Tag Archives: gun violence

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

 

national news

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?

 

national news

How did this guy purchase a gun … legally?

1 Comment

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?