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




















A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.