Online users
???: Message   

Hey. WaPo. Shut up, already. We're sick of your whining.
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

08/01/2019, 10:44:52

Author Profile Mail author Edit

www.oregonlive.com

Washington Post editorial: Gilroy shooting is yet another indictment of U.S. gun laws

Posted Jul 31, 7:30 AM
3-4 minutes

Once again America woke up to news of a mass shooting. This time it was at a popular food festival in California and among those killed was a 6-year-old boy, Stephen Romero, who had been playing at an inflatable bounce house when he was shot in the back. “Why? Really, that’s my question - why?” asked one shell-shocked survivor posing a question that has been asked far too many times by far too many other communities shattered by mass shootings. Tragically, it is a question that inevitably will be asked again because of the refusal by lawmakers to confront gun violence by reforming the laws that help to enable the killing of innocents.

"It seems this was a random act, but again, we've got a long way to go before we can come to a determination what his motivations were," said Gilroy Police Chief Scot Smithee of Sunday's rampage at the garlic festival that killed three people - the 6-year-old, a 13-year-old girl and a man in his 20s - and wounded at least 12 others. Among those injured were the 6-year-old's mother and grandmother. Videos uploaded to social media replayed the terrifying sounds of shots fired and panicked people fleeing. The 19-year-old gunman was killed by police, and with the investigation still in its preliminary stages, much remains unknown.

But what is known stands as yet another indictment of the country's broken gun laws. Security was tight at the festival, with the presence of armed officers and the public subject to bag searches and metal detector wands. The gunman apparently gained entry by cutting through a perimeter fence and, using an assault-style weapon, sprayed gunfire from side to side, seemingly indiscriminately. Police said they shot and killed him within one minute. Let that sink in - one minute and three people dead, others wounded, many terrified.

Thank goodness for the quick response of brave police officers, but what possible rationale exists for allowing citizens to have access to weapons that aren't for hunting or self-defense but designed for war? California has banned assault weapons, but authorities said the 19-year-old legally purchased an SKS, an AK-47-type rifle, in Nevada on July 9. What does it say about our priorities that this killer was better armed than the police who protect us?

And shouldn't we be troubled that just days before the Gilroy shooting, four people were killed and two people were injured in a shooting spree across the San Fernando Valley that started when a man first shot his parents and brother, then shot an acquaintance before opening fire on a bus? On Saturday, a shooting at a community event in Brooklyn killed one man and injured 11 people. On Sunday - the day that Stephen Romero went with his mother and grandmother to have some fun at a local festival - one person was killed and five others wounded in Philadelphia as a production of a rap video was set to get underway.

It took just one horrific shooting spree in New Zealand to prompt leaders there to tighten gun laws, including a ban on most semiautomatic weapons. And so the question persists: “Why?”



  • Just now
Hailing the police for a rapid response (they were onsite, after all) is whistling past the graveyard, pun intended. 

The fact is that no licensed 'civilian' was permitted to lawfully carry at that event, and multiple people circulating in the crowd could have stopped the carnage much more quickly. A lawfully armed populace is a force multiplier for the police. 

Again we hear the tiresome whining for even more control of the 99.9% who own and carry guns safely and lawfully, following example after example proving that such restrictions are not only ineffective because they target (again, pun intended) the wrong people, but that this whole line of thought is intransigent and asinine.



LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE

Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.





Post Reply | Recommend | Alert   Previous | Next | Current page