Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Your Take: Mass shootings in the U.S.

Your Take: Mass shootings in the U.S.

Earlier this week we asked the following questions of our Bridge Alliance, Coffee Party and Fulcrum communities regarding the ongoing prevalence of mass shooting events that have puzzled the country’s socio-political psyche, perpetually searching for solutions:

  • How do we better unify behind solving the issue of gun violence, without inserting our own ideological biases?
  • Is gun violence an inherently political issue? Are non-political solutions potentially more effective?

Since posing these questions earlier in the week, there have been multiple mass shootings. An almost unavoidable sense of tragedy is sweeping across much of the country, while Congress lacks momentum on legislative solutions. It has become apparent that, regardless of political affiliation, many have accepted the truth that a need for a fundamental adjustment in our country’s relationship with guns is necessary. Jointly, this adjustment is necessary in short order, as the U.S. marches toward a record for mass shooting events in a single year, according to The Guardian.


Your responses indicated the urgency this issue requires. In many ways, there is no such thing as a dumb idea, evidenced by the creative and thought provoking ideas you all shared. From suggestions for our legislative bodies to thoughts on increased visibility for mental health resources, the perspectives represented in this week’s piece are the epitome of productive dialogue. This conversation reveals the influential ability for each of us to make a palpable difference. Now the spotlight turns to our democracy’s biggest decision-makers and whether they can muster the collective will and strength to make progress in defeating a menacingly relentless opponent.

Here is a sampling of your thoughts. Responses have been edited for length and clarity.

Perhaps the violence of mass murders is more a social or public health issue, than a purely political one. There needs to be more focus on prevention. Think about it this way: those committing mass murders have given up hope and live in fear of always losing with no way out except for destruction. Not purely mental illness, but depression and hopelessness, with an overriding fear that nothing will ever get better. Public health tries to deal with anger management as a subset of depression, suicide prevention and/or substance abuse; which may be the proper solution. But public health departments are not equipped to take this on in depth. After a number of years in school nursing and coordinating closely with public health departments, it is easy to see their efforts are often disjointed and lack the focus necessary. - Brenda Marinace

We should focus on various options, including limiting bullet magazines, deeper gun safety training to protect minors and the mentally ill, changes in gun manufacturer liability laws, etc. Both political and civic solutions are necessary. - Steve Yaffe

I believe that gun violence is principally a mental health issue, whether suicide, low-intensity homicide or mass shootings. In this sense, solutions should be essentially non-political, including "Red Flag Laws", more resources for patient referrals, and any other feasible means of screening for mental instability prior to firearm purchases. - David Hudelson

Violence is not an inherently political issue, but guns are. Those that argue for better identification and treatment for mental illness are trying to treat the causes of “violence” (although the mentally ill are statistically more likely to be the victims of violence rather than the perpetrators). It is not a bad approach, but it is insufficient. The guns have to be treated as a huge part of the problem, and that is a political issue that our politicians can’t continue to pawn off on other parts of society. - Kathy Rondon

Of course non-political solutions would be more effective, but there is extreme power and money behind making this a political issue. - Becky Foster

Guns are not the problem. The people that use them are the problem. Guns just make it worse. Restricting access to guns will help with that but the problem needs addressed at a social level. - John Ruble

I fundamentally believe that the majority of citizens in our nation can agree that guns that are manufactured specifically to kill or harm people, and not animals, should not be able to be purchased as easily as they currently are. I'm a hunter myself and I don't know anyone who hunts with an assault weapon. Laws differ from state to state but common sense would dictate to me that someone who isn't legally old enough to purchase alcohol shouldn't be able to legally purchase an assault weapon. I believe common sense is a great way to get beyond political biases. - Deke Copenhaver

Logically, we should look at how other nations succeeded in curbing gun violence and make a model from that. While I believe this is a humanitarian issue, almost anything can be turned into a political one. - Jennifer

Gun violence is an inherently political issue because the most effective way to address it is through legislative limits, as demonstrated by other world democracies. To reframe the dialogue in the US, we might start by having gun enthusiasts share personal stories of how current laws have brought tragedy to their lives, and why they therefore support essential limits (e.g. banning assault weapons, red flag laws, purchaser checks). - Morris Effron

People can reach mutual understanding, they can repair the trust, they can collaborate across their differences. The gridlock we see at the national level, however, can only be fought where we live, work, worship, and learn. Changing the discourse in those spaces is what will break the larger cycle of polarization. Open, healthy dialogue, in cornerstone spaces like schools and churches can make a whole community more resistant to polarizing forces. It's not easy. It means deliberately including people who are currently left out—because of their identities or values, because they hold moderate views, or because they're not certain how they feel. And not just including them, but creating opportunities again and again for each person to share what matters most to them and to be truly heard. Those opportunities let us build the relationships that will interrupt polarization and reveal new paths forward together. When communities can do that, the “us versus them” tactics will stop working, polarization will stop being rewarded at the ballot box and in the media cycle, and our democracy can start working again as it should. - Katie Hyten

In order to unify behind solutions, we have to make this about the people who are being killed, randomly in most cases. We have to make it particularly about the children being lost and traumatized, and the impact on the families. - Jim Wooley

We need to start by agreeing on the facts. We are in the midst of an inflationary spiral of gun violence. The number of shootings, both casual and planned/mass, is escalating. This leads to more people buying guns, which only leads to more shootings. This is becoming its own pandemic, in which innocent citizens are swept up on a daily basis. For an epidemic, we need to try everything until the fever breaks. Americans, by a wide margin across ideological lines, favor tightening gun laws (i.e. banning high-capacity magazines, increasing red-flag laws, etc.).These facts have been well-established by Pew Research, a non-political organization. - Ken Lawler

Most polls I have heard of indicate the vast majority of Americans want some kind of gun control. Our politicians are unable to work together to define what that means. I believe the Supreme Court should interpret and clarify what the 2nd Amendment means in today's America and that states should follow that interpretation and implement gun control accordingly. - Patrick Baldwin


Read More

​President Donald Trump and other officials in the Oval office.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington, before signing a spending bill that will end a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Alex Brandon, Associated Press

Trump Signs Substantial Foreign Aid Bill. Why? Maybe Kindness Was a Factor

Sometimes, friendship and kindness accomplish much more than threats and insults.

Even in today’s Washington.

Keep ReadingShow less
Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less