The lives we keep losing
Regarding the Nov. 12 editorial “The list grows again”:
I read each and every name on the list. From churches to nightclubs, from concerts to elementary schools, from colleges to movie theaters, the list provided testimony to the profound loss of children, the elderly, students, church attendees and others to their families, communities and the nation. The number of those murdered in each incident has grown over the years. The cause of these murders may be mental illness among the perpetrators but, more significantly, it is tied to their possession of guns.
Why in the world does Congress not see that the enactment of common-sense gun control, specifically banning automatic or semiautomatic arms for use by the general public, could potentially decrease the number of people murdered? Even a “potential decrease” is better than none at all. Congress enacts all sorts of legislation that has a “potential” for positive results; members of Congress do not have certainty about the results of legislation — they have goals to improve things for the American public. Why don’t they at least try to “potentially” improve communities by restricting weapons of murder? Do they just sit by and wait for the next incident? I will not be voting for any candidate who does not sponsor legislation to control lethal weapons, and I encourage my fellow citizens to do the same. Carol V. O’Shaughnessy, Alexandria
Why is this happening? For the umpteenth time, what’s the problem? You pick the answer: guns, mental illness, the Second Amendment, the media, Hollywood, the National Rifle Association, gun lobbyists, politicians. For each, “scholarly articles” reference the research that supports the opinion being offered: why gun ownership results in fewer gun-related crimes; why it results in more gun-related crimes; why the Second Amendment is essential to our freedom; why it is outmoded and the primary cause of rampant, uncontrolled gun ownership in the United States.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that we don’t know the answer, or perhaps more ominous, we don’t want to know — because we have reached the point in our zeal for tolerance where acting out, even in a destructive manner, is okay. This problem is not solvable by constitutional amendments, legislation or platitudes from the bully pulpit. It requires a change in expectations for individual moral restraint, back to those that were once built into the fabric of our institutional structure. Until we realize that and make the necessary changes, the problem will persist. Robert J. Muzzio, Potomac Falls