Something changed in America, when Adam Lanza decided to blow his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and massacre 20 first-graders and six of their teachers in a matter of seconds.
Something happened to our resolve, to our indifference, to our willingness to accept the status quo.
These were not the first souls lost to gun violence, and sadly will not be the last.
But something changed.
Perhaps it was their age, so young, so innocent and with such potential.
Perhaps it was the timing, at Christmas, when their thoughts were of gifts and not guns.
Their deaths were no more tragic than any other, their lives no more valuable than others lost by gun violence.
But something changed. Something rocked us deep inside like nothing ever before. And something must be done.
"The world has changed," said Vice President Joe Biden, speaking before President Barack Obama outlined sweeping policies aimed at limiting gun violence. " And it's demanding action."
Some of the president's policy ideas will receive overwhelming support. Universal background checks should be the least we do.
A majority of Americans even agree, 55 percent, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll, to outlawing "assault-style weapons," like the one Lanza used in Sandy Hook.
That's not an overwhelming show of support, but the events of Dec. 14, 2012, demand an overwhelming response.
Some of the children who died had as many as 11 entry wounds. Never has the term "overkill" fit so appropriately.
Not every legislative measure will pass; no law will wipe out every incident of gun violence.
That should not keep us from at least trying.
"While there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil," Obama said Wednesday at the White House, "if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try it."
These particular measures, pulled from NBC News, are worth trying:
n requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private sales
n banning "military-style" assault weapons
n limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds
n strengthening penalties for gun trafficking
When any or all of these measures are enacted, we owe it to the lost to chart just how successful our actions have been and alter the course if necessary.
The most sweeping measures require Congressional action, seemingly an insurmountable obstacle considering the rhetoric coming out of some gun rights advocates who want you to believe the government is coming after your guns.
Congress must do something. To do nothing would make what we've felt these past few weeks a phantom pain, an ache with no end, and a sense of dread that yes, this will happen again because we elected to do nothing.
We should at least try.
Dwindling Lakes
First hand look at Moore, OK destruction
Surveying the damage in Moore, Oklahoma
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 7
Thinkinguy writes:
If Biden, Obama, NBC News or Scripps Howard said it, I don't believe it!
We've already missed an opportunity to curb these mass shootings. The idiot that shot up the theatre in Colorado should have been executed on live TV within three days. This would send a strong signal.
asiseeit writes:
25% of this editorial makes a valid point. Gun violence is not the problem. A culture of violence is. How many murders occur everyday with other objects, that only make the small print in newspapers? This administration is making a political gain, with our children as stakeholders. Mr. Obama's biggest contributors have gotten rich from violent movies, or music. He is not the only problem, but being the voice to take away freedom from responsible Americans was a bad choice. The guns used in Sandy Hook were obtained legally. What would this law stop? It would stop responsible, law-abiding citizens from defending themselves against both criminals and a tyrannical government.
Saltygi writes:
Children's lives are not really what is at issue here. They are only being used as a means to an end. The elimination of guns (and the rest of the Constitution) is what is really going on. Tyrany cannot exist with an armed public or with a firm religious base. Sure have made a dent in religion!
This is not at all to say that the lives of the children and staff at Sandy Hook were not precious and will be sorely missed. They were and will be. But look at the hatred that has been developed over the past 50 years or more for the real problems. ANYTHING that stands for the founding of this country is under attack. The basis for this hatred, perhaps the envy of those that do not achieve or do not wish to try, against those that can and do?
Or is it perhaps the overthrow of our government by a foriegn power that is in play?
imahic writes:
Regarding those "ideas worth trying":
1. Background checks are required now. Private sales would be unenforceable. Witness the Fast and Furious debacle Eric Holder is trying to dodge.
2. Assault weapons are already banned and have been banned since the 80's as I understand it. To possess an assault weapon requires a Federal Firearm license. An assault weapon is capable of firing multiple rounds with ONE pull of the trigger. The guns they are making such a stink over are semi automatic weapons that look like assault weapons. This means that one pull of the trigger means firing one round at a time versus multiple rounds at a time.
3. What will limiting the size of the clip do. It takes less than 1 second to drop an empty clip and insert a new one.
4. They can start enforcing current laws on gun trafficking by prosecuting Eric Holder and others in the DOJ for trafficking guns to Mexican drug cartels. What good is a new law for gun trafficking if they fail to enforce the laws they already have?
This is nothing more than exploiting the deaths of innocent children for political gain. The president has shown he has no regard for the Constitution which he took an oath to protect and defend. The man is incompetent at best.
jetjocky writes:
Little of what this president offered will do anything. A few are notworthy: I have no problem with background checks when a weapon is purchased, as long as the data is not kept as a file on who owns firearms. Once the person is checked, the data must be destroyed. I also think it essential to prosecute to the fullest anyone who traffics in illegal gun sales (I have some canditates in mind from Fast and Furious). These are common sense proposals that will help reduce the probability of someone getting a weapon that should not have one.
Most everything else is just political eye wash that will lead to making life more difficult for the law abiding citizen and doing nothing to stop the criminal. How about starting an investigation into the black on black killings running rampant in Chicago. You know, investigate what impact the massive welfare given out has had on the breakup of the family, why so many resort to guns to express themselves, what happened to their self-esteem and what part has government programs played on the effects. That would be a good start and then report on all the illegal guns owned by felons and carried in "gun free zones". But then, that would ruin the image of a caring government.
PoorRichard writes:
Measures "worth trying"???
"...n requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private sales..."
- This is not a bad idea, but what is the plan for implementation/enforcement? Will everyone who wants to sell grandpa's old hunting rifle now have access to the NICS?
"...n banning "military-style" assault weapons..."
- REALLY? What, pray tell, does "military-style" mean? Are folks really that special kind of stupid to believe that banning cosmetics that have nothing to do with function is going to do anything to prevent mass shootings by people who are typically already disbarred from legally posessing a firearm?
"...n limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds..."
- Again, cue the special kind of stupid sign...
"...n strengthening penalties for gun trafficking..."
- I like this one. But the problem will be the application. This would require the courts to actually follow through with penalty application.
Pay close attention to the video below while a still popular semi-auto rifle is mystically transformed into an evil para-military black rifle, through the magic of the cosmetically changing the stock from wood to plastic!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x4...
If, after watching this, if you still think outlawing cosmetics will solve gun crimes, then you really are a special kind of stupid!
Texasczech63 writes:
How about the media quit running 24/7 coverage of the murdering losers......it's what the cowards want.
Without looking it up.....
Can you name 5 mass murderers?
That was pretty easy huh?
Now can you name the guy with the CHL who stopped the shooter at the mall in Seattle a couple of weeks ago?
Can you name the guy with the CHL that tackled Gerald Laughtner?
Maybe the two students with CHL's at Appalachia law school?
The armed woman at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs?
The Assistant Principal that ran to his car to get his gun in Pearl MS?
Out of the five I just listed.....how many could you name?.....I didn't recall one of them.
Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.