— by Fred Klein —
Even though the recent mass shooting in Orlando was only briefly in the news…the story having been eclipsed by the tragic death-by-alligator of a toddler at Disney World…fifty people being gunned down in a nightclub has continued to keep my attention.
Many of the news reports I read placed the event within the context of the frequent re-occurrence of mass shootings and the military-style semi-automatic assault rifles which seem to be the weapon of choice. News articles described Congressional failures at passing meaningful regulations, the political battles, the power of the NRA, terrorism, Constitutional issues and interpretations…and my mind drifted back to the December 14, 2012 massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, I had invited Islanders to gather with this intention: “To reach a consensus on what changes to local practices and attitudes we can make in order to lower the risk of the tragedy at Newtown, Connecticut occurring on Orcas Island; and to draft a statement of that consensus to be published and shared with the Orcas community.”
Thirty-five Orcasians accepted the invitation and we spent 15 hours in four meetings spread over a week’s time to engage this issue. The consensus reached can be read on our Orcas Library website at: https://www.orcaslibrary.org/docs/CONSENSUS-FINAL-EDIT.pdf The group included first responders, mental health professionals, teachers, gun collectors, 2nd Amendment advocates, and supporters of strict gun control…all in all, a pretty diverse group.
Although it was apparent to me that some in the group were ready for a spirited discussion of the regulation of lethal weaponry, it was quickly noted that regulation of firearms falls under State and Federal statutes and would not be a fruitful line of inquiry for addressing the issue which brought us together.
At the time the “Statement of Consensus” was written, by a good cross section of citizens, I thought in many ways it reflected our prevailing collective, national attitudes towards keeping our communities safe and secure. And the reader will note under “Gun Issues” that although there was support for “enforcement of existing laws”, the commitment to “consensus” precluded a call for additional regulation.
In the aftermath of Orlando, I can’t help but wonder if that’s still the case.
PS: I suspect Norm Stamper, retired Chief of Seattle PD, will have some thoughts on this to share with us at 1:30 pm on Sunday, June 26th, when he will give a talk and read from his new book, To Protect and Serve: How to Fix America’s Police.
thank you fred,
A recent breakthrough in gun laws is that the AMA has gone to congress and has asked that gun legislation be treated as a public health issue as it had been in the past. In Canada the percentile of those who own arms is greater then are own, yet the loss of life is tremendously different, how come? Another thought how many women resolving issues with guns? Listening is the biggest untapped resource on our planet,how we do that means every thing,if we do it is a whole other thing. We have a choice,let us use that WISELY . Loss occurs every day we have a responsibility to one another as well as those come after . Life is sacred,we have a choice how we behave every day toward one another, let us then begin to act accordingly.
There is no “gun control” law that would have prevented the Orlando tragedy.
It is futile and even meaningless to press for yet more “gun control,” in the attempt to discourage or eliminate such attacks.
To make my point clearer, please remember that bringing any gun of any kind into the Pulse nightclub was already an illegal act.
Florida law forbids the presence of guns in venues where alcohol is served.
Did that law prevent the shooter from bringing at least two loaded guns into Pulse?
People who illegally misuse firearms are not constrained by laws. Criminals do not obey laws. Terrorists do not obey laws.
Only law-abiding citizens obey laws.
Making laws that will be obeyed only by the law-abiding will have absolutely no effect upon criminals and terrorists.
Those laws will serve only to disarm the people who are most able to defend themselves and also to defend others around them.
Further, “getting rid of all guns” won’t make us safe, either. Criminals and terrorists have lots of illegal, underhanded ways of arming themselves, and some of those ways don’t even involve guns at all. Think, for instance, of Terry McVeigh and how he made a bomb that destroyed the Federal Building in Oklahoma.
Guns are not the issue.
Criminal behavior and terrorism are the real issues.
And, if the real issues are realistically faced, guns may be our best defense in many cases.
Fear, ignorance,hate, greed, intolerance,and anger these are some of the weapons that cause us to harm one another everyday. Unfortunately there are those who preach hate and this is not acceptable .Wether it is a zealot terrorist or a domestic terrorist stop violence.
scott gianola
Thank you, Steve, very well said and I believe you have hit the heart of the problem. Even if we have to do it one on one. We need to pay attention to our surroundings. If it looks strange, say something. I believe in the right to own a gun. Not real keen on the buying and selling of assault rifles, or other military grade weapons. But you can protect yourself with a handgun or a hunting rifle. If you need an assault rifle to hit something, you’d better take a few lessons. Be responsible and think before you buy. Then pay attention to your surroundings.
Steve and Kate, I might suggest you read the following: https://scripting.com/2016/06/20/1326.html
I think guns are totally the problem, and to suggest that passing any laws to restrict gun ownership/access will not help the problem is like putting you head in the sand and ignoring reality.
“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.” Article 2, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution.
When this Article was amended to the Constitution, the new nation had recently defeated a European power, England, and the continuing defense of the United States was principally with the militia. Too, families in those days past needed to hunt to put meat on the dinner table.
Most certainly, the founding fathers could not conceivably imagine the nature of “arms” 225 years later. So where, as a complex society, do we draw the line pertaining to the “right to keep and bear arms”? Should a citizen be able to purchase an RPG, or perhaps a bazooka? Might your off-road vehicle be a used M1A1 Abrams Tank?
I cannot imagine any rationale reason why a waiting period of perhaps four weeks would not be beneficial in reducing the potential for tragedies like Sandy Hook, Orlando, or Charleston. If someone is in a great hurry to acquire a gun, there must be a major warning in that urgency.
As an aside, people talk about the government taking away “their guns”.
That surely cannot happen as there are over 300 MILLION firearms in this country. Gathering up those guns would be like deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants. NOT POSSIBLE.
Further, a certain presidential candidate talks about the Second Amendment being taken away by the next President. Also NOT POSSIBLE. No President has any authority in the amendment process to the Constitution. Both Chambers of Congress must pass a Resolution by a 2/3 vote to revoke an amendment, after which the Resolution is submitted to the Legislature of the 50 States. Approval of 38 separate legislature (3/4 of 50) is necessary to amend !! So the Second Amendment is secure. It is the individual people who want to “keep and bear arms” who must be vetted.
Keep in mind that we all watch or read about these tragedies, and say that it can’t happen here, until it does. I wonder, how many families on Orcas do NOT have guns. Do they feel any less secure in living here?
Het think about this,
Maybe what we can do is make it mandatory that anyone over 18 would have to pack a side arm.If you did not you would have to have a note from your doctor,lawyer, or minister. 1 those visiting also would have to be armed. 2this would boost the local economy .3 It would teach the proper use and handling of fire arms. 4 would make things even safer. 5 It would eliminate the bad guys from com here cause they don’t have a chance. Hey let’s ask Rick Hughes what he thinks and then will check with Randy Gaylord. Just a thought. we do however need to stop. look and listen ,life is sacred.
p.p.s.s.
Ed .
nice researched and well planned and thoughtful comment.
thanks again ,
scottigianola
Re: The scripting.com essay to which we have been linked…
Laws which penalize antisocial and asocial behavior not only work pretty well, but also sometimes act as a deterrent to the behavior in the first place.
This is why we have laws against, for instance, murder and armed robbery: It’s the penalty which counts.
Laws which seek to prohibit things, however, have been historically proven to be completely ineffective.
For instance, think about Prohibition, and also about laws against possessing and growing marijuana.
The laws we already have which penalize the criminal misuse of firearms would be more effective, were the penalties not so often plea-bargained away.
But laws which seek to remove firearms from the general community will be (and already are) completely ineffective in stopping their criminal possession and misuse.