Victims of Gun Violence

Like a battlefield, their corpses are strewn across the landscape, in elementary and high school classrooms, in nightclubs, at concert events, in workplaces, in churches, in restaurants, in homes – victims of gun violence, testimony that America is no longer safe because the nation is awash in guns that seemingly anyone can get and the government refuses to address the issue.

The riddled bodies of children and adults are not the only victims of gun violence. The men and women who kill with guns are also victims. They are permitted to buy as many as they need with as much ammo as they need without anyone questioning them. The gun sellers won’t question them; the law won’t question them until they commit a crime with a gun. No matter what the crime, the gun is the go-to tool of choice.

The law-abiding gun owners are victims, too. Many of them believe the falsehoods about the intent of the Second Amendment or the lie that liberals want to take away their guns. They just want to enjoy the peaceful purpose of hunting, target practice and collecting, but they are caught in the crossfire. They see the carnage, but can’t listen without anger to an explanation of what meaningful gun-control means. They believe that always carrying a gun will protect them. Yet, most people live an entire life without ever needing a gun for protection.

Every American is a victim because politics and special interests have set the nation on a course of more guns and more deaths. Presidents and Congress, governors and state legislators refuse to consider meaningful gun control because to do nothing is safer for them politically. They have forgotten their role in a democracy where majority rules, and poll after poll shows a majority of Americans want meaningful gun control.

Moderation in everything; more of anything multiplies a problem. Why must teachers bear the burden of carrying a gun to class to protect their students. Yet, the National Rifle Association, the Gun Owners of America, gun makers, advocates of so-called gun rights and their supporters in the White House, Congress, governor’s mansions, state legislatures, county courthouses and city halls will tell you more guns are needed to stop gun violence.

More guns to stop gun violence is like pouring gasoline on a fire; like treating heroin addiction with more heroin; like giving more poison to the poisoned; like serving more alcohol to the alcoholic. More guns mean more death.   

Yet, the NRA and the politicians it supports say that is the answer. They say more guns are needed in the classrooms, in the night clubs, at public events, in workplaces, in churches, in restaurants, in homes, and concealed in the pockets of “good guys with a gun.” You’re only a ‘good guy’ until you start killing people with your gun. Just ask the student survivors at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 of their classmates, teachers and coaches were killed within minutes with an AR-15 assault-style rifle.

Back in 1996, Gun makers, with help from their lobbying arm, the NRA, got Congress to halt government research into the harm decades of rampant gun violence has caused our nation, our sense of well-being, our children’s mental health. Such research could help with discussing and adopting meaningful gun control, but we can’t know; the gun makers don’t want us to know.

However, we do know what guns and gun violence are doing to our nation’s civility.

It’s another victim.

The Post

Newspapers and film often serve to inform the public – film perhaps more artfully – and start national conversations about issues.

“The Post,” Steven Spielberg’s new film, is an intersection of the two mediums. It tells the story of the 1971 publication of top secret U.S. government documents by one national newspaper, The New York Times, and one soon-to-be national newspaper, The Washington Post.

The Pentagon Papers, as the documents became known, provided an analysis of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam starting with President Harry Truman in 1945. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who ordered their drafting in 1967, meant for historians sometime in the future to read and understand the lessons of America’s long war in Southeast Asia.

However, Daniel Ellsberg, military analyst with the RAND Corporation, a government contractor that housed one of the copies of this massive document, decided the public should know the truth. From one administration to another, presidents knew the Vietnam war was unwinnable – American boys were essentially being sent into a meat grinder – but lied about it.

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled “United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense”, presented it all: from Truman to Dwight Eisenhower to John F. Kennedy to Lyndon Johnson to Richard Nixon, whose administration continued to perpetrate the lie while trying to negotiate an end to the war.

It wasn’t that these successive presidents wanted to see America’s sons and daughters die in a war America could not win without annihilating the small nation. It seems they didn’t know how to admit defeat and find another way toward peace with a communist government. And so, they kept the meat grinder going.

Ellsberg got the papers first to the New York Times, which published them knowing the government under the Nixon administration would react with a court injunction to stop further publication. Then the Post got them from Ellsberg. Despite the injunction – publisher Katharine Graham and editor Ben Bradlee knew they could go to prison and the paper could close – the Post published more documents.

Critics of Spielberg’s film argue the movie focused on the wrong newspaper. After all, it was the New York Times that took the bold step to first publish top secret government documents under pain of imprisonment. No doubt, the nation owes the Times its gratitude.

Yet, who was first to publish, while important, seems rather insignificant when considering the larger picture. The courts effectively stopped the Times from publishing further documents. The story, thus the truth, could have ended there. Fearful of what Nixon, who despised the press, and his Justice Department could do, newspapers could easily have decided not to risk publishing.

What the Post did by defying the injunction, as well as the Justice Department’s request to cease further publication, was to signal that the public’s right to know was paramount on this particular matter over any other consideration.

When a judge asked a Post lawyer whether the newspaper would have printed the plans for D-Day, the allied invasion of Normandy that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany, the lawyer answered accordingly. In so many words, he said, the people who run American newspapers are as patriotic as the people who run the government – they don’t set out to put the country in harm’s way.

The Pentagon Papers were not the plans to win the war; they were the narratives about a war that could not be won, a sentiment shared by the national leaders who were needlessly sending troops to die.

Once the Post defied the government, newspaper editors around the country began publishing the documents. They saw it as a journalistic duty to inform the public about their government’s catastrophically failed policy. With this as backdrop, the Supreme Court heard the case of New York Times v. United States, and agreed in a 6-3 decision on the value of a free press under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

As Justice Hugo Black wrote in his concurrence, the free press was “to serve the governed, not the governors.”

The newspapers were free under their obligation to readers to publish the Pentagon Papers.

The day of the court’s decision, which “The Post” artfully captured, was not about newspapers winning and the government losing. It was about democracy thriving under a Constitution written by men who knew their new nation needed to be a nation of laws, not men.

To ensure people had recourse against excesses of the politically powerful, the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Constitution a free press. As a nation, America is great because of its journalistic traditions, which, while not perfect, have shed light on the darkened corridors of power.

At the Precipice

Months after the October 2017 killings by Stephen Paddock of 58 people at a country music concert in Las Vegas, the media reported recently that investigators had still not found a motive behind his crime.

Perhaps we expect a rational reason behind America’s gun-killings – mental illness is a popular motive for a man to take a gun and kill, job stress is another, and of course terrorism. Why else would a seemingly law-abiding citizen decide to murder fellow citizens with extreme prejudice?

For Paddock, his motive is evident, but we choose not to acknowledge this. According to police and federal investigators, Paddock planned his killings methodically. He wanted to kill a lot of people. Period.

Why? Power.

Paddock chose a public event where people were confined in what amounted to a kill box. He knew he could pick off hundreds, perhaps more than a 1,000, if he was able to keep the police at bay long enough.

Moreover, he knew he had to power to do this. As he started, he knew he held the power of life and death over the thousands of concert goers scrambling to escape his slaughter. Such power is intoxicating in the right minds, let alone the wrong minds. It’s an aphrodisiac.

The laws of this country and the willful misinterpretation of the Constitution handed Paddock this power. He and tens of thousands of other gun owners possess and use semi-automatic weapons that can effectively become automatic weapons with a so-called bump stock.

Paddock, well supplied with guns and bump stocks and ammo in his hotel room, had the power to kill, and kill many. That’s what he did, willingly.

Paddock has no history of mental illness, and by all accounts, according to press reports, he was sane and well-adjusted, if not a bit of a grump to his neighbors. He knew he had the ultimate power and he chose to exercise it with extreme prejudice. He didn’t care who got killed. He just wanted to kill them. He didn’t care who they were. He just wanted to kill them.

Maybe this is a definition of a disturbed mind, but millions of disturbed minds don’t reach for guns. They could, considering the attitude toward guns in this country, where Congress and state politicians work tirelessly in the effort to get a gun in the hand of every man, woman and child.

The National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America are the forces behind ensuring that no regulation however effective at saving lives gets adopted in this nation. They have the power to do this. They’ve convinced the public, state legislatures and the Congress that regulating guns would give guns to criminals. Instead, laws are making criminals out of the law-abiding.

Until he stood in his Las Vegas hotel room and killed 58 people, Stephen Paddock wasn’t a criminal. He had no record. Paddock did have an arsenal of weapons that destroyed 58 lives and damaged the lives of more than 400 others directly, and hundreds of millions more indirectly. He left the nation less safe and more dangerous.

That was the power he held in his hand. That is the power of the gun.

Until Paddock began killing, the NRA and GOA had no problem with Paddock amassing an arsenal of weapons. They encourage their membership to buy as many weapons as they desire. It’s their right under the Constitution, they rationalize. It keeps the membership dues rolling in and profits up for the gun and ammo manufacturers.

Despite the horrors of innocent deaths that night in Las Vegas, and the other mass shootings in recent years, the NRA and GOA have little need to worry. Congress and the state legislatures are not going to regulate guns, no matter what the evidence, and the nation will move on.

The NRA and GOA estimate that mass shooting events dissipate from the public’s consciousness after about two weeks.

They are correct. Several mass shootings have occurred in the months since the Las Vegas killings and no one is doing anything but offering prayers and thoughts while guns are being readily sold to anyone who can purchase one regardless of what their intent.