How can this keep happening in this country?
Week after week, year after year, people keep killing people with guns. Still, Sunday’s carnage in Las Vegas is simply hard to comprehend: at least 59 dead, more than 500 injured, shot by one person.
The shootings are unpredictable. But the reaction to them, by people who could do something about them, is completely predictable. They will do nothing.
In a New York Times op-ed on Monday, former Long Island Congressman Steve Israel recalled some of the most well-known mass shootings: Columbine, Herkimer, Tucson, Santa Monica, Hialeah, Terrell, Alturas, Killeen, Isla Vista, Marysville, Chapel Hill, Tyrone, Waco, Charleston, Chattanooga, Lafayette, Roanoke, Roseburg, Colorado Springs, San Bernardino, Birmingham, Fort Hood, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Washington Navy Yard, Alexandria, Newtown….
After every tragedy, the media publish profiles of the victims and we weep. “Everyone loved him,” the Times quoted a woman about her nephew. “The kind of person who brings light wherever she is,” a school superintendent said of a young teacher. “A kind spirit… a kind, compassionate, genuine person,” a hospital spokesperson said about a nurse.
“To lose someone with a heart like yours,” read a post on a victim’s Facebook page. “Just doesn’t make sense.”
A husband who died shielding his wife from the bullets, a woman expecting a new grandchild, a single mother of four: on and on the painful stories run, of people who had so much to give, who were simply having fun, enjoying music, enjoying being together with others who love music.
Not all tragedies are preventable. But carnage like this is.
We know that, and we know what we need to do. But nothing will happen.
We knew what we needed to do after Tucson, after Aurora, after Orlando…. But nothing happened.
We knew what we needed to do when we saw the pictures of the children murdered in Newtown. Little children. Six-year-olds. Six-year-olds.
But nothing happened.
After every tragedy like this, the media share the stories. Elected officials declare their shock and their sorrow. The president gives a speech about mourning and praying, and he hugs the victims.
And then nothing happens.
On Monday, President Trump called the shooting “an act of pure evil,” ordered flags flown at half-staff, and asked God to bless the people who had lost their lives.
“In moments of tragedy and horror,” he said, “America comes together as one. And it always has.” He and his wife Melania were praying “for the entire nation to find unity and peace,” he said. They were praying, he said, “for the day when evil is banished and the innocent are safe from hatred and from fear.”
The president himself, of course, could do something to help banish the evil of mass shootings. He could bring the country together to help reduce gun violence of all kinds. So could Congress.
But we know what will happen. There’ll be no legislation involving background checks or regulating the kinds of guns companies can make and people can buy and sell. Congress will still refuse to fund research into the causes and possible prevention of gun violence.
There’s a lot we don’t know right now about Stephen Paddock and his motive for doing what he did. But we know plenty. We know he had more than 20 guns in his hotel room and more than a dozen in his home outside of Las Vegas. We know that the guns – which he fired rapidly and repeatedly – killed at least 59 people and injured hundreds of others. We know that the guns themselves were perfectly legal. It was legal to make them, legal to sell them, legal to buy them.
We know enough to enact sensible gun control.
But we won’t. We didn’t act after Aurora and Tucson and Orlando. We didn’t act after Newtown.
And we won’t act now. That in itself is evil.
This article appears in Oct 4-10, 2017.
How about some quick and easy gun legislation to get the ball rolling. Since no one needs semi automatic or automatic assault weapons with armor piercing bullets lets outlaw them.
Towler’s statement that “the president himself, of course, could do something to banish the evil of mass shootings” is emotional at best. She may may just as well have said, “the president should do “something” to prevent knifings from happening on the streets”. Just exactly what is that “something” that he could have done to keep this maniac from committing his killing spree? What new gun law not already on the books would have prevented this tragedy? Answer: NONE!
In reference to Ms. Towler’s assertion that more backround check legislation is needed, the next time there is a gun show in Rochester, she should try buying a gun without undergoing a backround check. I guarantee it’ll never happen.
Tom Janowski…In case you haven’t noticed, automatic weapons are ALREADY illegal to possess in the U.S. So are armor-piercing bullets in handguns. The reason that they are not illegal for rifles is that just about every type of rifle ammunition can already pierce most body armor. And outlaw semi-automatic weapons from law-abiding citizens? Why? So that they will be only available to criminals who purchase them on the streets illegally? Good luck with THAT!
So, Cupid, you advocate doing nothing?
yes, outlaw semi-automatic weapons from law-abiding citizens. why? because law abiding citizens can snap…can have mental illnesses… and can kill just as easily as any criminal on the street. when nothing was done after Newton, I pretty much gave up on this country doing any kind of gun legislation. I don’t want your pistols. I don’t want your rifles. I want automatic and semi-automatic weapons gone. someone or some company is making a lot of money off these guns and that is the real evil.
Cupid & Paduca…please explain in detail your plans to control gun violence.
The blame lies with the US Supreme Courty (or rather the 5 members of the high court) who, in their landmark 2008 decision in DC v Heller, misread the clear language of the Second Amendment which made a direct link between service in a “well regulated militia” and the right to “keep and bear arms” and created the wholly-new “right” of “personal protection” to justify the ownership of massive private arsenals by every gun nut in America.
Tom…I’ll tell you what my plan is NOT…it is not to take guns from law-abiding citizens. What don’t you understand about the fact that if guns are taken away from citizens, only criminals will have guns. If, as you and paduca so ardently desire, semi-automatic guns are taken away from citizens then only criminals will have semi-automatic weapons including pistols. Is that the scenario you want? Do you think the bad guys will voluntarily turn in their guns when you “get the ball rolling” on more gun control which will do NOTHING to solve the problem? FYI, so-called assault weapons (which the liberal media has successfully used to terrorize the uninformed with) account for only about 2 percent average of homicides and less than 1 percent of gun injuries annually. The vast majority of gun murders are committed with handguns, many of which are ILLEGALLY owned by criminals. What new gun laws, pray tell, will nullify the effect that illegal handguns have on the murder rate? In answer to your question…yes, it IS actually better to do nothing rather than disarm citizens from protecting themselves. Unfortunately, I don’t have the perfect answer but I would be interested in hearing in detail YOUR plans to control gun violence.
Sense. Sensibility. Common sense, senseless violence. Where is the venn
diagram that makes it sensible, that tiny intersection which makes a
solution possible?
Sarah “My Dad Is A Jackass” Sanders says that today is not the day to talk
about gun nuts, on the same day the NRA ceased responding to
correspondents. Makes sense both, if you’re in the gun business.
Makes some time, to blend the edges of outrage with emapthy, to bend the
blame from guns to mental illness. Very skilled and highly paid experts
will spend all of October nudging rage onto a bump-stock rather than a
bumper crop of gun sales every time this happens. Thus, a single law which
the NRA will grudgingly allow but later use to soak their folks for money
all Autumn long. Honestly, i can see the future here, who can’t? It’s as
clear as a fing bell.
OK, so let’s follow the reins of our prescribed docility and look at mental
illness first. If someone wants to possess an AR-15 or an AK-47, is that an
indicator of civic martial responsibility, or a sign of mental illness? If
someone feels the need to possess more than two guns, when they themselves
only have two hands, is this a sign of obsessive compulsion, or mere
paranoia?
Saw a bumpersticker that said “What Part Of ‘Shall Not Infringe’ Don’t You
Understand?”
Made me wish i had a bumpersticker that says “What Part Of ‘Well Regulated
Militia’ Don’t You Understand?”
My plan is a simple one: “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.”
If the NRA, or anyone else, truly believes that our forefathers thought that a “well regulated militia” meant that every citizen should carry a gun, you are truly delusional. I would like the NRA to drop their “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” mantra and admit that something needs to change. Maybe automatic and semi-automatic guns are responsible for only 2% of homicides and 1% of injuries, but keep in mind that they kill and injure vast numbers of people in one fell swoop. handguns kill 1 or 2 people at a time and are rarely random. no one yet has been able to present a legitimate argument for anyone having semi-automatic or automatic guns in their homes or a reason to stock pile those weapons…unless, of course, you honestly believe Armageddon is right around the corner.
Question for you all? What killed 3000 people in the Twin Towers in NYC? What killed over 200 people when a co-pilot slammed into the Alps? Airplanes
What killed and injured over 200 people in Paris France and at Ohio State University? Trucks
And what has killed over 50 million innocent unborn children? Planned Parenthood
Who was President when the Bump stock was approved? OBAMA
Over 60% of the homicides by a gun are suicides.
On average there are 12k gun homicides per year in the U.S.
So if my math is correct 7200 are suicides. I would prefer politicians to focus on mental health funding.
The latest’s stats show non-suicide homicides with a gun have been on the decline for several years. There are think tanks out there you can look up to verify my assertion. The Pew Research Center has an old one on their site that shows gun homicides have declined 49% since 1993.It‘s an old article from 2013.
Don’t have time to search for a more current date.
Make no mistake, I am full of sorrow for this tragic event that occurred in Las Vegas. But a knee jerk reaction to pass something based on emotion, and just for the sake of some politician to aggrandize them self isn’t going to solve a problem like this.
Remember the great quote by the genius Nancy Pelosi, ” we have to pass the bill so we can find out whats in it.’ We’ll that approach didn’t and isn’t working out to well.
Her quote today was ‘W e have to do something” really. O.K> what is it Nan? Plus she told a reporter today that we need background checks!! I started laughing.
And some of you want politicians to create a knee jerk LAW!! Please people calm down and think it thru first.
Every gun show I have been to does and immediate NIC check for a rifle or shot gun if you make a purchase. For a pistol you have to buy and pay for the pistol. Then go to the county clerks office to register it on your permit before you receive the gun from the dealer, then go back to the dealer to pick up the gun which they give you after they register it.
As far as the NRA and Jimmy Kimel’s idiotic statement about the NRA. He doesn’t know what the heck he’s talking about, because he is using emotion and not facts.
The NRA has donated a measly 3 million dollars since 1998 to the Republican Party.
If Chuck Schumer and San Fran Nan are going rail on the NRA why do they collect tens of millions of dollars from Planned Parenthood. to kill over 50 million babies.
The NRA doesn’t kill anyone!
When the Democrats come up with a common sense plan to curtail abortion then let’s talk about gun legislation.
Just for the record I’m not a fan of the Republicans either. The party of broken promises.
Wait…guns and planes and cars and trucks don’t kill people. People kill people, or so the right wing loves to say.
Bump stocks where approved by the ATF while Obama was President. The only reason it was approved for sale because the maker said it was to be used by people with mobility issues.
The planes and trucks and guns line of thinking is interesting. Why buy a gun when its only purpose is to kill when you can own a multifunctional devlce such as a plane or truck?
My point is simple.
Murder can be committed by many different device’s.
That being the case legislating against the gun, or the car or the plane or any device is useless.
My reason being, and only my humble opinion, is that you can’t prevent evil with legislation. Never gonna happen.
Cupid touched on this and I agree.
So, things are hopeless. And I was hoping to go out in a blaze of glory during an asteroid impact. Guess I will just be shot.
If only gun ownership were as well-regulated as car ownership or plane ownership.
We’d have mandatory safety training, periodic relicensing, loss of access if convinced of serious misuse putting the public at risk, required liability insurance, manufacturer civil liability, government data collection and research, etc.
Add some nearly unaffordable gun owner liability insurance and we’d be all set.
I would support some gun control measures but also believe that it would never be enough for most Democrats
I would rather see the efforts directed to the illegal gun useage. 50 people each day are shot in 1 American city, Chicago .
Why not greatly increase the sentences for Strawman purchases and possession of illegal firearms?
FYI: https://www.propublica.org/article/join-pr…
It is actually closer to 11 per day in Chicago, but still it is far far too many. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/data/ct…
Meant to say 50 a week shot , not a day
Number has been increasing rapidly
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could truly ban the use of guns for killing people, and I think many on the right would agree! I would be happy to turn in my gun if the government could protect me from any violent crime….every second of the day. Until that happens, I will fight for my right to protect myself and my family from violent acts. And I’m not an NRA member, or wish to be. I’m just a person that loves my family, and friends, and will protect them if need be. I’ve had a pistol permit for 40 years which I obtained for protection, not hunting. Should something be done? Of course, but what? Put a chip in the forehead of every gun owner that will analyze evil thoughts?
Banning guns will do nothing except increase the number of deaths because the common citizen has no way to protect themselves now, until the police finally get to the scene. Criminals will have easy access to buy illegal guns just like they do now. Like a previous writer said…you can’t legislate against evil effectively. Nut jobs will find another method to attain their goal. Remember the 87 people killed in the 1990’s due to a fire a jealous boyfriend started at a club? Or what about the arson fire at the Holliday Inn in Greece that killed 10? A comment was made by another writer that planes and cars have another function too. So it’s ok to use use these things to kill? Guns are used to hunt for food too, and sometimes to prevent attacks from wild animals.
Until you can corral the evil thoughts in people’s minds, death’s will occur through various means.
If you look at the data, you’ll see that shootings are down 12% this year from last in Chicago.
Mark, the shootings are up dramatically the past several years according to your own link. 2017 shootings have dropped some from the exceptionally high amount in 2016 but short term data is meaningless when capturing numbers that fluctuate (unless it can be traced to a causable event.)
Let’s hope the trend continues downward.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/data/ct…
paduca…regarding keeping a semi-automatic handgun in the home, the reason is simple. To protect yourself against an intruder or several intruders entering your home with nefarious motives. Kudos to Mitch and Dave1952 for telling it like it is.
Cupid, in a response at http://rochestercitynewspaper.com, loving and derisive, justifies his/her/its guns with: “If you choose to be a victim, that’s your prerogative.”
Kellyanne “Iron Eardrums” Conway says that the 2nd Amm. is a bedrock pillar of the American Constitution. If you just ask her, she’d hungrily leap at the chance to say that Christianity is indeed the primary bedrock pillar of the Constitution.
Here’s where it gets dicey: “If you choose to be a victim, that’s your prerogative” is, itself, a ‘bedrock pillar’ of Christianity.
If a preacher says on Sunday “Fight back,” then that’s not Christianity anymore. If a preacher on Friday says “Go forth and fight,” then that’s not Islam any longer. Kinda makes you choose, doesn’t it? Words of man or words of god, which one to believe, it’s no wonder that people who tend to accumulate weapons also tend to have psychological troubles.
This whole week, NRA is again turning towards mental illness as the real enemy. As predicted. So let’s take the bait. It is fairly obvious by now, that the desire to possess multiple heavy weapons has a strongly positive correlation with mental illness.
If someone desires a lot of guns, or if someone desires the most powerful weapons they can find, then it’s a pretty clear sign that the person is particularly unsuited to own a plethora of weapons, and psychologically unready to possess heavy weapons.
If the main enemy is mental illness, well, it’s not like we invented the term “gun nut” on Monday.
Luc, do you actually believe that all Christians are instructed to not fight back? That their religion forces them to submit to violence and is therefore incompatible with the 2nd Amendment?
I think you need to look again at the last Two Thousand years of history.
fgf: it’s right there in the Sermon on the Mount.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
We all know that Mark , that is not the point. The bible says many things ,often contradictory, and it is interpreted differently by many pastors and churches.
You cannot single out one bible verse to paint all Christians with.
You had asked about what all Christians are instructed to do. If you’re saying that the words of Jesus himself aren’t relevant to that question, I’m frankly flabbergasted.
Actually what I said is that the 2000 year history of Christians (fighting wars) is more instructive to Christianity than one bible verse
Luc du Nord, in response to “If someone desires a lot of guns…then it’s a pretty clear sign that the person is particularly unsuited to own a plethora of weapons…”
Not true. There are many law-abiding citizens who simply collect guns as an avocation due to historical interest or fascination with mechanical variation or design, or possess multiple guns for hunting and/or target shooting. So contrary to your assertion, it’s not usually a sign of obsessive compulsion or paranoia unless one chooses to make a grand sweeping statement such as you did, inaccurately painting all multiple-gun owners with the same brush.
As for your contention that “If a preacher says on Sunday, “Fight Back” then that’s not Christianity anymore” and Mark Mackinzie’s citation of Jesus’s statement about turning the other cheek…
Various interpretations exist. One is that Jesus meant we should turn the other cheek to shock and shame one’s antagonist to provide him a moment to reflect and reconsider and to force us to hold our temper rather than immediately striking out. It’s hard to accept the notion that Jesus advocated passivity and total submission in the face of criminals or tyrants when he also stated, “Let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one.”
Philosopher Frederick Nietzche’s incisive answer was… “There is a point in the history of society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who would harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish” hurts it, arouses fear in it. With this question, herd morality, the morality of timidity, draws it’s ultimate consequence.”
One poignant example of that “ultimate consequence” would be hypocrites elected to office such as Diane Feinstein who’s goal is TOTAL gun confiscation even though SHE for years carried a handgun. Her followers of course are the timid “children” who would willingly have everyone turn over their guns to the “adults” in positions of authority. Interestingly, Hitler acted on the same tyranical belief in confiscation that Feinstein and many other liberals currently hold by forcing the jewish people to turn in all their guns after having them register them under false pretenses. No doubt we should be just as concerned with dangerous folks like Feinstein on the far left as we should be with the neo-Nazi idiots on the far right.
There are indeed masses of Nietzche’s soft, timid citizens of whatever religion who out of fear wish to abdicate the responsibility of protection of their homes and families. Again, if you choose to be a victim, that IS your choice. If all goes well you will never have a problem and no reason to employ the use of a weapon for protection. However, if and when that one rare moment occurs when a gun is most needed and not available, many would, regardless of their stated religious beliefs, beg and pray dearly to God to have one in their hands.