Tag Archives: Roseburg shooting

national news, political news

What would Ben do?

deadstate-Ben-Carson

Ben Carson ought to be a little more circumspect about some of the responses he gives to hypothetical situations.

Dr. Carson, a Republican running for president of the United States, had the bad form the other day to say that the Umpqua Community College students in Roseburg, Ore., should have ganged up on the gunman who killed nine people before killing himself.

Easy for you to say, Doc. But … but what did you do when someone actually pointed a gun at you?

He said that happened once at a Popeye’s restaurant and he told the gunman that his target was someone else. According to the Los Angeles Times: “Guy comes in, put the gun in my ribs. And I just said, ‘I believe that you want the guy behind the counter,'” Carson said.

Dr. Carson’s account of what happened differed quite dramatically from what he said others should do when faced with mortal peril.

So, Dr. Carson’s hypothetical bravery actually became something else when he faced a threat of his own.

This, I submit, is the danger that politicians — and, yes, Carson’s status as an active presidential candidate makes him a politician — face when they respond to real-life situations with tragic outcomes. They need to take care when saying such things about what they might do or how others should respond.

Perhaps the next time something happens that compares to what occurred in Roseburg, public figures everywhere should say: “I only can imagine the horror that raced through their hearts. I have no idea how they should have reacted, nor do I know what I would have done.”

Hey, just leave it at that.

 

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.