Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Gun violence in America

Gun violence in America

Police cars and cordon tape block Main Street near the Old National Bank after a mass shooting in Louisville, Kentucky.

Photo by Jeremy Hogan/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Dr. Quentin Holmes, Sr. is assistant professor of public administration for Grambling State University and a retired Chief of Police in Monroe, LA. Dr. Nina Agrawal, MD FAAP is a pediatrician and chair of the American Medical Women’s Association Gun Violence Solutions Committee. Jasmine Hull is a former educational administrator and has launched K-12 charter schools in multiple states across the US.

Gun violence is a national crisis. Daily shootings have become the norm. Mass shootings are on the rise. Because gun related violence is now a leading cause of death for children and young adults, today’s youth are known as the lockdown generation. This is not typical of a developed nation.


With a perpetual gridlock in Congress, it raises the question: is there anything that can be done to reduce or eliminate gun violence in America?

This critical question is precisely what drew us together - a New York pediatrician, a retired police chief from Louisiana, and a Texas based K-12 administrator. Together, with a diverse panel of other medical, educational, political, and social science experts, we met over a series of discussions with the sole goal of finding shared solutions.

By examining the issue through multiple lenses, and leveraging the use of Deliberations.US, a tool designed to build civic education and engagement muscles through guided deliberations, we have developed a live, guided conversation showing different perspectives on, and different potential actions to take in regards to, reducing gun violence in America. The result is a nation-wide conversation that prioritizes problem-solving over polarization and people over politics.

In a collaboration with both staff and students at Harvard and Stanford, Deliberations.US has been engaging in online and in-person deliberations since 2021. By employing a nonpartisan, unbiased, and factual approach, participants can increase their understanding of complex topics and achieve a deeper understanding of those with differing perspectives. A core component of the Deliberations.US process is targeting issues most meaningful to participants. As more and more students, teachers, and staff were integrated into the deliberation process we continued to ask what topics were real and present to them. Across the board, the most requested conversation was, and continues to be, gun violence. It’s a topic that threatens the health, safety, and economic viability of our entire country and is top of mind for our nation's youngest generation.

A commonly held belief is the only way to address gun violence is by enacting policies that often lack overall consensus. This type of action may temporarily address the impacts and trauma inflicted upon our nation by gun violence, but only for a finite time. Without common ground, any political action to reduce gun violence will constantly be under threat - it may only last as long as it takes to conclude a new election cycle or for a judge to retire. Our government was built upon compromise, but how can there be compromise when lives are on the line?

We can all agree that something must be done to reduce gun violence in this country. However, what we disagree on is how it should be done. Major actions are being taken across the nation, in red and blue states and across party lines, to try and address this crisis. Red flag laws, expanded social services, increased background checks, bolstered research funding, and firearm bans all have champions both for and against their implementation and effectiveness. Some argue that these policies have been successful and need to be scaled up, while others argue they’re ineffective or conflict with citizen’s constitutional rights.

Regardless of where someone stands on these particular issues, we’ve already established a point of common ground: Americans want to see changes in how we address gun violence. History shows us that in order to take meaningful action and affect lasting change we must begin with having difficult conversations, establishing common ground, and building upon a foundation of shared respect and passions.

It’s up to us to unite, in-person and online, to have difficult and civil conversations that will both inform and empower us to take action together. We invite you to join us as we launch our new deliberation, a powerful conversation on “Reducing Gun Violence” in America.

We are holding deliberations as a featured partner of the Listen First Coalition’s National Week of Conversation - a week-long series of events designed to create an open space for bridging divides, rekindling relationships, and having meaningful and impactful conversations. As part of this series, we will be hosting online deliberations throughout the week of April 17. All are welcome to participate.

We invite you to sign up for this conversation and learn more at Deliberations.US.

Read More

Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses

This week, I joined a coalition of journalists in Washington, D.C., to speak directly with lawmakers about a crisis unfolding in plain sight: the rapid disappearance of local, community‑rooted journalism. The advocacy day, organized by the Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP), brought together reporters and media leaders who understand that the future of local news is inseparable from the future of American democracy.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You

The brutality of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the related cohort of federal officers in Minneapolis spurred more than 30,000 stalwart Minnesotans to step forward in January and be trained as monitors. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s demands to Minnesota’s Governor demonstrate that the ICE surge is linked to elections, and other ICE-related threats, including Steve Bannon calling for ICE agents deployment to polling stations, make clear that elections should be on the monitoring agenda in Minnesota and across the nation.

A recent exhortation by the New York Times Editorial Board underscores the need for citizen action to defend elections and outlines some steps. Additional avenues are also available. My three decades of experience with international and citizen election observation in numerous countries demonstrates that monitoring safeguards trustworthy elections and promotes public confidence in them - both of which are needed here and now in the US.

Keep ReadingShow less