LA Times: Mass Shootings Could Totally Be Stopped With More Gun Laws

weapons US flag bullet holes

Bigstock

From the Bloomberg School of Public Health study that concluded “assault weapon” bans don’t actually work to Dr. Garen Wintemute’s finding that California’s extensive gun control laws have done nothing to curb homicides or suicides by firearm, there is a slew of empirical information available demonstrating that gun control doesn’t work.

Of course, that’s probably because criminals ignore pesky things like laws, but I digress. Now, though, the LA Times has jumped in with their own conclusions regarding what kinds of gun rights limitations would work and it’s some fascinating reading:

A new database from The Violence Project provides some insight into what measures, if any, could stem the bloodshed. ​Researchers there conducted a detailed study of 167 mass shootings resulting in 1,202 deaths that have occurred in the U.S. since 1966.

We’ve cross-referenced their data with five types ​of gun​ control ​proposals. The analysis reveals that if all of these policies had been in effect at the federal level, ​they would have ​had the potential to ​prevent 146 out of 167 shootings, including all but one shooting in the past five years.

In the body of the article, LA Times journalist Rahul Mukherjee runs through a list of five gun laws he feels need to exist. So, what does he consider of the utmost importance? I’m so glad you asked.

First up is perhaps the greatest gem of the entire piece: a ban on straw purchases. Mukherjee uses Columbine as his example, stating a friend bought guns for the two killers and “a ban on straw purchases would have prevented that.”

Just one problem here. Straw purchases are already illegal. It’s almost like criminals are going to behave criminally no matter what laws are on the books.

Second on the list is the desire for a safe storage requirement. Some states have already put these on the books – Washington State, I’m looking at you and your rapid decline into anti-gun-hood – and here Mukherjee turns to the example of a California murderer to justify his request:

This law aims to prevent unauthorized people, like children, from accessing firearms. In 2001, an underage shooter in Sacramento ​who was blocked from purchasing a semiautomatic weapon was able to kill five people using his father’s firearms.

If you’re picturing a pre-pubescent kid swiping his dad’s gun and going on a rampage based on that description, you’re not alone. However, those murders back in 2001 were carried out by a 20-year-old security guard who’d been suspended from his job and reacted by spending 24 hours with guns and pipe bombs killing people.

Joseph Ferguson

Joseph Ferguson, 20, who allegedly killed five people Saturday Sept. 8, 2001, and himself Monday during a gun battle with police is shown in this frame grab image released by Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department in Rancho Cordova, Calif., Monday, Sept. 10, 2001. Ferguson recorded a six-minute video tape of himself. (AP Photo/ho)

He murdered his ex-girlfriend, three former co-workers, a City of Sacramento employee, and shot and injured a LEO and a passing motorist.

Why was he suspended? Because he’d trashed his ex’s car. He lived with his father (his mother, accused of molesting him, was in jail). His family was known for having run-ins with the police and was known for being white supremacists. Yes, Mukherjee, a safe gun storage laws would definitely have prevented that.

Third is that old favorite, an “assault weapons” ban which Mukherjee writes “would prohibit the sale of many high-powered rifles.” Taking the time to explain that AR-15s are not assault weapons feels like a pointless endeavor at this point. Oh, handguns aren’t assault weapons, either. Some states apparently need to hear that fact.

Mukherjee goes on to regurgitate other gun control clichés like how gun show loopholes not only exist, but are killing people and how if we only had red flag laws across the board, everything would be just fine:

The ​man who killed 17 people at ​Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in ​Parkland, Fla., had attempted suicide, and ​his threats to attack a school had been reported to the local sheriff. A red flag law could have given someone the opportunity to intervene.

Wait. When it’s a 20-year-old security guard murdering his ex-girlfriend and co-workers he’s an “underage shooter” but when it’s a 19-year-old at a high school, he’s a man? Make up your mind, Mukherjee.

Nikolas Cruz Parkland Shooting

A video monitor shows school shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz, center, making an appearance before Judge Kim Theresa Mollica in Broward County Court, Thursday, Feb. 15, 2018, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (Susan Stocker/South Florida Sun-Sentinel via AP, Pool)

And do we really need to recount again all of the systemic failures to intervene that allowed the Parkland shooter to murder 17 people?

Scot Peterson Parkland broward coward

Scot Peterson, right, outside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. The video released Thursday, March 15, shows Peterson going toward the high school building while a gunman massacred 17 students and staff members, but stayed outside with his handgun drawn. (Courtesy of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office via AP)

Words matter. So does an understanding of the law. The LA Times and Rahul Mukherjee display neither intellectual honesty nor any comprehension of current gun laws in this piece and my guess would be they don’t want any of those things.

What it comes down to is this: existing gun laws need to be enforced. Countless murderers have carried out their killing sprees with firearms obtained illegally whether by theft, lies, or government error (how many times have crimes committed by killers not been reported, allowing them to buy a gun themselves?).

Rather than adding still more laws to the pile, why not use what’s already on the books to reduce the number of criminals on the street? Just a thought.

comments

  1. avatar Timothy V Noecker says:

    “Mass Shootings Could Totally Be Stopped With More Law-Abiding Citizens Carrying Guns”
    That’s What The Headline Should Read…

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      Citizens owning guns kinda helps prevent things like the:

      Chinese “Great Leap Forward” genocide
      Holodomor genocide
      Jewish & Roma Holocaust of WW2
      Armenian genocide
      Gulag genocide
      Kmer Rouge genocide

      The above events involved governments murdering about a hundred million civilians.

      I think we Americans will just keep our guns

      1. avatar bill knight says:

        I seem to remember something about some guys thinking they ought to codify what they knew were GOD given Rights, and protect those inherent Rights with some Law stuff. Smart guys, our Founding Fathers!

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      The analysis reveals that if all of these policies had been in effect at the federal level, ​they would have ​had the potential to ​prevent 146 out of 167 shootings,

      The problem isn’t that the US has some crappy freedoms, the problem is the US has some crappy people.

      It is a better endeavor to improve our people rather than take our own freedoms away.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      termination can be a traumatic event…sometimes triggering an irrational response….yet it happens every day….these things need to be handled carefully…and security needs to be on a heightened state of alert, as access is frequently the determining factor in these negative outcomes…

  2. avatar Dennis says:

    Kinda like illegal immigration was stopped with more laws? News flash,,,the same people who ignore immigration laws ignore gun laws, being Commiefornia, you should know that.

  3. avatar Marcus says:

    The Straw Purchase one really got me going but you can’t comment on the LA Times.

    1. avatar UpInArms says:

      Of course not. That would disrupt the narrative.

    2. avatar million says:

      The Columbine shooters’ straw purchasers were prosecuted and convicted for providing handguns to a minor. It’s a really low bar to write for LA Times.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Really? I thought I recalled that she was never even arrested, totally left alone. Pretty sure you’re incorrect.

        1. avatar Anymouse says:

          The girlfriend wasn’t even charged for the straw purchase of 3 long guns, which she admitted to. The private seller of the handgun and the guy who brokered that deal were convicted.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          When you’re a pretty blond white girl from a “good family” you don’t get arrested and put on trial. Even when you supplied the guns to the worst mass shooting ever.

          https://columbine.wikia.org/wiki/Robyn_Anderson

          However if you are a single black mother, you do get arrested. But you don’t get put on trial for buying guns for your criminal boy friend either. So I Guess it all works out???
          Being a single mother is your “get out of jail free” and not prosecuted card.

          To this day there are still news stories saying a man was responsible for supplying the guns to the killers at columbine. Our society refuses to hold women accountable for many types of crimes.

        3. avatar CarlosT says:

          Female privilege at its best.

        4. avatar Bre says:

          As a woman I can say this, you guys are totally right. Are there some form of male privilege? To a degree, sure. But the female privilege is far, far bigger a problem. Seriously. Female privilege is responsible for a lot of wrongful male criminal prosecutions, for a lot of unprosecuted crime, and even alot of male suicide due to extremely overwhelming prevalence of mother custody rulings for example.

  4. avatar UpInArms says:

    ” a detailed study of 167 mass shootings ”

    The first question that pops in to my head is what is his definition of a mass shooting? All of these “detailed” studies all use whatever definition is convenient to the pre-ordained conclusions. Worse, they all take the “mass shootings” out of context. The usual (?) definition is 4 or more dead. But that’s way too loose. Definitely, something like Parkland qualifies as a mass shooting. But that is completely different than gang-bangers doing a drive-by that takes out 4 members of a rival gang in a turf war. Yet, both go into the catch bin of “mass shooting.”

    So, right off the top I’m suspicious of that 167 number. I’d be surprised if the real, genuine “mass shooting” number is even 10% of that.

    Definitely gotta call bullshit on this one. Shocking, I know.

    1. avatar MouseGun says:

      Wasn’t what constitutes a mass shooting redefined as two or more victims under the Obama administration? And aren’t a lot of those claims bogus because the count things like people shoot with BB guns?

      1. avatar Robert says:

        Gee, and I thought a “mass” shooting had to be a shooting while you were attending mass. [snigger, snort, guffaw,……..]

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I think you guys are missing the point. There are multiple definitions to keep you confused. A mass *shooting* can occur with nobody killed, I think 4 people shot, not sure if scratches count. A mass *murder* involves some number dying, depending on who you talk to sometimes including the shooter and sometimes not. Similarly, “school shootings” may or may not be in a school, and may or may not involve any students.

    3. avatar Anymouse says:

      The whole premise is BS. It assumes that any attack committed with a weapon they would like to ban wouldn’t have happened. They wouldn’t have say home thinking, “I’d really like to kill a bunch of people, but I can’t since I can only buy 10 round magazines.” Instead, the perpetrators would most likely have substituted some other weapon.

  5. avatar grumpster says:

    How about law making it illegal with very stiff penalties to murder someone? oh wait.

    1. avatar trollhunter says:

      Sad, funny, and true all at the same time

    2. avatar john y says:

      The real problem comes in with the stiff penalties part, not charging with the maximum possible crime and letting them plea deal down to manslaughter then out in 5 yrs or less to do the same thing again.
      Personal experience my nephew and my girlfriend both murdered by individuals that were lying in wait (1st-degree murder), murderers charged with 2nd-murder, then pleaded down to manslaughter. Two different states, both out in less than 5 yrs and both committed murders again within 3 yrs of release.
      Neither of the murders involved a firearm.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      their proposals all have the intent of denying access to firearms for as many people as possible…which is, of course… their endgame…

  6. avatar Ogre says:

    The LA Times is the left-coast version of the lefty-progressive-Dem New York Times (Pravda-on-the-Hudson) and the Washington Post (Pravda-on-the-Potomac). They are all major mouthpieces for the same agenda pushed by Bloomburg and his shills. I did a search for Rahul Mukherjee, but there were so many listed that I couldn’t find out anything about his background (and there was nothing in the article), but from what he wrote, I suspect he either wasn’t educated in this country or he was educated at UCLA or a similar lefty university.

  7. avatar Draven says:

    OF COURSE HE’S RIGHT!!!! I mean, CA has ALL of these gun laws, and they don’t have any mass shootings at ALL!!!! Right guys?!?!? Guys??? *crickets*

    [/sarc]

    1. avatar Country Boy says:

      SSSHHHH! Don’t confuse a liberal socialist progressive marxist democrat with actual facts……..(sarcasm)

  8. avatar Jerry LeDoux says:

    I live in Birmingham, Alabama. Every week I see people shot or killed, mainly with handguns. If you listen to the news and narrative, most of it is black on black, occurring between 10:00 PM and 5:00 AM, and a lot of drive by shootings.

    Anyone out at these hours (unless you work night shifts) are not up to anything good. There are a lot of car break ins (people don’t lock their cars, leave their keys in the ignition, and leave guns and other valuables in the cars), drive by shootings (when the same house is shot up twice in the same week, someone in that house is being targeted), and stealing cars. They even had a shooting outside a barber shop this week after two patrons got in an argument.

    I don’t know if the majority of this is gang or drug related or just lack of respect for other people. When I was younger, if you didn’t agree with someone, you had a yelling match or fist fight. When it was over, you shook hands. You still may not like the reason for the fight or the outcome, but you didn’t go get a knife, baseball bat, or gun to settle it.

    It has to do with upbringing, respect for other people and their property, and personal values. We have a lost generation or two who think the world owes them.

    1. avatar trollhunter says:

      I am in complete agreement with your comment

    2. avatar RGP says:

      Everybody’s momma said stay away from lowlifes and don’t do drugs and don’t be hanging around in the parking lot of a bar at 2 am unless you want to get shot…. for some reason lots of kids didn’t pay attention to that.

      1. avatar Barry Hirsh says:

        That’s prolly ‘cuz there were no daddies around to kick ass.

        Ya think?

        1. avatar bill knight says:

          Too simple, and right on point. Folks want to keep their risky life choices without the risk. It just doesn’t work like that, so others must change to accommodate them. Typical selfish attitude.

      2. avatar rt66paul says:

        That is because those were grandma’s rules. The kid was hanging out in the bar parking lot waiting to take mom home from the bar.

    3. avatar Southern Cross says:

      I had a thought is this violent behavior from the concept of “everyone has to be a winner” that is taught in schools. Since everyone has to be a winner, the situation is escalated to extremes so there one winner, or no-one wins.

      My son has learned from Little Athletics you can win if you try hard, but you can’t win all the time at everything, and other people may improve and will win instead.

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      …or, perhaps a cultural thing… where violence at ever increasing levels is something of the norm?..

  9. avatar Philip Twiss says:

    I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

    So, give up talking logic and start talking emotions…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k25xA4c85F4&list=LLFaJKhGczKXo6fS2MlfbPaQ&index=117&t=0s

    And ask them why they think those that mean to do them self, children, Wives and Daughters will give them any mercy?

    If that does not work, add their cats, dogs, goldfish…

  10. avatar Shire-man says:

    If laws worked the way these morons seem to believe they do one simple law banning murder would be enough.

  11. avatar Prndll says:

    They refer to private sellers as “unlicensed dealers”.

  12. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    WTF do they get this zhit,none of the laws so far have done one damn thing to stop anyone who wants to do evil and never will,the only thing any of the laws have done is infringe on that which “Shall Not Be Infringed.”

    1. avatar trollhunter says:

      Yes, it seems ridiculous to have to make the point you made above, but these times are quite ridiculous. Who would imagine that a criminal would break the/any law?

  13. avatar billy-bob says:

    Get the people to stop defecating on the sidewalks before you come talking to us about gun laws.

  14. avatar Alan11800 says:

    They are correct we need more gun laws to stop mass shootings.
    1) a law that allows you to sue the property owner if you are injured in a gun free zone.
    2) a must issue law for concealed carry in all states.
    3) a law repealing the CA approved handgun list
    3) laws repealing limits on handgun magazine capacity
    4) laws repealing bans on hollow point ammunition.
    5) a law mandating carry reciprocity
    6) a law prohibiting states, counties, or municipalities form ordinances violating any of the above.

    1. avatar Jerry says:

      I agree with you 100%. I wonder if we imposed so many restrictions on the the 1st Amendment, how many people would be rioting in the streets.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        “if we imposed so many restrictions on the the 1st Amendment, how many people would be rioting in the streets.”

        Not many. Never underestimate the stupidity of the average American.

  15. avatar Hannibal says:

    Complete dumbassery and people will think it’s well-researched because it’s in a major paper.

    One could argue that sandy hook might have been preventable had the mother secured all the guns in her house properly but that’s about it.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      After she was killed in her sleep (easy to do with a blade or a hammer), the murderer had plenty of time to get her guns, no matter how she secured them. The only way to stop him was to lock him up, not her guns.

  16. avatar possum says:

    Mass Shootings could totally be stopped by killing all the Buffalo. To hell with roller skates

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Nice try, but the real possum is clearly better at this than you are.

  17. avatar Darkman says:

    As stated many times here. The purpose of Laws as a deterrent to crime was never considered until lawyers came on the scene and decided that winning at all costs was more important than insuring Justice. Then Politicians decided the making laws was a good way of showing their constituents how much they cared. Regardless of effectiveness. The Original intent of laws from early times was solely designed for the punishment of those who chose to break them. Once it became a profit game for lawyers as well as politicians. The enforcement became a necessary evil in the game. To attain more Money and Power. As long as these two factors are in play. The Game will continue. Which is their Intent. Keep Your Powder Dry.

    1. avatar turn about says:

      @ DARKMAN: DAMN, YOU NAILED AGAIN !!

  18. avatar Christopher A says:

    Who cares about mass shootings, I’m more interested in how many homicides of all type would be prevented with their proposed policies. Of course, the answer is a big fat ZERO. Gun control efforts don’t save lives, we can see this in Australia and the UK as prime examples. Their overall homicide rates are the same they were 50 years ago in these countries. The number one factor in homicide is not firearms, its socioeconomic condition, always has been.

  19. avatar GS650G says:

    Traffic accidents could be elimated if we banned cars and trucks too so what’s the point? Even a total ban would never eliminate all guns in the world so its a useless position to take. More immature ramblings.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      less guns would probably result in less gun crime…but at what cost?…criminals and criminal behavior aren’t going away…but effective self-defense for those most in need of it very well might….

  20. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Works so well with illegal drugs and illegal aliens…right?

  21. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Ok. We have “…a detailed study of 167 mass shootings resulting in 1,202 deaths that have occurred in the U.S. since 1966.”

    Not that it matters to mush heads, but….

    The result is 167 “mass shootings” in 53 years. Roughly a little over 3/yr (3.151).
    Of the 167 “mass shootings”, 1202 deaths occurred. Roughly a little over seven/incident (7.20).
    In the 53 years covered, the death rate was roughly 22/yr (22.67).

    While 22 deaths from mass shootings is a horrible number, it must be put in perspective of the overall population for each year (haven researched the population totals), and the perspective of the overall average number of deaths per year (which I haven’t had time to research through government sources).

    One other interesting statistic: in 2017, 80,000 people in the US died from influenza complications; 80,000. Anybody remember the media and MSM getting their panties in a wad over that? There is a current disturbance being hyped as life-ending for the planet. Corona virus should be compared with SARS, MERS, (remember those?) and influenza*.

    It is almost impossible for liberals, leftists, snowflakes to put statistics into any perspective other than “end of the world” terms.

    *Spanish Flu (Jan 1918 – Dec 1920), estimated 30,000,000 deaths worldwide.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      PBS aired an excellent documentary on the 1918 flu outbreak…featuring a disturbing image of kids playing on a stack of yet to be used coffins!….the most unnerving aspect of it was how it frequently targeted the young and apparently healthy…..

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “PBS aired an excellent documentary on the 1918 flu outbreak…”

        I am fully convinced that if Polio had arisen in the last ten years, with the force and effect it had in the 40s/50s, our government, and the society would collapse in fear, unable to deal with such hardship.

        SARS and MERS were not trivial events, but who remembers? I was on a government agency response task force, drawing up plans for evacuating an entire major US city should those two diseases become catastrophic. The extent of our plan was to usher people away from the city, to wherever those refugees could travel, and fend for themselves. Our whole plan was just to get away from a “hot spot”.

    2. avatar Someone says:

      Leftists can’t use flu deaths to push public disarmament. That’s why they don’t care or talk about them. Leftists only care about power, not saving lifes.

  22. avatar Erseterly says:

    You can asked the LA Times for a correction to something that is factually incorrect. I recommend everyone do that. The editors will have to review it and the reporter will have to defend his writing to his bosses. May not change anything but it can slow the most egregiously bad reporters.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      sound idea…they do need to be called on it when dispensing erroneous information

      1. avatar possum says:

        No it’s me, it’s just living in this sprawling metropolis of 900 for a year is morphing me into becoming more human than human.Hopefulky come this spring and if I make it across the hiway I can get back to stealing chicken eggs from chicken rancher. Fighting cats at the dumpster has lost some of its pizzazz

        1. avatar possum says:

          @i haz a question.

  23. avatar Debbie W. says:

    What we need is Jim Crow Joe Biden’s Gun Control. We can lay all of our guns at the feet of democrats and we’ll be safe and secure. Of course the democrat party elite will retain their 24/7 armed security. We don’t need the kind of guns tiny peter buttihead carried while he was in the military or guns that breadline bernie and the tryranical mini mike doesn’t approve of.
    Where will a line of arm raised debating democrat gun control zealots be should you and yours be cornered by a criminal? The answer is where Jim Crow Democrat gun control zealots always are…Nowhere.

  24. avatar Robert says:

    EVERYBODY CONTINUES TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE PERPS AT COLUMBINE ALSO HAD PROPANE BOTTLES.
    WE STILL HAVEN’T BANNED OR REGULATED THEM.
    We also haven’t banned fertilizer, motor oil, carbon, sulfur, or bird & bat dung either.

  25. avatar CliffG says:

    Wait. 167 over 50+ years? I thought we had hundreds every year? Cherry picking statistics or barely 3 a year, either way statistical hogwash. I know as soon as you mention numbers to a leftie their eyes glaze over, but it is worth a try. Most people literally have no idea what the real numbers are and Bloomberg spends $$$$ to misrepresent them.

  26. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    California’s extensive gun control laws have done nothing to curb homicides or suicides by firearm,

    That is EXACTLY why they need MORE gun control laws (in California), if their current laws don’t work it must be due to the fact that they just don’t go far enough… It could NOT be due to lack of enforcement and surely not because criminals and the mentally impaired choose to ignore all the laws presently on the books… By all means impose NEW laws and regulations to further burden your law abiding citizens but hey, just think of ALL the new charges you can pile onto your next mass shooter….

  27. avatar They dont have a clue says:

    When will people realize laws are not preventative solutions to violence. Laws are prescribed reactions to a persons actions. (If you do “x” then the consequences are “y”. Reactions to actions already committed)
    Similar for the police response, they have no duty to protect you, their duty is to Investigate crimes after they have been committed and detain the accused until judges/juries hear the case.
    Murder and assault are already illegal but that seems to have little effect on the commission of those crimes. whats yet another law going to do?

    Even when criminals are caught, the revolving doors of justice pleads the case to lesser charges and put the accused right back on the street.

    The issue is there no personal accountability in our society and no real punishment or no real deterrence in our criminal justice system.
    Bring back capital punishment and make it public, then criminals may have some deterrence. Until then its just security theater. Kind of like the TSA.

    Your safety is in your own hands, be aware, be armed and stay safe.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “When will people realize laws are not preventative solutions to violence. Laws are prescribed reactions to a persons actions.”

      You have to sink deep into the mind of a child to understand the anti-gun position on law.

      In the mind of a child, a prohibition (“don’t do that”) is a law. The prohibited behavior is deterred by the law (a stand-in for a 24/7 parent). “Good” children don’t want to aggravate their parent (and suffer a consequence), so the law is sufficient to ensure compliant behavior.

      Now, since we are in the third (if not fourth) generation of children raising their children to remain children, the anti-gun mob approaches life as would a child. Thus, “good” children (law abiding gun owners) will obey the law, even if gun owners are just normal people who might instantly snap and start a shooting spree. Such people are “good” children who decided to become “bad” children. However, since “good” children outnumber the “bad” children, therefore increasing the number of activities prohibited increases the safety of the other “good” children.

      The “bad” children are just bad, and will do bad things. “Bad” children seem to bunch together, away from “good” children, and trying to make “bad” children behave is just too hard. The “bad” children are hopeless, but if a law saves even one “good” child, it is worth the increased safety.

  28. avatar Richard Coon says:

    The only thing that might stop mass shootings would be to take the perpetrator, assuming he survives, chain him to the ground surrounded by several fire-ant hills and televise the entire thing. Cruel and unusual? probably. Effective? probably.

  29. avatar Alan says:

    You can or could enact all the gun laws imaginable. Two problems would remain.

    1. Criminals, for some reason, tend to disobey the law.
    2. Denying the mentally incompetent firearms ownership might help some, problem remaining is as follows. How to determine mental competence.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email