Tag Archives: gun violence

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.

 

Open carry bill set to become state law

Believe it or not, I’m going to keep an open mind on open carry.

The Texas House of Representatives has approved a bill that would allow licensed concealed carry holders to wear their sidearms openly. The state Senate already had approved it. Gov. Greg Abbott says he’ll sign it when it gets to his desk.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/20/open-carry-headed-governors-desk/

Some legislative Democrats had sought to soften the bill by allowing big-city residents to vote on whether to opt out of the state law. That was a reasonable amendment to the bill, given that urban residents have a different view of open carry legislation than rural residents. Someone in the Oak Cliff neighborhood of south Dallas thinks differently of the bill than, say, someone living in Dumas or Dalhart.

“Rural open carry is different than densely populated open carry,” state Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, said. “If you put this to a vote in big cities, I think people are going to say resoundingly no.”

The amendment failed.

Now that I am resigned to open carry legislation set to become law, I’ll respect the Legislature’s decision — even though I disagree with it.

I now will hope that open carry doesn’t become the monstrosity I feared back in 1995 when the Legislature approved concealed carry legislation.

The concealed carry bill hasn’t produced shootouts in intersections, for which I am grateful.

Time will tell on this open-carry legislation. I’m going to hope for the best.

 

Campus-carry gun bills are reloaded

Yeah, that’s the ticket.

College and university campuses have been victimized for decades by gun violence, so what do some Texas legislators want to do? They want to allow folks to pack heat onto those campuses.

That’s the way to solve the issue of gun violence. Bring in more guns.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2015/01/texas-lawmakers-reload-campus-carry-bills/

Texas Senate Bill 11 has 19 co-sponsors, which under the new rules of the Senate makes it eligible for vote in the full Senate. SB 11 won’t allow guns into campus hospitals, nor will it allow guns in elementary schools. I guess that’s a small victory for common sense.

When I read a blog posted by the Houston Chronicle about the bill’s status with the University of Texas System, well, I got a bit confused. The blog states: “Similar legislation has been proposed in previous years but failed after heavy opposition, especially from campus leaders. University of Texas Chancellor William McRaven recently came out against the effort.”

I can’t tell by reading this post whether McRaven — a retired Navy admiral and one-time SEAL — opposes the legislation or opposes the effort to derail it.

Whatever the case, the notion of allowing more guns onto higher education campuses makes this Texan — that would be me — quite nervous.

 

 

Heroes do wear blue

Chris Martin is a blogger I follow and he has hit one right on the sweet spot regarding police officers.

http://chrismartinwrites.com/2014/12/22/the-true-heroes/

He calls the good cops “true heroes.” His hook, of course, is the hideous shooting death of two New York City police officers by the goon who was retaliating for the choking death of Eric Garner in Staten Island — and the grand jury declining the police officer involved in that tragic event.

So the goon took matters into his own hands and shot the officers as they sat in their car in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of NYC.

Martin writes eloquently about how society attaches the word “hero” to movie stars and athletes. I’ve said much the same thing over the years. He notes that good cops and teachers don’t get paid enough, particularly in relation to the aforementioned movie stars and athletes. He’s so very right.

Of course, Martin takes care to note that the bad police officers give the good ones a bad name.

Sure enough. But you can find bad seeds in every walk of life. I’ve run into bad shoe sales representatives. You’ll find bad grocery store clerks, bad plumbers and electricians, bad computer techs. Heck, I once even called out a rude barista at a coffee shop here in Amarillo.

Bad cops? Bad firefighters? Bad airline pilots, for heaven’s sake? Well, when those individuals perform badly, then all hell breaks loose — as it should.

But police officers put their lives on the line every single day. They might not step directly into harm’s way with every call they get on their radio — but they could.

I’m thinking, as is Martin, about the families of the policemen who were gunned down the other night in NYC. So, I’ll repeat the advice he writes in his blog: “When you lie down to sleep tonight, say a prayer for the police officer patrolling the dark streets in order to protect the innocent.”

 

Teacher emerges as hero

Megan Silberberger likely didn’t ever envision her job requiring this kind of heroism.

When a young freshman high school student began shooting at classmates this past week in Marysville, Wash., Silberberger did a profoundly heroic deed. She confronted the shooter and ordered him to stop.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/26/us/washington-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Witnesses have said Silberberger grabbed the shooter’s arm and, in effect, neutralized him, if only for a moment.

The boy, Jaylen Fryberg, would then turn the gun on himself and end his life.

One other student by then had been shot dead and four others had been wounded.

The tragedy had come to a sudden end.

Details of the confrontation haven’t yet been released through official channels, but enough eyewitness accounts of what people saw cast Megan Silberberger as the hero in this tragic event.

CNN.com reported: “Police have not yet said how many shots in total were fired, but there was at least one bullet left in the cartridge before the confrontation with Silberberger — because the final shot was the one that ended Fryberg’s life. A Beretta .40-caliber handgun believed used in the shooting has been traced to Fryberg’s father, according to the source.”

How does one explain such a tragedy?

Fryberg was known to be a popular student. He’d been named homecoming prince at Marysville Pilchuck High School. He was popular — quite obviously — among his peers at the suburban Seattle school. He also was described as a “happy” boy. What set off this rampage is now Question No. 1 for school and law enforcement authorities.

But these tragedies occasionally have ways of producing characters worthy of high praise.

I hope we’ll know more in due course about what is believed to be known about Megan Silberberger’s actions that day in the high school cafeteria.

I also hope she’ll recover emotionally from the extreme danger she faced down, likely never expecting such mind-blowing trauma when she went to work that day.

 

Prosecute Hinckley for murder? Why not?

Murder carries no statute of limitations, meaning that prosecutors have no time limit to bring charges against someone accused of such crimes.

Thus, it is possible that 33 years after nearly killing then-White House press secretary James Brady, the man who shot him might face murder charges upon Brady’s recent death.

James Brady’s death ruled a homicide

Medical authorities have ruled Brady’s death a homicide, as he died of complications from the gunshot wound to the brain he suffered as John Hinckley tried to assassinate President Reagan. Brady was the most grievously wounded in the hail of gunfire in March 1981. He never recovered fully, although he later became an advocate for gun control.

Should prosecutors now charge Hinckley — who was acquitted of all charges on grounds of insanity — with murder in Brady’s death? Yes.

The gunman took someone’s life. The law is quite clear on what he did that day in Washington, D.C. Why should it matter that the victim — Brady — lived more than three decades after that terrible event? He’s now gone, the result of that terrible gunshot wound.

John Hinckley was the assailant. He’s now a murderer.

Prosecute him.

R.I.P., James Brady

The New York Times article attached to this blog post commemorates James Brady for what he was: an advocate for gun control and a friend of those who sought to curb the gun violence that struck him down.

He was all of that.

Brady, who died Monday at age 73, was grievously wounded in the March 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan. He was hit in the head by a bullet fired by John Hinckley, suffering paralysis, speech loss and short-term memory loss.

As the president’s press secretary, he was standing just a few feet from the president when Hinckley opened fire.

But what likely won’t be told in the days in the ahead about James Brady was that in the brief time he served as press spokesman for the White House — Reagan had taken office just three months prior to being wounded in the shooting — is that Brady had enormous respect among the men and women who covered the president.

Brady was known as a straight-arrow. He understood his “clientele,” the hard-core press hounds who could sniff out BS when it presented itself. He didn’t get them any baloney. From what I’ve heard over the years from those who covered the White House, the folks in the press room really took an instant liking to Brady.

Compare that with the testiness in White House-press relations that has emerged before and since Brady’s brief stint at the press room microphone.

His real legacy, certainly, will be that of a passionate advocate for gun control. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his view, James Brady came by it honestly. He took a bullet in the brain and paid a terrible price while serving the nation.

His national service, while too short, was stellar.