Skip to main content

The U.S. Cycle of Gun Violence

When it comes to the gun debate, this country seems to be in a continuous cycle which shows no signs of being broken anytime soon. The cycle goes like this:

1) A tragic mass shooting occurs somewhere in the country

2) We briefly mourn

3) We attempt to find scapegoats

4) Progressives and Democrats fight for stronger gun laws

5) Conservatives and Republicans say, "Now's not the time to talk about such things."

6) The NRA and similar groups push for more guns and weaker gun laws

7) The issue gets pushed to the side after a week or two

8) Another mass shooting occurs

I'm frankly getting sick and tired of this seemingly never-ending cycle. Within the past week or so, there was a mass shooting in Oregon, school shootings in Arizona and Texas, a shooting in a parking lot following the New England Patriots/Dallas Cowboys game on Sunday, not to mention cops accused of shooting people who were unarmed. At what point are we as a nation finally going to look in the mirror and say, "We've got a problem; we need help"? Sadly, when Congress failed to pass gun control legislation following the Sandy Hook tragedy, it made me doubtful such legislation would ever get passed.

Sadly, I think a growing number of people are becoming desensitized to mass shootings in this country, believe them to be inevitable, which would make gun control legislation pointless. This was nowhere more apparent than with the GOP candidates.

Donald Trump said that such shootings were inevitable, so additional gun laws wouldn't make a bit of difference. Jeb Bush said, "Stuff happens." John Kasich said such shootings were the result of an increasingly isolated society. Bobby Jindal blamed the shooter's parents as well as a broken culture. Marco Rubio went the mental illness route. Carly Fiorina provided her best dance moves in yet again avoiding substance with her response. Ted Cruz diverted attention from the tragedy to President Obama "politicizing" the tragedy. Former neurosurgeon Ben Carson provided the most outrageous and insensitive comments of all (yes, even more insensitive than "stuff happens"), saying the following:

- "...I would not just stand there and let him shoot me. I would say, 'Hey guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me, but he can't get us all."

- "I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed."

- "...There is no doubt that this senseless violence is breathtaking - but I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away..."

Really? So the twenty 6- and 7-year-old kids who were gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a less devastating site than of expanding background checks? ...and this guy was a neurosurgeon? Can you imagine him trying to provide such opinions to the parents of a child who was shot in the head?

Chuck Fuchery: "Doc, is he going to be okay?"

Stephanie Fuchery: "Please say he's going to be alright, please.... Doc?"

Ben Carson: "Mr. and Mrs. Fuchery, I'm sorry to say this, but your son, Chuck Fuchery Jr., is no longer with us. The bullet hole was lodged too far in his brain, we couldn't get to it in time, and even if we did, he would have died anyway."

The Fuchery's: :: start bawling their eyes out ::

Carson: "I do have some good news, though. For as difficult a time as they has to be for you and for as gruesome as the bullet hole in your son's head was, it wasn't nearly as devastating as if your son's shooter, a felon, had lost his right to purchase and fire a gun. Lives are precious, but the 2nd Amendment is more precious, even more so than your son's life. Have a nice day."

What is it with this country valuing property over people? Why have we become so paranoid about having our property taken from us when there's no reason to believe such a thing would occur? Why have we become so paranoid about laws being passed affecting us when the facts illustrate otherwise? Why do we consistently turn a blind eye to gun violence and refuse to try and break this tragic cycle? I'm growing sick and tired of hearing about these tragedies on television, of gun violence research being underfunded, of Republican politicians saying it's too soon to talk about the issue, of Democratic politicians not fighting more for the changes we desperately need, of conservative media outlets diverting attention away from the actual issue at hand, and of the people seeming to just not care anymore. It boggles my mind how far-right conservative Republicans can call themselves pro-life when, after birth, they seem to disregard 99% of lives. The unborn's lives are of greater importance than those living in poverty. Corporations' lives are of greater importance than single mother's. Televangelists' lives are more important than the lives of those in the middle-class. Guns' lives are of far greater importance than the lives of gun violence victims. How about being pro-life from birth until death for a change? How about taking care of our brothers and sisters, regardless of the level of income they bring in annually? How about not stigmatizing mental illness and providing more options for such individuals needing help? How about learning from other developed nations and making it less likely for mass shootings to occur by strengthening our gun laws? It's too soon to talk about gun violence in this country? That's what we've been saying since 2005. Since then, 301,797 people have fallen victim to gun violence in this country. I dare a person to look every one of these victims' families in the eyes and tell them, "It's too soon..." No, it was too late.

http://www.newsweek.com/ben-carson-most-controversial-quotes-381674

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/10/ben_carson_taking_away_gun_rig.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/07/446602165/gop-candidates-criticized-for-oregon-shooting-response

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/10/ben-carson-oregon-shooting

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/05/viral-image/fact-checking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"