The list of cities and towns that have become synonymous with gun violence keeps growing.
Littleton, Austin, Blacksburg, Tucson, Newtown, Charleston, Aurora, Killeen. I know I’ve missed a few.
Let’s add Roseburg to that infamous list. A gunman today opened fire at Umpqua Community College in southern Oregon. Ten people were killed.
The gunman died in a fire fight with police.
This one hurts. It happened in my home state.
I’ll tell you just a bit about Roseburg. It’s a conservative community. Douglas County derives much of its income from logging. It’s a pretty part of the state, rather peaceful … really! Many residents there like to hunt deer and elk.
But here’s the latest version of the same question many of us keep asking when these spasms of violence erupt: Isn’t there a way to impose reasonable regulations that can keep guns out of the hands of maniacs while protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens?
I know what the Second Amendment says. It ends with the phrase ” … the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
I endorse that principle. Honestly.
However, I keep coming back to the idea that stricter regulations — such as background checks on every person who purchases a firearm — can protect citizens’ right to “keep and bear arms” while denying permission to others who might pose a threat to society.
Gun-rights group and their powerful allies in Washington believe we have enough regulations on the books already. Bad guys will get guns no matter what, they contend.
If that’s the case, that no additional regulation is going to stop forever the kind of senseless carnage that erupted today in Roseburg, then are we going to just continue with the status quo and do nothing to tighten the rules that could prevent someone in the future from doing what that maniac did today?
The status quo is not working.