Tag Archives: gun violence

national news, political news

Executive action on guns draws expected fire

1 Comment

gun over american flag

President Obama is considering some executive action he hopes will require gun dealers to go through increased background checks.

Does it mean that “law-abiding Americans” will be denied their right to “keep and bear arms” as provided by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Obama says “no.” Republican presidential candidates say “yes.”

Who do you believe? I guess that depends on your political party, your philosophical persuasion, your own bias.

Me? I’m willing to let the president give it a try.

I am going to take the usual — and expected — criticism from readers of this blog who believe as GOP contender Chris Christie said that Obama is acting like a “dictator.”

I disagree with that characterization. The president has a team of constitutional lawyers surrounding him who’ll likely advise him that he’s acting totally within the law in issuing the orders to require the checks.

Congress won’t do it. Heck, Congress wouldn’t even approve legislation that would have restricted people placed on no-fly lists from owning firearms. Does the president expect Congress to follow his lead on his effort to curb gun violence? Not a chance.

So he’ll do what he needs to do on his own.

Do I feel threatened? Are the feds going to knock on my door and take my guns away from me? No and no.

However, the president’s apparent move toward executive action has prompted the apoplectic response from the GOP presidential field.

But what the heck. That’s politics.

 

national news

Gun death toll keeps mounting

barack

I totally understand that President Barack Obama has his share of critics.

Moreover, I respect and honor Americans’ right to criticize him, even though I remain generally a supporter of his policies, his vision for the country and the manner in which he has led us.

It’s hard for me to watch this brief compilation of the number of times the president has had to go before the nation in the wake of mass shootings.

San Bernardino, Calif., was just the latest. I am frightfully certain there will be more of those kinds of massacres before the president and his family check out of the White House on Jan. 20, 2017.

And, yes, there will be more of them for the next president to confront.

I am not going to make any partisan statement here about how we should end it. I’m not going to enter the fray that’s erupting already about whether to clamp more gun control laws, or whether the latest shooters were jihadists.

This is a terribly complex and hear-wrenching problem that has gripped the nation by the throat. It won’t let go.

I’m just one American who’s grown weary of watching these events unfold. I try, with no success at all, to imagine how a president musters the will to corral his emotions with every violent spasm that grips the country he governs.

 

national news

Let us not judge all on the acts of a few

151202194031-27-san-bernardino-shooting-1202-restricted-super-169

I went to sleep last night not knowing what we all know this morning about the shooting rampage in San Bernardino, Calif.

This morning, I awoke to learn that the two people killed in a shootout with police were a husband and wife. The husband was an American-born Muslim; his wife was born abroad, but moved here years ago; she also was a Muslim. They were the parents of a six-month-old girl.

I also heard this morning on National Public Radio that they weren’t particularly religious, nor were they outwardly political.

Something had snapped, or so it seems. They entered the social services center and opened fire with assault weapons. Fourteen people died.

The suspect then got into a fire fight with police. They died, too.

So, what are we to make of this?

Do these individuals represent all people of their particular faith? No. However, there likely is going to be a measure — perhaps even a large measure — of generalization about them and people all around the world who share their faith.

It’s better for everyone, thus, to accord those of the Islamic faith the same kind of tolerance we give those of other faiths. Are we condemning all Christians because someone, for instance, opened fire at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs — and then told the cops “no more baby parts”?

No. Nor should we.

An unspeakable tragedy has occurred in southern California. It’s horrific on any level imaginable.

Because the suspected perpetrators are of a certain faith, though, shouldn’t give us license to condemn everyone of that faith.

Let us turn our attention to the victims of this latest tragedy.

 

political news

Gun violence has terrorized us yet again

shooting

Let’s add one more city to the infamous list of communities that have been plagued by shocking gun violence.

That would be San Bernardino.

Fourteen people are dead, about 17 more are injured.

And while the media are reporting on the breaking story, they are fixating on a question that, to my mind, need not be asked.

They wonder: Was this an act of terrorism?

My thought? Well, yes. Absolutely. Look at the picture I’ve attached to this blog post. Does she look terrified?

By its very definition, what happened today terrorized a community, if not the nation.

So, here’s my thought. Why not broaden the definition of terrorism to include any act by individuals that frighten the senses out of individuals or communities of individuals?

We don’t yet know the motive behind the individuals who walked into the social services agency and opened fire. They reportedly were dressed in what police called “tactical gear.” They were heavily armed with assault weapons and assorted “long guns” — which has become sort of the latest term of art to describe weapons that one shoots with two hands.

Does it matter right now, this moment, what kind of terrorism transpired? Domestic or foreign, it matters little to me.

I am frightened for our country and equally terrified at the frequency of these types of attacks.

We are being terrorized.

 

national news, political news

RFK spoke of gun control … in Roseburg!

RFK's last speech

This story freaked me out when it became known.

The late U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy — who had some intimate knowledge of gun violence — made some remarks on May 27, 1968. His topic? Gun control.

RFK was responding to a sign in the crowd about the right to “keep and bear arms.”

He said: “With all the violence and murder and killings we’ve had in the United States, I think you will agree that we must keep firearms from people who have no business with guns or rifles.”

Sen. Kennedy was not advocating disarming Americans. He wasn’t calling for the feds to take people’s firearms away. He was speaking as one whose own brother, President John F. Kennedy, was killed by a man with a rifle in Dallas less than five years earlier.

The place where he made the remarks is in the news again. He spoke in Roseburg, Ore., as he campaigned for the presidency of the United States. Today, Roseburg is reeling from the shock of the massacre at Umpqua Community College by a maniac who then killed himself.

Late the next day — it was nearly midnight, as I recall — RFK pulled into a Portland restaurant next door to where I was working. I ran across the parking lot, extended a piece of paper and a pen to the senator and asked him for his autograph.

He signed the paper, “RF Kennedy,” and then went inside.

The next day, Oregon primary voters delivered him a stunning defeat when they cast most of their Democratic Party votes for Sen. Gene McCarthy.

RFK trudged off to California, won that state’s primary the next week — and then was murdered by Sirhan B. Sirhan in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.

 

 

national news, political news

President serving role as ‘comforter in chief’

4 Comments

roseburg

Presidents of the United States have a number of unwritten roles in their job description.

The current president, Barack H. Obama, is going to perform one of them Friday when he stops in Roseburg, Ore., to throw his arms around a community shattered by an unspeakable tragedy.

However, at least one of his critics, Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson, thinks such a task is too political and that Americans are “sick and tired” of politicians who “politicize everything.”

Give me a break.

Dr. Carson is wrong, period.

Roseburg was stunned by the deaths of nine people at Umpqua Community College by a gunman who then took his own life. It was yet another case of gun violence that resulted in the massacre of innocent victims. Is the president enraged by what happened? Of course he is … as I’m sure Dr. Carson is angered as well.

But this task of offering comfort to the stricken is part of the job description that the president inherits whenever he takes the oath of office.

Presidents of both parties have been called upon to perform the task of comforter in chief. However, Carson told “Fox and Friends” today: “When do we get to the point where we have people who actually want to solve our problems rather than just politicize everything? I think that’s what the American people are so sick and tired of.”

Well, as the president said the other day in the wake of the Roseburg massacre, if a tragedy calls out for a political solution, then so be it.

 

 

national news, political news

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.

 

national news

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.

 

national news

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.

 

national news

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