succinct slogans that are easy to remember and drive their point across. "To stop a bad guy with a gun, it takes a good guy with a gun." After Parkland, the N.R.A. spokesperson went head to head with student victims on TV. "Well, I think the A.T.F. is deciding about bump stocks right now. The president ordered the D.O.J. to look into it." "I'm asking your opinion as a representative of the N.R.A." "That's what the N.R.A.'s position has been. The N.R.A. came - "What's yours?" "I'm talking for them. These are the 5 million members that I'm here representing." And on the group's own channel they broadcasted stuff like this: "These kids ought to be marching against their own hypocritical belief structures. They hate machines that cause death except, hold on, no, you ain't never going to take their cars away. They hate the idea that guns save lives, except the only reason we've ever heard of them is because guns didn't come soon enough." The N.R.A. aggressively mobilized a membership drive a few weeks after Parkland. "Now is the time for all of us to join together in defense of the principles that make America the greatest nation on earth." They claim to have over 5 million members. But that figure has not been confirmed by any outside party. After Parkland, Florida lawmakers passed the first significant gun control bill in more than 20 years: raising the age limit to buy rifles from 18 to 21. The N.R.A. promptly filed suit. The calls for gun reform after the Parkland shooting haven't stopped, and neither have the N.R.A.'s efforts to thwart them.

After the shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., that killed 17 people, the N.R.A. used its political clout and a powerful P.R. campaign to fight gun control efforts. Credit Credit... Jim Watson/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images

In the end, the only significant national change was a ban on bump stocks - which members of both parties had been calling for since the Las Vegas shooting in October 2017.

The House of Representatives, where Democrats took power in January, has now made gun safety a priority, and the Judiciary Committee passed two gun-control bills on Wednesday that would strengthen background checks and close a loophole that allowed Dylann S. Roof to buy a gun that he used in the Charleston church massacre in 2015.But with a Republican Senate and president, the chances of either measure moving beyond the House are virtually nil.

Video

Back

transcript

Allow School Personnel to Have Access to Weapons, Report Says

President Trump read the recommendations of the Federal Commission on School Safety, which played down the role of guns in school violence.

Today, we are reviewing the recommendations put forward by the School Safety Commission. These include: Fixing mental health laws so that families and law enforcement can get treatment, immediately, to those who need it; encouraging states to adopt extreme risk protection orders, which give law enforcement and family members more authority to keep firearms out of the hands of those who pose a danger to themselves and to others; launching a "no notoriety campaign," which would encourage the media not to use the names, or frankly anything having to do with the shooters. Supporting local efforts to create a culture that cherishes life and fosters deep and meaningful human connections, allowing highly trained school personnel to have access to firearms. Nothing is more important than protecting our nation's children.

President Trump read the recommendations of the Federal Commission on School Safety, which played down the role of guns in school violence. Credit Credit... Samuel Corum for The New York Times

The president voiced support in the days after Parkland for arming teachers with guns as a way to prevent further massacres. It was an early indicator of the tack that he and congressional Republicans would take in addressing the shooting. In March, Mr. Trump announced the creation of a federal commission to examine school safety proposals, including raising the minimum age for buying certain firearms. But two months later, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos informed a Senate committee that the commission would not look at the role guns play in school violence. Its final report played down the role of guns, and advised schools to improve mental health services and train school personnel to use firearms.

Madison Leal, a student at Stoneman Douglas, said in March about politicians who would not take action: "I'm going to vote them out of office. And so is my entire generation. And they'll be sorry then."

In the summer, a busload of students traveled the country on a Road to Change tour aimed at registering young voters. In tandem with various voter groups and celebrities promoting registration, the Parkland students helped spike record numbers for young voter registration, registering thousands of voters at their rallies. The March for Our Lives campaign reported a 10 percent increase in youth turnout in 2018, compared with the previous midterm elections in 2014.

Two dozen pro-gun candidates were defeated in contests for House seats, though 88 of the 129 candidates backed by the N.R.A. did win. Gun control featured prominently as an issue in the midterms, and underdog candidates like Lucy McBath of Georgia, Jason Crow of Colorado and Abigail Spanberger of Virginia won seats in the House after campaigning strongly for gun control measures.

One thing was clear from the midterms: Young voters were energized. The results of that may continue to be felt in the years and decades to come.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Parkland Shooting: Where Gun Control and School Safety Stand Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Parkland students became a force for gun control legislation and boosted the youth vote. Here's how they changed America's response to mass shootings. On Feb. 14, 2018, a former student slaughtered 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dick’s Sporting Goods Destroyed $5 Million Worth of Guns

# data[].attributes.subject
Dick’s Sporting Goods Destroyed $5 Million Worth of Guns

# data[].attributes.body
Mrs. Hudson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While promoting his new book, the chief executive said the retailer was reviewing gun sales chainwide. "If we do these things and it saves one life, don't you think it's worth it?" he said.

Image

A Dick's Sporting Goods store in Tucker, Ga., last year. Credit... Erik S. Lesser/European Pressphoto Agency

Edward W. Stack, the chief executive of Dick's Sporting Goods, said in an interview this week that his company had destroyed over $5 million in military-style, semiautomatic rifles and was reviewing whether it would continue to sell guns in its more than 720 stores.

Mr. Stack was speaking with " CBS Sunday Morning " while promoting his new book, "It's How We Play the Game."

"So many people say to me, you know, 'If we do what you want to do, it's not going to stop these mass shootings,'" Mr. Stack told CBS. "And my response is: 'You're probably right. It won't. But if we do these things and it saves one life, don't you think it's worth it?'"

Mr. Stack said that he and his wife, Donna, have been weighing the moral consequences of selling firearms patterned on the AR-15 and other military-style weapons since the February 2018 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. The couple had learned that the gunman had bought a gun in a Dick's store. Although that firearm was not used in the Parkland shooting, which left 17 dead, Mr. Stack and his wife met with survivors in Florida.

In April 2018, Dick's Sporting Goods, one of the largest firearms sellers in the United States, said it planned to destroy the military-style rifles it had agreed to take off its shelves weeks after the shooting. "I said: 'You know what? If we really think these things should be off the street, we need to destroy them,'" Mr. Stack said.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Mr. Stack criticized Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, for dragging his feet on gun control legislation.

Previously, the Pennsylvania retailer had also agreed to ban the sale of military-style rifles at its 35 Field & Stream stores, and to stop selling firearms and ammunition to anyone younger than 21.

Mr. Stack told CBS that the restricted sales cost the company a quarter of a billion dollars. Despite the shift in strategy, the company has seen signs of improvement. In August, Dick's announced that same store sales increased 3.2 percent in the second quarter.

Since the massacre in Parkland, corporations have responded to the public's growing demand for gun control measures. Among them are Walmart, the nation's largest gun seller; L.L. Bean; and Kroger, which said in 2018 it would restrict gun sales at its Fred Meyer stores. Dick's, though, has been one of the most proactive.

"I don't understand how somebody, with everything that's gone on, could actually sit there and say, 'I don't think we need to do a background check on people who buy guns,'" Mr. Stack said. "It's just, it's ridiculous."

Mr. Stack told CBS he had already removed all guns from more than 100 Dick's stores and was considering expanding the ban to the rest of them. "We've got the whole category under strategic review to see what we're going to do," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dick's Sporting Goods Destroyed $5 Million Worth of Guns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While promoting his new book, the chief executive said the retailer was reviewing gun sales chainwide. "If we do these things and it saves one life, don't you think it's worth it?" he said. Edward W.