Tag Archives: gun violence

More guns means less mayhem?

guns

The processing of the latest gun-violence massacre is continuing across the nation — perhaps even the world.

Nine people were gunned down in Roseburg, Ore., this past week and we’ve heard the mantra from gun-owner-rights advocates: If only we could eliminate these “gun free zones” and allow more guns out there …

The idea being promoted — and I haven’t yet heard from the National Rifle Association on this — is that more guns in places such as Umpqua Community College, where the Roseburg massacre occurred, could have stopped the madman.

NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said infamously after the Newtown, Conn., bloodbath that killed 20 first graders and six teachers, that the “only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”

I’m not in favor of disarming American citizens. I believe in the Constitution and the Second Amendment, although for the life of me I still have trouble deciphering its literal meaning: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The question has been posed: When did “well-regulated Militia” get translated to meaning the general population? Still, the courts have ruled time and again that the Constitution guarantees firearm ownership to all citizens. I’m OK with that.

But I am not OK with the idea that more guns means less violence, less mayhem, less bloodshed, fewer deaths and injuries.

Surely there can be a way to tighten regulations gun ownership in a manner that does not water down the Second Amendment, one of the nation’s Bill of Rights.

If only our elected representatives could muster the courage to face down the powerful political interests that simply will won’t allow it.

 

Roseburg seeks comfort in anonymity

douglas county

Roseburg, Ore., residents have picked up on the sentiments of Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin, who told reporters: “You will never hear me say his name.”

The name belongs to the young man who gunned down nine people at Umpqua Community College and then — reportedly — killed himself.

Shooter remains nameless

The world, of course, knows the shooter’s name. It’s been published, posted and reported. But I have to say that I support the decision by the sheriff and I applaud the community’s reaction to what he declared.

Roseburg has become the latest city to be identified with a horrific act of gun violence, joining a growing list of other cities across the country that have been shaken beyond belief over unspeakable tragedy.

The reaction, though, to the “name thing” instigated by Sheriff Hanlin has created a fascinating back story.

The Roseburg News-Review published the gunman’s name along with a small picture of him. According to the Los Angeles Times, the furious reaction by the community on social media has prompted the paper to quit referring to the individual by name.

The city’s residents do not want to give the gunman a trace of fame or notoriety by flashing his name all over the media. They figure, I reckon, that the maniac’s dastardly actions have spoken loudly and clearly enough all by themselves.

What will all of this do substantively to the community? Will it allow Roseburg to heal any more thoroughly or completely? The community mission to keep the shooter’s name out of any public reference to this tragedy won’t do anything … except this:

It will give the shaken residents of Roseburg some measure of undefinable comfort. If that’s all it takes, then I’m all for the notion of never mentioning the gunman’s name out loud.

 

Here we go again … more gun violence

Guns-In-America

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.

Gun violence erupts again

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.

 

Confiscate guns? Not going to happen

gunviolence

The conversation has begun.

The shooting deaths this week of two TV journalists in Roanoke, Va., has prompted the call for greater gun regulation in America.

I do not oppose that idea.

But some folks are now looking Down Under, at Australia, where officials years ago confiscated guns throughout the country. The result was a plummeting of violent crimes committed by people using firearms.

OK, will that happen here? Are the feds going into every home in America and start taking guns away from Americans? Not in a gazillion years.

The Constitution says gun ownership shall not be abridged. There will be no amendment to the Constitution that repeals the Second Amendment. Period. End of that discussion.

However, I am not going to accept the argument that stricter laws that keep guns out of the hands of the people who should have them are somehow violating the rights of “law-abiding citizens” to “keep and bear arms.”

Alison Parker and Adam Ward died at the hands of someone who purchased a gun legally in Virginia. He put down his money and walked out with a firearm that he then used to cause untold grief to two people’s families.

I am not certain how a background check on this guy would have detected some mental or emotional distress that could have kept him from owning that firearm. It’s not altogether fitting to look at just one crime and then say, “Well, all we have to do is just enforce existing laws.”

But if we step back and examine all the incidents of gun violence and the backgrounds of all the individuals who have committed these crimes, then it’s fair to ask whether there is some mechanism that could be used to detect the potential for violence if they decide to purchase a firearm.

I don’t want my two rifles taken from me. They’re heirlooms. I’ve had ’em since I was a boy. My dad gave me a .22 when I was about 11; he then gave me a 30.06 — that he had owned for many years previously — when I was in my late teens. They rarely come out of the place where I store them.

A nationwide confiscation isn’t going to happen.

But why can’t we consider some measures that (a) honor the Second Amendment and (b) make it harder for fruitcakes to get their hands on deadly weapons?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/australia-confiscated-650000-guns-murders-and-suicides-plummeted/ar-BBm9eak

 

This shooting defies all logic

gunviolence

What in the name of all that is holy happened in Roanoke, Va.?

An apparently disgruntled former television station employee opened fire on a broadcast journalist interviewing someone and then on the cameraman who was video recording the event.

Then the shooter fled and later turned the gun on himself. His two victims died on the scene; the gunman died later.

The act went viral on social media. I’ve seen a clip of the event. It sickens me to the core.

Alison Parker was 24. Her cameraman was Adam Ward, 27. The man believed to have shot them was Vester Lee Flanagan, 41.

How in the world does one make sense of this?

There’s an element to this story that needs fleshing out. Someone turned in a fax to the station where Parker and Ward worked that declared Flanagan, an African-American, acted out of revenge over the Charleston, S.C., church massacre a few months ago in which a white man killed nine African-Americans. Flanagan’s victims were white.

As the Washington Post reported: “Why did I do it?” stated the fax, which was received shortly before 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday. “Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…” The document goes on to state: “What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them.”

It’s not yet been determined if the fax came from Flanagan.

If it did, then we have a serious hate crime on our hands. Authorities cannot prosecute the shooter, given his death.

I hope with all my heart that someone other than Flanagan submitted the document.

However, even if that’s the case, are we now talking about a major ratcheting up of racial tension — yet again?

 

How did this guy purchase a gun … legally?

Someone will have to explain this one to me.

John Houser was known to behave erratically. He had a rap sheet as long as his arm, maybe both arms.

And yet he was able to purchase a handgun — legally, it turns out — in Alabama.

He then took the gun into a movie theater in Lafayette, La., cases the crowd watching the film and then opens fire.

Houser killed two people and injured several more — before killing himself with the gun he used to commit the horrible crime.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/us/louisiana-theater-shooter/

How in the name of all that is holy did this guy purchase a gun legally?

We hear, of course, that existing gun laws are sufficient. Obviously, and quite tragically, John Houser has demonstrated that they are woefully insufficient.

Let me think: A background check might have determined this guy was unfit to own a handgun. A three- to five-day delay in the purchase to give local authorities time to check him out might have worked. He could have been denied permission to buy the gun.

Would that have prevented him from obtaining a firearm illegally, from stealing it from someone? Probably not.

But he bought the thing legally.

I’m ready for the explanation — and the justification — for why this is OK?

Get rid of gun free zones? Really?

Back in 1995, when the Texas Legislature was debating whether to allow Texans to carry concealed handguns, the publisher for whom I worked posed an interesting question to our state senator.

“Why don’t you just allow folks to carry guns on their hips and walk around the State Capitol?” he asked the late Teel Bivins, a Republican and an avid proponent of gun-owners rights.

I cannot recall Bivins’s response. Perhaps he thought it was a rhetorical question.

But it comes to mind now as I read this essay about gun free zones in the wake of the Chattanooga murders of four Marines and a sailor.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/gun-control-us-capitol-120310.html?hp=t2_r#.VapPCbnbKt8

Why not allow guns into the U.S. Capitol?

Joel Zeitz, the author of the essay, noted that Donald Trump sounded like a mainstream Republican when he said we need to “get rid of gun free zones.” According to Trump, the men who died at the hands of the shooter didn’t have a chance because they were in a zone where gun are prohibited, which of course didn’t stop the shooter from sneaking a gun into the place.

The U.S. Capitol has seen gun violence erupt. People have gotten past security systems with weapons. They have harmed individuals and damaged the structure.

Would guns inside the Capitol stopped the incidents? I have trouble believing they would have worked.

Texas’ concealed handgun carry law, by the way, hasn’t been the disaster some of us thought it would be when the Legislature enacted it two decades ago.

However, this argument that more guns makes us a safer society has yet to be proven — at least to me.

Your guns are safe … honest

Given that social media commentary becomes part of the public domain once it’s posted, I want to share a thought from a friend of mine who put this out there.

“Is it just me, or did I miss the President saying he wanted to confiscate all guns? No one wants your f****** guns!!!! What I want is a conversation of whether or why gun violence is an epidemic in this country and what we can do about it. For beginners, you folks on the other side need to convince me why adding more guns is the answer. And I’m skeptical about defending yourself from the government, because right now quite frankly some gun owners scare me a helluva lot more than the government. Thanks for listening.”

My friend is a lawyer. He’s a smart fellow — and not just because I happen to agree with him.

Gun-rights advocates keep saying things that aren’t true, starting with their false claims that President Obama wants to take our guns away from us. After that, the lies spin off into fairy tales about martial law, seeking to suspend the Constitution and a conspiracy to get Barack Obama elected to a third consecutive term.

Another friend of mine actually told me — to my face — that he believes the third-term conspiracy actually has merit. I laughed out loud.

My friend’s request is a reasonable one, which is to have a rational conversation about whether there’s a way to stem the flow of guns in our society without doing harm to the Second Amendment, the one that guarantees Americans the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Can’t we have that conversation without the crazy talk that comes mostly from one side proclaiming that it’s all a plot to take away our guns?

 

That’s the ticket: blame the victim

National Rifle Association board member Charles Cotton has exhibited an amazing capacity for heartlessness.

He has placed the blame for the shocking shooting deaths of nine Charleston, S.C., church members on one of the victims.

Despicable.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/nra-board-member-blames-clementa-pinckney-charleston-shooting-119202.html?ml=po

Cotton’s narrative goes something like this: One of the victims is state Sen. Clementa Pinckney, who voted against legislation allowing South Carolinians to carry concealed handguns. Had the measure passed, according to Cotton, the victims would be alive.

According to Politico: “And he voted against concealed-carry. Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead,” Cotton responded to the post on Thursday afternoon. “Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.”

Pinckney, who was pastor of the church where the carnage occurred, is responsible for this tragedy. Did you get that?

What in the world is Charles Cotton, a Texas NRA board member, thinking in trying to blame one of the victims killed in that rampage?

Suppose for a moment that someone in the church was packing a pistol when the gunman opened fire. Is the NRA board member certain that he or she could have stopped the shooter on the spot — without anyone else suffering grievous injury or death on the melee?

Good grief! It’s been only four days since the tragedy erupted in that house of worship.

Can’t there be some sort of cooling-off period? Can’t we wait a reasonable length of time before leveling blame? And for crying out loud, can’t we declare “hands off!” the memory of one of the victims of this senseless act?

 

Tragedy redefines ‘unspeakable’

Nine people are dead in a Charleston, S.C., church, where they were engaged in a study of Scripture.

The gunman is loose. He’s been caught on camera entering the church.

How does this make any sense? How does one even begin to comprehend something so horrible?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/the-latest-on-charleston-shooting-hate-crime-investigation/ar-AAbL8UE

I’m at a loss this morning to even offer anything other than words of utter sorrow over what has happened.

Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Tucson, Ariz. — and other communities — comprise a list of places affected by spasms of gun violence. Now we can add Charleston.

The nation grieves for those people.

There’ll be plenty to say at the right time. For now, I think I’m just going to pray they find the gunman — and pray for the souls and the loved ones of those who died at this individual’s hand.