Welcome to the dispatch podcast. I'm your host Sarah Isger joined by Jonah Goldberg, David French and Steve Hayes.

We will start with the latest updates out of Uvalde as well as the political fallout and whether potential legislation is really on the table this time.

And then we'll move to Georgia what we learned from this week's primaries.

And finally, Ukraine, Finland and Sweden, want in NATO, Turkey's opposition and the blockade in the Black Sea.

Let's dive right in. Steve,

I think the question at this point that everyone's looking at is, will anything happen this time when there's been so many this times, nothing happened after Sandy Hook, nothing happened after El Paso, nothing happened after Charleston.

There's so many towns now to name will you've all to be different.

I think there are reasons to be skeptical. The proper law making in this area as well as any others would, would mean that legislators take their time, study the issues, take a firm grasp of this and don't just react to a crisis or a tragic event like this.

And push something forward. That's not the way that our lawmaking works these days. It's all sort of jumping from crisis to crisis.

And fair to say that that probably the best laws don't come out of that kind of legislating.

Having said that, as you point out, Sarah, because there have been so many of these, we've been having versions of this conversation for so long.

We have a pretty good idea of what the options are in the question. I think is whether there's the political will to do something.

You've seen Republicans, some Republicans who have been engaged in these kinds of talks before are engaged in them once again.

You have Republicans who have not been very actively engaged in these kinds of talks before who have seemed to indicate a willingness to engage again. Chuck Schumer has has given conflicting indications of what he wants to do.

Initially, there was a quick move to push hard. Then there was sort of a Schumer taking a step back and saying, look, this is about November. We'll have these issues decided in November.

And I think there's no reason to believe that we'll have anything big and lasting come out of this. But there's more conversation, particularly in the aftermath of both Buffalo and you've all the then there has been for a while.

David, some of the issue here is we still don't know. There's a whole lot of things we don't know. And I think one of the points that I've been frustrated on is this idea that whatever solution you propose has to have solved the last mass shooting.

That is the constant refrain. I just don't see how anything ever moves forward. In part, because in moments like this where there's actually maybe some will for political action, there's still pieces we don't know the answers to. But also that I think with every single one of these, there's no one answer.

And so to me, you either do in all of the above strategy where you're trying to prevent the next shooting, not the one that already happened, or it's going to always be easy for the opposition to say, well, this wouldn't have helped.

Or the vast majority of mass shootings don't involve X problem. How do you get around that? And what are the solutions, solutions the wrong term? And what are the potential options that are on the table realistically that could make some dent moving forward?

I don't know that that's entirely true anymore, Sarah, that we that among the solution set that there is one that isn't at least targeted at what we know about most mass shootings.

So one of the one of the saddest things about, you know, our modern American life right now is that we've had enough of these mass shootings to do significant longitudinal studies.

...