William: There has been another
spate of carnage and death this
week.
A dozen mass shootings left 12
dead and nearly 60 more injured.
Last night, the president
delivered another
nationally-televised plea for
common-sense reform but
meaningful action continues to
look like a legislative long
shot on capitol hill.
That brings us to the analysis
of brooks and Capehart.
That's New York Times columnist
David brooks and Jonathan
Capehart, associate editor at
the Washington post.
Gentlemen, very nice to see you.
David, we heard the president
last night acknowledge that we
are in this grotesque cycle of
carnage, that innocent people
are murdered by someone wielding
this enormously powerful weapon.
And he says we have to act.
You have recently said that
these events move public opinion
in a meaningful way, maybe not
quickly, but they do.
Do you think that is going to
matter to the negotiators here
in Washington, D.C.?
David: It is a long-term
process.
They move in a ratchet fashion
that you see arise for the
support of gun regulation, and
then it trips down, but not back
to where it was.
Public opinion is gradually
shifting.
This is a decades long process
of the Republican party has been
moving firmer into more gun
friendly and not only gun
friendly, but gun aggressively
friendly direction.
For the identity of
conservatism, it has become god
and guns.
Or borders, bullets, and babies
as one candidate said.
Supporting guns has become
almost a talisman of visual
signatures for Republicans.
Like the visual thing to
symbolize an entire philosophy.
I think what the president said
was compelling, but I don't
think the Republican party, if
anything, they are moving in a
very different direction.
William: Jonathan, as David
says, Chris Murphy is currently
talking with Republican senators
and he hence there is some idea
of progress.
Others cautioned that Mitch
Mcconnell has his eye on the
midterms and he recognizes what
is base voters, as David is
describing, what this primary
voters care about.
And it's guns.
He is not going to allow
anything to happen.
Do you have any hope that this
set of latest tragedies is going
to do anything?
Jonathan: I always have hope,
but I'm a realist.
We have been here before.
Too many times before.
The fact that senator Murphy is
sitting with a bipartisan group
of senators and they are
talking, that is a good thing.
I want him to talk.
But I have no faith that they
will get to a point where they
will have a press conference
where they announced, here is
our framework, here is our bill,
here is our language, here are
the items that we are calling
for, and then to actually get
that piece of legislation to a
vote that breaks a filibuster.
I've just laid out about three
or four hurdles right there.
If the slaughter of babies at
Newtown elementary school --
sandy hook element or school 10
years ago in December was not
enough to move the debate to the
point where we are talking about
and safety laws, or the murder
of high school students at
Marjory Stoneman Douglas high
school in parkland, Florida, if
that was not enough, then why
should anyone expect the murder
of 10 grade schoolers in uvalde,
Texas to move this conversation?
It pains me to have to say that,
but I have seen this horrible
groundhog day movie too many
times.
And I have heard the yeah, yeah,
yeah out of Mitch Mcconnell too
many times to believe that the
action and the things that
senator Murphy is pouring his
heart and soul into, I don't
doubt his sincerity.
He is absolutely sincere.
I do doubt the sincerity of the
people around that table, that
they actually want to get
something done.
William: David, we know it is
these mass shootings that garner
all of the attention, all of the
names that you riddled off,
Donovan, we know those --
Jonathan, we know those so well.
The analysis of gun deaths in
America show that it is suicides
and these less publicized
homicides that happen all the
time.
When you look at the policy
prescriptions people are talking
about, are there things that you
think, if we could get this
passed, this would make a dent
in all of those deaths?
David: I think if you look at
the history of gun regulation,
assault weapons bans, and you
look at the social science
research, it is underwhelming.
The effect of this is not to
nothing but it is underwhelming
in preventing violence and
crime.
The one area of the research
shows that gun regulation can
make a difference is owned
suicides.
And a lot of people commit
suicides because they have a
mood crash and there is a gun
right there.
If you can make it harder to
have a gun right there, they
will not commit suicide.
A lot of people who attempt
suicide do not attempt it again.
The evidence is that that is the
sort of thing where you can have
an effect and we should probably
not be focusing as much as our
hearts are rendered about the
events Jonathan described, gun
violence is the main thing.
I do think if we can focus on
regulating guns at those
moments.
And it is also important for
Democrats to understand where
Republicans are.
Republicans see guns as a way to
defend their family.
So one of the things Democrats
have not done, and I think Joe
Bryant -- Joe Biden did a decent
job in his remarks in saying he
honors responsible gun ownership
--
William: And we should celebrate
them, he said.
David: We should distinguish
between defensive gun use,
people defending their family,
they feel threatened by crime,
and offensive use.
A lot of the weapons, a lot of
the ammunition is for offensive
use.
There is no place for offensive
gun use in our society.
We call that murder.
I think reframing it in a way
that would honor the gun owners
in America is a potential way to
shift the debate, so we are not
stuck in this groundhog day.
William: Some of the things
David is mentioning do have a
lot of broad appeal.
As David is pointing out, it is
difficult for Republicans to
embrace those things.
I talked with a guy who was a
former legislator in Colorado.
There was a terrible murder of a
sheriff's deputy in his
district.
By a severely mentally ill young
man.
He tried to pass a red flag law
in Colorado, and he was hammered
for it.
The gun rights groups came out
and blasted him for it.
The build and not pass, he lost
the election, and this kind of
thing is very difficult for
Republicans to do what David is
saying, which is to embrace even
the most minor things.
Jonathan: I'm confused by
something.
Whenever anything -- any of
these mass shootings happen, or
when we get into a discussion
about gun safety organ control,
-- or gun control, we always
hear the majority of gun owners,
the majority of the members of
the NRA, they are law-abiding
and they support all of these
background checks and
everything.
But then I hear stories like
this where legislators who
apparently tried to reflect the
broader membership of the NRA to
do the right thing, they get
hammered by gun rights groups.
At some point, someone is going
to have to have the courage,
like this legislator you talked
about, he lost his election, and
I'm sorry for him, he did the
right thing and got hammered for
it, but we need more Republican
legislators to step out there
and be on the side of the
majority of the American people.
It takes political courage to do
that.
I respect the fact that the
Republican party and gun rights
groups are way over here.
But how do we break the cycle?
How do those majority of NRA
members who are with the
majority of the American people
who want some sort of gun safety
regulations, how do we get the
laws to reflect them?
David: I have a theory.
Jonathan: Ok, good.
David: In addition to the guy
you interviewed, first term
member of congress from the
Buffalo area, he said I'm
shocked by the events, and he
was a big supporter of the NRA.
He said no, we need to ban
assault weapons.
He lasted a week and now he is
not running for reelection.
Jonathan: That happened today?
David: That happened today.
My theory of what has happened
is a lot of gun owners, and we
have ample evidence of this, do
support these things we are
talking about.
The Republican party has become
not just a political party that
passes legislation, it has
become a cultural tried.
And tribes are held together by
loyalty.
Tribes are held together by
taboos.
It has now become a taboo in the
Republican party, having nothing
to do with the substance of
guns, it is just a marker.
If you are a member of our
tribe, if you belong to us, you
do not do anything on guns.
You also believe the election
was stolen and these are tribal
markers.
I have trouble seeing us
breaking that tribal mentality,
which demands uniformity, unless
our overall politics becomes
less polarized.
How that is going to happen is
what we have been struggling
with for a few decades.
William: I want to ask you about
something we heard amna talking
about with Elizabeth earlier.
It is something I have not been
able to get out of my mind,
which is the parents in uvalde
having to be swapped for their
DNA, because the children were
unrecognizable in those
classrooms because of the weapon
used against them.
It has led to some people to
say, to shocked the country's
conscious into action, we ought
to consider showing people what
these weapons do more
graphically.
What do you think about that
proposal?
Jonathan: Like you, when I saw
the news, it just broke my
heart.
Imagine, you are going to this
place where you are fearing the
worst about your child being
dead, and you are going to go
identify the body, and a person
comes and says, we need to swap
your cheek because that is the
only way we will identify your
child.
I don't have children, and it
just tore me to pieces.
Please excuse me for that turn
of phrase there.
I go back and I think I side
with former homeland security
secretary Jeh Johnson who wrote
an op-ed where he said, you know
what, we need to see, we need to
see the bodies.
We need to see this for the very
reason you were talking about,
in order to shocked the country,
not in a prurient way but in a
way that says, we must do
something here.
I go back to maybe till.
Her son, Emmett till, was
lynched, totally disfigured in
Mississippi.
And she decided, you know what,
the world, the nation needs to
see what they did to my child.
When she did that, as shocking
as it was, it advanced the cause
of civil rights in this country.
I would not want to be a parent
that would have to decide
whether that is a choice I would
want to make.
But if a child -- I'm sorry, if
a parent were to do that, were
to have the courage and the
Harrah's -- the heroism to say,
I want the nation and the world
to see what an ar-15 did to my
child, I would support that
parent 1000%.
I'm just rendered speechless by
even having to talk about this.
I don't know what else can be
done to get any kind of action
to protect families.
William: David, I'm sorry, I
would love to hear your take on
this.
David: I agree with Elizabeth.
William: David and Donovan,