Never ones to let a tragedy interfere with their desire to disarm law-abiding citizens, the usual national political figures and media members rolled out the “we need more gun control” bandwagon even before their were casualty counts following rampage shootings in New York and California.
So far, no one seems to be willing to acknowledge the fact that New York and California already have more “gun control legislation” than almost anywhere else in the United States. And the politicians using for that TV face time don’t realize how really tone deaf you appear. They’ve ceded the public streets to the homeless, including both the mentally unstable and drug-addled individuals willing to do (almost) anything to get their next fix.
Surprisingly, a few news outlets are (reluctantly) reporting that the Buffalo, New York, shooter wasn’t no stranger to police before his rampage.
He was taken into custody last year after having threatened to shoot up his high school graduation. Wasn’t charged with anything, held about 36 hours for “evaluation”; then released back into society.
As the sheriff acknowledged, “he slipped through the cracks.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James was absolutely accurate (once) while self-righteously decrying the epidemic of gun violence (while reciting accepted gun control talking points almost verbatim) for the TV cameras.
The shooter had been living on a diet of hateful extremist rhetoric off the internet.
She ignored the fact he’d also posted some of that same hateful fare. Or that his postings were no secret to authorities.
So where’s the follow up question: If everyone suspected something, why didn’t someone do something?
Don’t count on that one being asked -or answered. Asking, or answering, might force the uninformed toward a startling realization: it’s not the gun, it’s the shooter. And that would be admitting what anyone who’s walked a major city street already knows: there are gaping holds in our nation’s mental healthcare.
At this time, there’s no idea what motivated a 68 year old Asian man to go on a shooting rampage in a California church.
Unlike many others in the media, I’m not going to speculate. But the reporter in me does wonder what's triggering the violence. Are we fueling the fire by giving a megaphone to those increasingly intolerant people who are issuing calls for “actions” directed at anyone who disagrees with us?
Should the media be billed for the cost of erecting fences around the United States Supreme Court? Has around-the-clock coverage of pro-abortion demonstrations led to subsequent acts of vandalism against churches?
Does continuous coverage of pseudo-violent protests and calls for “escalation” encourage the unstable? Does it push enough of their buttons for them to “take up arms against a sea of troubles” -even if their “troubles” are primarily inside their heads?
Five decades ago, I was taught that to be a journalist required dispassionate observation. The separation of feeling from fact. Observation over impression.
Today, young reporters often seem more emotional than people they’re covering.
While news operations have become lighting quick at reporting “breaking news” -they’re unfortunately, even quicker to reduce human toll to “infographics” or those unfeeling statistics rolled out to defend-or attack- a particular viewpoint.
There’s one primary fact regarding tragedy. Whether a “mass casualty event” or a single car crash, size doesn’t matter.
Tragedies impact people. More people than most of us ever realize.
Families, friends, acquaintances, witnesses, first responders; everyone touched by tragedy is changed by it.
For some the impact is short-term. For others, life will never be the same.
Before the tragedy, they were likely just like us.
Oblivious.
Convinced tragedies would always happen to “others” never to them.
Then tragedy proved them wrong.
Reducing one person’s inhumanity via mind-numbing statistical recitations rolled out to “advance a story” isn’t giving context; it’s misdirection.
Parroting talking points from anti-gun groups inferring that collecting all the guns would eliminate all the evil in the world isn’t just misdirection; it’s lying.
If turning in guns would stop evil, I’d bring mine in without hesitation.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen enough evil visited on innocents via guns, knives, pool cues, rocks, sticks, and bare hands to know that’s not the case.
Evil exists.
Trying to convince people inanimate objects are to blame isn’t doing anyone a favor. It’s avoiding a fact that has been true since Cain killed Able.
The same “leaders” calling for more regulations on objects know that’s not the answer, but choose to ignore that inconvenient fact. Because they know dealing with the fact of the matter would require actions they’re unwilling to take.
— Jim Shepherd