Baton Rouge, Falcon Heights, Dallas. This week’s death toll, write Dahlia Lithwick and Mark P. McKenna, should teach us this: “The continued proliferation of guns means that more civilian-police interactions in which guns are brandished will be resolved hastily and with deadly force. It also makes it ever more ‘reasonable’ for police to assume guns are always present. It’s a vicious circle.”
Thursday’s shootings happened in a city whose police department has been a model of reform, instituting a variety of progressive measures since 2012: new reporting guidelines, training in de-escalation, a big investment in body cams. “No, the Dallas Police Department is not perfect,” Leon Neyfakh writes. “Nevertheless, at a time when the movement for police reform has repeatedly collided with a law enforcement culture that’s resistant to change, the department and Chief David Brown deserve credit for all they’ve done.”
Why do stocks for gun manufacturers always surge in value after shootings? Helaine Olen thinks the reliable phenomenon is attributable to fear, but also to opportunism on the part of investors. “Given that most Republicans in Washington refuse to even consider voting for the most minor of gun-control measures, it seems likely that gun stocks will continue to be a good bet,” she writes.
Several conservative politicians and writers have responded with surprising empathy to the shootings this week. (Is this really RedState? Pinch me.) Leon Neyfakh rounds up their statements, and wonders what’s going on. “It’s enough to make you think even the most sturdy-seeming ideologies can be dislodged in times of crisis—and that, as horrendously sad as this week has been, it may end up being some sort of turning point,” Neyfakh writes, hopefully.
Finally: “17 Poems to Read When the World Is Too Much.”
Everywhere, everywhere,
Rebecca
