Courtesy of Getty Images
Ten are dead and many are wounded at a school last week in rural Oregon. Yet another mass shooting that occurred at a college campus.
It’s another blast from television news stations and other media outlets reporting the tragedy, another act of violence has been imprinted into the minds of the American people.
For a few days, the nation’s attention will be drawn to Roseburg as we once again confront senseless mass death.
And then the country will move on.
“Somehow this has become routine,” said President Obama, a few hours after the shooting. “Our thoughts and prayers are not enough.”
Obama is right. Furthermore, actions need to be taken and legislation needs to be passed.
We cannot continue with this routine of violence, media reports, speeches and healing, again and again. It is a vicious cycle. We are becoming accustomed to this. Our society is blinded by our own self-interest.
What many people don’t realize is that we are engaged in a war within our own country, a war to decide whether we will continue to let the senseless tragedy of gun violence continue.
“Being from Texas, I believe in my rights from the Second Amendment, although there have to be responsibilities,” said Andrew Parker, an economics sophomore. “There needs to be an open and honest discussion in this country about what we can do as a people to reduce the number of victims of gun violence.”
It is not sufficient to assume there is nothing we can do to prevent someone, even someone with mental illnesses, from getting a gun if they want it. At least something can be done to make a small difference.
According to USA Today, following the tragic 2014 mass shooting in Isla Vista, California, legislators in the state passed a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) policy. GVRO is a “life-saving reform” that allows family members and/or law enforcement to petition a judge to temporarily remove firearms from a loved one in crisis.
It isn’t a guarantee that a bill like this for the entire country would prevent any more mass shootings but it can be a step in the right direction.
“I think no matter what the government does, it cannot be controlled,” said Yassin Ibrahim, acomputer science junior. “The root of this problem comes from the home. This issue is greater than stricter gun regulations.”
Whatever may be the cause, it is an even bigger problem when Democratic and Republican candidates are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum in regards to what needs to be done. In times of crisis, no good that can come from being close-minded about possible long-term solutions.
According to NBC news, GOP candidates’ positions on gun control remain unchanged. Republicans such as Dr. Ben Carson and Jeb Bush maintain the same position that more gun control won’t make a difference in mass shootings. Meanwhile, Democrats Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders support a “comprehensive approach” to gun restrictions in order to reduce violence.
Each time a massacre has occurred, we have seen not only a striking mobilization against any new restrictions but an equally striking absence of strong pressure to address this issue.
The country needs to do a better job dealing with its gun problem. Otherwise, we’ll find ourselves just going through this all over again.
Opinion columnist Rebekah Barquero is a print journalism junior and may be reached at [email protected]
The people of Roseburg correctly realize that armed faculty, staff and students would have prevented this.
I agree Randy. What exactly would these people like this country to do with it’s “gun problem” is my question. Why doesn’t them folks do a bit of research of countries and cities that ban handguns and see what their crime rate is to give them a small sample of what we all would be getting. Take a look at Chicago and Washington, DC.
Our presidents foster home (Chicago) had 15 people shot last weekend. As of yesterday, Chicago has had 2,360 shootings this year. Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the nation.
http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings
We don’t have a gun problem, we have a crime (i.e. Chicago) and mental illness problem in this country.
Every one of the recent mass shooters had contact with mental health professionals, yet they still passed the Govt. required background check. The same background check all of these politicians have been saying we need to make “universal.” (ie. for private sales, even though none of the guns were purchased by a private seller). Nobody mentions the current law and background check already prohibits sales/ownership to people who have demonstrated, or been deemed mentally unstable. Thus, the real problem is that none of the mental health professionals have the cajones to report them.
Yet, even if they did, would it have stopped them from inflicting carnage? The Santa Barbara murderer was visited by the police the day prior for a wellness check with no action. Even without a gun he killed half of his victims with a knife. The Newtown killer murdered his mother to gain access to the guns he used. We already have a law against murdering your mother. We are constantly reminded of the Columbine massacre, but nobody mentions the killers two 20 pound homemade propane bombs that (luckily) failed to detonate. Bomb experts stated that if they had, (and they definitely could have) there would’ve been >400 people killed. Are we going to ban propane BBQ cylinders next??
Instead we pass a bunch a “feel good” laws that do nothing to prevent these massacres, and only negatively effect law abiding citizens. Laws like magazine capacity limits. Yet nobody mentions the worst mass shooting in recent history, Virgina Tech, the shooter had 19 fully loaded magazines in his backpack, half of which would’ve met the recently enacted magazine ban.
We have enough gun laws, we need to put some money into our mental health system.
Correction, the SB killer was visited by the police for a wellness check a few weeks prior, not the day prior. He had a lifetime of contact with mental health professionals.
What were the diagnosis? The rise in mass murders are being committed by those with firearms, not knives or bombs. The loopholes used to obtain firearms and the access to get them argues against your attempt to minimize them. Were these people criminals before committing the acts? Or were they ordinary people who for some reason snapped and had easy access to lethal weapons? If we can’t block access, all your scenarios do is demonstrate is how easy it is for any disturbed person to use a firearm to kill. Is this your idea of normal?
What were the diagnosis? The rise in mass murders are being committed by those with firearms, not knives or bombs. The loopholes used to obtain firearms and the access to get them argues against your attempt to minimize them. Were these people criminals before committing the acts? Or were they ordinary people who for some reason snapped and had easy access to lethal weapons? If we can’t block access, all your scenarios do is demonstrate is how easy it is for any disturbed person to use a firearm to kill. Is this your idea of normal? The increase in anything increase my ability to access it. That’s common sense. Moreover the defense of a gun-saturated society is a reflection of the adherence to irrational belief that guns make us safer, not a regard for social safety. Your entire line of reasoning is reflected in the third element of this diagram in the circular logic syllogism which gun advocates use to justify gun use.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9cac0ab3b153012f83d9dc2cb0c1892433a719919731cba5a6e5155a39f4cda0.jpg
What are these loopholes you speak so emotionally of?
To me it sounds like you want all guns banned, because it will make us “safer.” Well, here’s how you can do it.
https://youtu.be/bnoFKskvSq4
sarcastic NRA-sponsored propaganda about Constitutional amendments is not a valid reply to a serious issued in a country where, every day, a new gun death occurs. You’re reply is a mockery to law and order and saving lives, not an informed reply. All it does is echo the same NRA mindset which sees sensible gun control as a threat to a few fringy gun nuts. Absurd. Why would the mere suggestion set you off on such an hysterical reaction. Ridiculous. But yours is the standard reply; don’t consider an alternative. Just mock it. How childish. And unfortunately, while you were roaming the Internet trying to find clever ways to denounce efforts to save innocent lives, some gun nut is planning his next slaughter. In fact, in the time since my previous post; there have been two. So I guess at least one of us knows what’s happening, while the other only care about letting the slaughter continue. Good job paving the way for more death. How proud you must be.
Alex Colvin, did you actually go through the process to copyright that or did you just slap a (c) on it and call it good?
It’s my design. It’s copyrighted. Hence the copyright bug. Being a retired professional reporter, I actually know how copyright works. You apparently do not. I suggest you find someone else to badger.
Defection is not a solution.
Like the Czech Republic who’s 3rd most popular sport is the shooting sports and who has a concealed carry system much like Texas’? Not too much crime there, but the cities like Chicago?
Max Powers hit it on the head with Chicago. DC is not good either. You should choose some better examples than those places, because they totally disprove your point.
In Austin, there are already organized protests at the University of Texas against Texas’ Campus Carry law which will take effect January 1st, and already some 163 faculty have signed onto a petition to stop this madness; . there is a FB page. Also, a tenured emeritus professor has already left his position as well as made his a lengthy resignation letter letter public explaining his decision. The University of Houston,its faculty and students need to make their voices heard on this issue. the silence from the Daily Cougar is deafening, while the cries of protest from UT are quite loud. Should UH stands idly by in mute silence as it’s peer institution takes center stage? Already the threat of one professor leaving and his proposal that others do the same has raised the hackles of UT alum who are threatening to propose legislation that university funding be reduced 25% per annum they drop any pretense to protesting this insane law. That isn’t just censorship; that’s a threat to the very financial lifeblood of every public university in Texas. Will the Daily Cougar just stand by while institutions are bullied into cowering to a law which can have no ultimate good outcome? http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-ut-history-prof-advocates-defiance-and-an-alum-responds-with-a-proposal/
So you’re complaining about people not protesting on an internet comments board instead of trying to get it done yourself? You see the irony / borderline hypocrisy in that, right?
I agree with you 100%, but it’s hard to lend credence to someone who comes in here to say that other people should do something about it instead of doing something about it yourself. That is the exact reason nothing ever gets done about anything.
So what are you waiting for? Get out there and protest!
Raising awareness is doing something. And doing that is just as important as waving placards. Civil disobedience takes many forms; don’t be so quick to judge a movement by only one element.
How did this policy affect you directly? If you are a Senior, then you should be graduating before any firearms come on campus. This law takes affect on August 1st of 2016.
Civil disobedience? what disobedience are you doing?
I’m not on your time schedule. You apparently don’t even know how college works, how Campus Carry is already impacting we students in Texas, or what civil disobedience is. No more replies from me. You’re ignorance is breathtaking. Find someone else to badger with your nonsense.
Wow, settle down dude. I do know, just most people who proudly proclaim they’re seniors are close to graduating. I’ve got three more semesters, I’m a senior by hours as well.
Please tell me how it is already negatively impacting colleges like UH.
And I really want to know what civil disobedience you’re undertaking to protest this law. Like genuinely interested.
Not taking the bait. If you don’t understand the concept of impact or civil disobedience or protest, I don’t know what to tell you. But no college student I know would wonder at either of those things. So you’re inquiries are synthetic and disingenuous.
Please tell me how it is negatively impacting UH and other colleges. I really don’t know. We still talked about it before it passed.
And I really want to know what civil disobedience you are undertaking for this cause, what’s the harm in telling such an ‘ignorant’ college student who ‘doesn’t even know how college works’?
We’re done. You’re pointless questions just go in circles. Try Google. obviously you can grasp basic ideas. and I don’t have time to draw you pictures.
cute, nice edit man.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
You, in here, doing this, is not effective; nor is it “civil disobedience”.
I’m not here to curb any attempt to voice an opinion, but to say you’re raising awareness and calling for protest in a comments board that maybe 50 people pay attention to is futile.
If you were as passionate about this as you seem you would be the one in Butler Plaza waving placards and making your voice heard instead of engaging in what is quintessentially hashtag activism. #Kony2012
Negating what I’m saying or doing. Calling me a hypocrite. No, that’s not blunting at all. Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I mean by your own belittling comments. You have no idea what’s happening but obviously have a stake in trying to negate it. Now why would that be? Sad.
Hostile to the idea of protesting it? No. That’s a baseless assumption. If you paid any inkling of attention you would know I actually have a similar opinion as you of this law, but you seem blinded by the fact that I criticized you. I merely pointed out the irony of calling for others to act on a message board when you could just as easily get out there and do something yourself.
And for further criticism, people would take you a lot more seriously if you spent less time needlessly belittling other people. I’m glad you found some sense to revise this most recent remark with something less personal toward me, but I’ve seen what you’ve said to others in this thread and other articles, and despite whatever you’re trying to accomplish it’s hard to take you seriously because you seem to take every criticism or debate against you way too personally.
You seem to enjoy negating what I’ve said. What, exactly, is the point of that? Why do you not, instead, offer examples of why you support protesting Campus Carry if, as you claim, you agree with said protest? Why criticize my other remarks “to others” as you put it, as if to defend them instead of, as you claim, agree with protesting Campus Carry? IOW, the preponderance of the evidence suggests you are an ally of Campus Carry, not the opposite, since you take more exception to those willing to protest it — and how they do so — than with those supporting it. Are you not aware of your own pattern, while criticizing mine? If you are not hostile to protesting it, why expend so much energy criticizing those who do? What purpose could that possibly serve if not to oppose said protest? Your silly defense gives you away.
Metal “No Guns Allowed” signs that create an imaginary forcefield around the campus are obviously “the solution.”
There are approximately 900,000 concealed carry license holders in the state of Texas. There are approx. 26 million residents. That includes children. Thus, on conservative estimates, every 25th adult you were near today at the grocery store, movie theater, gas station, coffee shop, restaurant, workplace, etc. had a license to carry concealed.
Based on your fear based opinion, I’m surprised you made it safely thru the day.
Enough with the emotional drama. Time for some hard facts. Based on crime statistics available from the TX DPS, and national crime statistics for law enforcement personnel, TX CHL holders are more law abiding than the police!!
In my opinion the UT professor leaving his position is a good thing. Maybe more left-wing professors will do the same.
Oh, and thanks for the link to the website. I found it educational.
Your dystopian world where everyone is armed is a dangerous fantasy perpetrated by the NRA and their devotees trying to arm insurrection against an imaginary villainous federal government. It plays to a paranoid dellusion. If you want emotional appeals, I suggest you look no further than any NRA ad in any gun magazine which almost invariable show the federal government cast as the enemy of freedom. You’re so-called facts seem to leave that reality out. There is nothing “emotional” about not wanting the gun carnage to continue. You’re notion is not one based on a concern for safety, but to meet imaginary gun-wielding villains or civil order with still more firepower. How, in this scenario does anyone survive? There has been no “good guy” with a gun to stop any of the bad guys who’ve come along to slaughtered innocents on school campuses. Should a silly no-gun sign stop a true hero from doing the right thing to save lives? That doesn’t seem very heroic. Rather a cop-out. So the good guy armed with a gun and his 2nd Amendment has yet to save a single life. Your bizarre mathematics make no sense but only attempt to normalize and institutionalize gun violence. Your anti-intellectual screed about scholarship makes that plain enough.
Your dystopian world where everyone is armed is a dangerous fantasy perpetrated by the NRA and their devotees trying to arm insurrection against an imaginary villainous federal government. It plays to a paranoid delusion. If you want emotional appeals, I suggest you look no further than any NRA ad in any gun magazine which almost invariable show the federal government cast as the enemy of freedom. You’re so-called facts seem to leave that reality out. There is nothing “emotional” about not wanting the gun carnage to continue. You’re notion is not one based on a concern for safety, but to meet imaginary gun-wielding villains or civil order with still more firepower. How, in this scenario does anyone survive? There has been no “good guy” with a gun to stop any of the bad guys who’ve come along to slaughtered innocents on school campuses. Should a silly no-gun sign stop a true hero from doing the right thing to save lives? That doesn’t seem very heroic. Rather a cop-out. So the good guy armed with his licensed gun and his 2nd Amendment has yet to save a single life. Your bizarre mathematics make no sense but only attempt to normalize and institutionalize gun violence. Your anti-intellectual screed about scholarship makes that plain enough. All you’re doing is reciting everything that’s already stale, non-sequitur and easily understood with this diagram which makes the circular marketing logic used to sell and promote gun violence plain enough. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9cac0ab3b153012f83d9dc2cb0c1892433a719919731cba5a6e5155a39f4cda0.jpg
Lame. Not to mention paranoid.