Excerpts from The Bulletin’s My Nickel’s Worth and In My View in favor of firearms
Cars and hammers also kill by Thomas Nitcher of Bend (April 21. 2013)
In response to Jim Hauserï¿½s article in the March 6 My Nickelï¿½s Worth: In 2010, there were 5,419,000 police-reported traffic accidents, in which 32,885 people were killed [editor: these deaths occurred by accident, and it is a primary reason cars and drivers are required to be licensed; 99% of the 30,000 deaths by gun each year are not accidents]*
… . An average of 90 people died each day [editor: same as number by guns, and an average of 89 of the 90 deaths by gun are deliberate, not accidents]
. Should we insist that The Bulletin refrain from listing vehicles in the classifieds? … Last year almost twice the number of people were killed with a hammer than with a rifle [editor: this is grossly incorrect; In 2011 496 persons were killed in the U.S. with a blunt object, including hammers]
. Should The Bulletin be forced from posting tools in the classifieds? … One can purchase a vehicle or a hammer without a background check. What a stellar idea. There are no restrictions that I am aware of that prevent a felon from buying tools, vehicles, or obtaining a driverï¿½s license.
*[Note: only this letter has any editor comments, since the data presented are remarkably erroreous]
Profiling gun owners by Doug Hoffman of Roseburg (April 17. 2013)
Is profiling no longer a bad thing? I am amazed that community leaders choose to target gun owners based on the type of legal firearm they possess. I was not allowed to target individuals as a police officer. … we see unrestricted profiling by community and legislative leaders projected as a justifiable way to respond to insane acts of individuals. They seek to restrict or eliminate legal firearms possession, and act to make otherwise lawful individuals into criminals ,,, As a retired law enforcement officer, I recognize that this type of response is inappropriate, and based entirely on an ideological agenda. It constitutes a violation of personal freedoms and guaranteed protections. This action leads to citizen unrest, and will ultimately boil down to police/citizen conflicts in our communities. It is important that citizens and police maintain cohesion of trust and professional respect. The recently formed Retired Law Enforcement Officers Alliance (www.retiredleo.com) is an organization founded to allow retired officers in Oregon communities to work with citizen groups, community leaders and public administrators addressing concerns of trust and responsibility. …
Enforce gun laws we have by Delbert Linn of La Pine (April 13, 2013)
… There are about two million people a year who are not crime victims because they were armed. There need to be trained armed guards in our schools. People who oppose armed guards in schools have not come up with anything that will work. A person who is bent on doing a mass killing will not follow any laws. I support the Nation Rifle Association position on school safety. The new gun laws I heard proposed are a waste of time. One father of a Sandy Hook victim supports the National Rifle Association position.
Gun control issues by Coffin of La Pine (April 9. 2013)
… Oregonï¿½s Legislature is holding public testimony on four measures on gun control. I highly agree with one. Itï¿½s requiring a shooting test; if you canï¿½t hit a two-by-two target at 20 or 25 yards with six shots out of six, you wonï¿½t be issued a handgun permit. All the other measures seem to be the same old hat. … All this is gunsmoke by the lawmakers. New gun laws will not prevent gun violence. Bad guy that goes out and shoots up a school, a bus, store or a church gets his days or weeks in court. Maybe life in prison. He gets free meals, free doctor and medical care, clean clothes and a warm room. Heï¿½s alive, warm, clean and well. Who pays? We do. Appears we are the victims. Again!
New gun laws wonï¿½t stop acts of criminal insanity by Clint Decker of Terrebonne (April 9, 2013)
… I donï¿½t understand how telling criminals and misfits that it is now even more illegal is going to help. Maybe we will feel better about ourselves, and think that in the past the rules werenï¿½t as meaningful. But now we really mean that it is illegal to kill innocent people, and that it is really illegal now to commit crime with a handgun, and that now the convicted felons really canï¿½t have guns, etc. I worry that the criminals and mental misfits really wonï¿½t care! Some criminals have killed their own mothers to get guns, or whatever justification the killer felt for the heinous crime. … We can guide and direct how we want people to act, but I donï¿½t know that we can make the misfits behave as we believe they should.
Another view of “Friends of NRA” by Thomas Nitcher of Bend (March 19. 2013, in reply to prior Letter)
.. the National Rifle Association banquet … is being held by Friends of NRA. This organization is nonpolitical … 501(c)(3) charitable organization. The money it raises goes for local grant funding in areas such as youth firearm safety and education programs, hunter education, range development and improvement, womenï¿½s training seminars and wildlife conservation efforts. Last month, the Friends of NRA granted $240,000 here in Oregon for: 10 NRA high school scholarships, seven 4-H Junior shooting and archery programs, Oregon Paralyzed Veterans of America, The Eddie Eagle Gun Safe Program, Oregon State University, high school JROTC programs, Boy Scouts of America (Cub Scout archery and air rifle training, Boy Scout summer camp archery, shotgun and .22 rifle), ranges and gun safety programs. … If one would like to protest this fundraising banquet, itï¿½s your right. The 24 years (the better years of my life) that I served this country in the military so that one can say what they want, protest what they want, helped make it so.
Abortions kill more babies than guns do. By Alice Miles of Bend (March 15. 2013 )
… We are told the ï¿½right to own a gun also comes with responsibilities.” Wow, ï¿½responsibilities,” now that is a word we donï¿½t hear very often. How about if we apply ï¿½responsible” to other situations, like your sex life? Get pregnant because you didnï¿½t take precautions? Be ï¿½responsible” for the baby. You donï¿½t want the baby? Give it up for adoption! Gabby Giffords said, ï¿½our children deserve nothing less.” … because children are killed by a deranged person who did not have legal access to guns, everyone who owns guns must comply with whatever gun restrictions can be rammed through Congress. Abortion has killed many more millions of babies than those killed at Newtown. Killing babies is killing babies!
It’s safer if I can protect myself By Grant Parrish of La Pine (March 16. 2013)
In regard to Dennis and Valerie Woodï¿½s letter to the editor from March 2, they are worried about their own, as well as everyone elseï¿½s, safety when they go to malls, theaters, grocery stores or whatever, because these places allow those with concealed weapons permits to also visit these places. If we ban people with concealed weapons permits from these places because they may have firearms on them, the only thing accomplished is that we have banned law-abiding citizens from carrying guns in said area. If criminals want to carry concealed firearms on themselves into these places, they will, concealed permits or no concealed permits. Just like they always have. … I feel a whole lot safer myself knowing I do have the right to protect myself anywhere, any place.
The Second Amendment shoud not be infringed by Rebecca Wagner of Powell Butte (March 10, 2013)
… guess what is happening to the Second Amendment: All the restrictions, prohibitions and regulations the anti-gun movement has already implemented or wants to implement are INFRINGING on it. They are encroaching, acting so as to limit or undermine, making gradual inroads against the Second Amendment. Until or unless this is changed, not by ï¿½executive order,” but legally and through the proper congressional channels and ratified by the states, there is nothing in the Second Amendment about what type, quality or quantity of ï¿½arms” ï¿½the people” may bear, and any attempt to limit citizensï¿½ access, type, quality or quantity of arms is an obvious infringement of the Second Amendment, and it must not be tolerated. I have seen three quotes recently that indicate the authors of the amendment defined ï¿½militia” as the total citizenry, and that the purpose of the amendment was to give citizens parity with the governmentï¿½s military as a safeguard against tyranny. … think about this: If gun control proponents manage to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and Congress by passing the proposed gun ban, and if our government moves from the proposed universal registration to nominal criminalization of the citizenry who refuse to ï¿½voluntarily” turn in their weapons (and there will be millions), and if the government then moves on to enforced confiscation, we will see in this country many more incidents of shameful government abuse and atrocities such as Waco and Ruby Ridge. This is becoming obvious to many reasonable people who are becoming fearful of an ever larger more dictatorial government. …
Help the sick, mentally ill by Melvin Coffin of La Pine (March 08. 2013)
Guns, guns, guns. Not one gun has ever killed a person. People kill people. Registering a gun, background checks or whatever the laws require wonï¿½t stop killings. … I havenï¿½t heard anything about helping the sick, mentally ill or disturbed persons who can get their hands on a gun from their home closet or dresser drawer and go out and kill a group of people. These assault rifles or handguns belong to mom, dad or big brother. Letï¿½s start doing something to help these sick people, not make more laws that wonï¿½t work and that are often overturned by our courts. Our doctors all have different ideas and reasons for these disturbed and ill people killing. … People get mad at the drop of the hat at things that donï¿½t go their way. No self-control. Guns are our responsibility. We are in control. Not the government. If they get control, we lose.
Misinformed on Second Amendment by Lance Neibauer of Bend (March 5. 2013)
… The term ï¿½a well regulated militia” goes back to 13th century England, when all landowners were required to possess a longbow and be ï¿½regulated,” or be accurate and trained with it, and teach all sons the ï¿½regulated” use of it beginning at age 7. And ï¿½militia” referred to the able-bodied citizenry, not a military body. … The ï¿½well regulated militia” statement was fashioned from the Virginia folks, while ï¿½the right to keep and bear arms” was derived primarily from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. They were quite separate terms which became combined in the Second Amendment. Make no mistake: the Second Amendment was meant to mean that the able-bodied citizenry shall always possess the right to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed on. Remember, crazy people donï¿½t care at all about more laws that infringe on law-abiding citizens.
Local gun regulations are needed by Bill Saling of Redmond (February 23, 2013)
Regarding Ed Barbeauï¿½s recent letter to the editor concerning gun controls: … Unfortunately, gun possession and usage is a highly emotional subject to most people. Your letter, however, stresses facts, not emotions. If we feel that we must control gun possession and usage, fine, but do it logically. Just as in the use of a car where society requires a license issued by a recognized authority to handle its use, set up a similar gun hierarchy. As with auto use, their abuse would cause forfeiture until the owner is re-certified.
A child given a complex toy to play with will often abuse and break it due to frustration. A parent who teaches them how to use the toy will enjoy the childï¿½s long-term delight. The same would apply with weapons. The downside of this suggestion is the cost of monitoring its usage. An appropriate license fee that would fund the systemï¿½s lineage would be essential, and abuse of rules featuring forfeiture of the weapon mandatory. ,,,Misinformtion abounds on guns, Second Amendment by Ed Barbeau of Bend (February 15, 2013)
If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth,” said Joseph Goebbels. This is the way some of the writers of anti-gun letters sound to me. Itï¿½s amazing how the truth about our Founding Fathersï¿½ reasons for the Second Amendment are twisted into something bearing no semblance of reality. For example, one of our most anti-gun letter writers brings up machine guns and bazookas or rocket launchers and says we have no right to own them. Well, if you have a class three license, you actually can own machine guns. One lie corrected. … a semi-automatic rifle is not an ï¿½assault rifle.” No military would use that as such. They only use fully automatic rifles. Another lie corrected. … Sadly, some writers think that guns are the problem and should be forceably taken away from law-abiding citizens, or, at the very least, forceable registration and regulation of gun type should exist. Since this has been done in England and Australia, can we look at them to see what the results would be? They totally confiscated guns; however, home invasions have tripled and gun violence by gangs is on the rise. … I have one message to all of the fluffy bunnies out there who hate guns: You may not believe in God, itï¿½s your right; you may not believe in the right to own a gun, itï¿½s your choice. But if someone enters your home late at night, the first two things youï¿½ll do is call someone with a gun and pray they get there in time.
Gun control and prohibition by Anne Graham of Redmond (February 14, 2013)
As I read The New York Times article on Chicagoï¿½s woes with guns (Monica Davey, The Bulletin, Jan. 31), I was struck by a thought that this whole debate might be informed by a history lesson review of Prohibition in the United States. … The intent of Prohibition to improve ï¿½health and morals” was not measurable, but the rise of criminal control of alcohol production and sales certainly was measurable and was the clearly demonstrable result. … The articleï¿½s implication that Daveyï¿½s Gun Shop is somehow a key contributor to 20 percent of Chicagoï¿½s gun violence is completely spurious ï¿½ and I hope no one buys into such a fallacious suggestion … . I have to imagine that expanding Chicago-like controls across the nation would be similar to Prohibition: a vigorous black market in guns would rise just as bootlegging and its criminal gangs rose in Prohibition. Criminals would still have and use their guns …
Emotion clouds reality when it comes to guns by Al Phillips of Prineville (February 14, 2013)
… more ï¿½gun control” is needed. Nonsense! … I will concede that little harm would come from making some weapons more difficult to obtain. But I will not concede that doing so will help reduce gun violence. Simply attacking the supply side of firearms does little more than compromise the Second Amendment, and we must not forget that the Second Amendment is about the right to protect ourselves ï¿½ a right, by the way, that could be compromised to the point of oblivion. A recent email stated: A gun and a parachute are alike in that if you ever need one and donï¿½t have one, chances are almost certain youï¿½ll never need one again. Beware, friends, of what politicians and others are advocating.
Best defense is a responsible armed person by Nils Kristiansen of Bend (February 15, 2013)
… You may know that the Obama administration is trying to pass laws to find out all who have weapons with registration laws. I think we forget history, as it was an armed populace that kept Japan from attacking the mainland of the United States. It was an armed populace that got us freedom from the king of England, and the Second Amendment is there so citizens can protect themselves from an overreaching government. The best defense against a deranged person with a gun is a responsible person with a gun. Millions of responsible concealed carry owners stop crimes every day, and most times they do not have to fire their weapons. … Imagine if concealed carry was allowed on planes and the pilots were armed. Would 9/11 have succeeded? … All shootings that have been in schools and theaters were in places where concealed carry was not allowed. Hasan knew the soldiers at Fort Hood were not armed. The fact is our weapon superiority has kept the U.S. from being attacked …
Gun comments miss the point by William Logan of Bend (February 12, 2013)
Almost every day since the tragic shooting in Newtown, Conn., I read editorials in the newspaper and comments from pundits on cable news channels about gun control. Cliff Shrockï¿½s ï¿½My Nickelï¿½s Worth” and J. Andrew Hamlinï¿½s ï¿½In My View” Feb. 2 miss the point. The Second Amendment was written to prevent government tyranny. Gun control legislation is not about guns ï¿½ like government-controlled health care, itï¿½s about control. The same government tyranny that threatened freedoms 238 years ago still applies today. Thomas Jefferson said, ï¿½When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Today, we are about as close to a tyrannical government as we can get. The government has its controlling hands in almost everything. In New York City, soft drinks bigger than 16 ounces are illegal. The Second Amendment does not say, ï¿½A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, if I am fingerprinted, photographed, register the firearm with the state from a private sale, checked for mental illness, have a revolver or have less than a 10-round magazine.” The solution to gun control is simple: amend the Second Amendment and add all the restrictions above; but I doubt seriously that the American public, not just the NRA, would approve. Once they take away your right to bear arms, whatï¿½s next?
Asleep in history class by Starla J. Sprague of Prineville (February 12, 2013)
Good citizens of Central Oregon, I am wondering what law you think Crook County Sheriff Jim Hensley has broken. Were some of you asleep during American history in high school? Any natural-born citizen of the United States, sworn into any high government office, takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. He or she should know the Constitution forward, backward and inside out. The Second Amendment says ï¿½the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Article five of the Constitution says the only way to change any part of the Constitution is by vote of two-thirds of both houses. No one president, Democrat or Republican, can change any of the Constitution by an executive order. In other words, an executive order does not supersede the Constitution. If or when two-thirds of both houses vote to change the Second Amendment, it would appear to me that Hensley, and many other sheriffs in the country, would be breaking the law!
Enforce existing gun laws by Jim Fleming of La Pine (February 12, 2013
I have to agree with the letters that were in The Bulletin Feb. 2. At the time the Second Amendment was proposed, there were only single-shot rifles and pistols, but everybody had the same thing. I, for one, would not have liked to use a musket when I was in Vietnam, and I am sure the WWII veterans would not have wanted the muskets either. If you want to defend yourself, you would want a modern weapon. Just because a rifle looks like an assault rifle does not mean it is one. Military assault weapons are fully automatic, and since the 1930s it has been against the law to own one. All I ask is that the government enforce the laws that are on the books already. Any government that makes you register your guns can take them away. If you donï¿½t believe me, look at history. The Second Amendment was put in the Constitution for the people to defend themselves against outlaws and others that would do them harm, also for hunting, to feed their families. The most important reason was to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.
Teachers should carry guns by Drake Buckmaster of Bend, a 6th Grader (February 05. 2013)
Iï¿½m a sixth-grader at Cascade Middle School. Iï¿½ve been hearing a lot about the gun control issue. The news reporters are introducing the anti-gun people as pro-safety people and the others as pro-gun people. I donï¿½t really think thatï¿½s fair. My opinion is that a gun is a tool. In this country, guns are not allowed on school grounds; the man who caused the shooting in Connecticut broke that law, so what stops him from breaking a law not to have gun at all? And if you take guns away from good people, how will they defend themselves against bad people that will get guns anyway? Police canï¿½t protect us; they show up after the crime is over. I wish my teachers carried guns. Iï¿½d feel a lot safer.
Paradoxical call to grow up by Pam Johnson of Bend (February 03. 2013)
Did it strike anyone else as paradoxical that Jake Buehler, in his Jan. 19 In My View [abstracted above], concludes his diatribe against conservative pundits and Christians with a call to grow up? That was just before he takes his parting shot at those who give in to religious superstition and engage in what is effectively a modern form of paying close attention to animal entrails for prophetic purposes? How lovely. And how terribly juvenile. I tend to expect adult behavior to be more civil. Those who worship at the throne of reason are too often woefully ignorant of the substance of Christianity, of exegesis or hermeneutics, of the substance that calls minds such as Ravi Zacharias to the Christian faith. We Christians arenï¿½t all ignorant, paranoid or preposterous as assumed. Enough, indeed. I agree that it is time to grow up and perhaps someday we may discuss gun control as rational adults.
Gun control discussion by Craig McDonald, Madras (January 20. 2013)
… What has not come up in any media coverage that I have seen or read has been discussion about punishing those who use weapons of any kind to commit violence against another person. It may be true that I donï¿½t need an AK-15 or 30-round magazine for hunting, but if I obey existing law and cause no one any harm, what is the problem? There are plenty of laws regarding gun ownership ï¿½ if laws are ignored, what good are they? If those laws are not enforced, and the consequences of breaking those laws are not significant enough to make a difference, thatï¿½s where we are now!
Gun debate observations by Michael R. Pritchard of Bend (January 31. 2013)
Comparing motor vehicle deaths to those caused by firearms is a false equivalent. A carï¿½s main purpose is transportation. A gunï¿½s main purpose is killing. When used as directed, a car is safe. When used as directed, a gun kills a living being, animal or human.
Prayer: Thereï¿½s no law capable of preventing an omnipotent God from being in a classroom. If He gets his nose bent out of shape, allows innocent children to be slaughtered because Iï¿½m not required to engage in a state-sanctioned ego stroke, maybe you should rethink His omnipotence and love. Building a database of mentally ill is a violation of HIPAA law and will backfire. Many handgun deaths involve domestic violence. If youï¿½re having problems in your marriage, will you risk or be honest in treatment? As a gun owner, Iï¿½d be less likely to report depression to my doctor for fear Iï¿½ll have my handgun confiscated. Asking me not to own high capacity clips for my Glock does not equate to my Glock being confiscated. It means I should engage in more target practice, and use my laser sight. Iï¿½ve already undergone two background checks. Both times, I was able to complete my purchase. Armed good guys mostly catch bad guys after the fact, not before.Just ask a cop or crime victim.
Carrying a firearm is a citizenï¿½s first line of defense by Lyle Byler, Prineville (January 18. 2013)
It is … absurd to believe more gun control laws will have any effect on bad people. … There are many men and women who shoot military weapons in competitions. To ban those weapons and the high-capacity magazines that go with them, would not only deny them their right to compete in their sport of choice but would also deprive everyone else from owning the rifle of their choice, which is guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the Constitution. … those who are most passionate about gun control are those who have never been to a shooting range, gotten the proper training or actually shot a firearm of any kind and are therefore afraid of what they do not know.
We, the people, are our own first line of defense and we each have the God-given right to protect ourselves and others from harm. … In the grand scheme of things, it really is not about guns, it is about control.
Government by crisis by Toby Wilson, La Pine (January 17. 2013)
The American people are continually sold a crisis by this administration, for no other reason than to promote his personal agenda. Obamaï¿½s former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, ï¿½Never allow a crisis to go to waste.” Given the track record, this is a philosophy the administration strictly adheres to. Now we hear the gun control mantra. Even though there are far more deaths caused by other means, he has the media hysteria to promote a cause long dear to his heart. Be aware, gun owners, we might find another bill signed by Obama that is only a fraction of what was promised, and a whole lot more. Oh, according to the CBO, the new tax bill adds a trillion dollars a year to the debt.
Gun ownership is my right by Jason Burleigh, Bend (December 28, 2012)
… When someone has the intent to kill and the lack of sanity, oftentimes they will not be stopped. … One way they could be stopped, or the damage minimized, is by a law-abiding citizen who is lawfully carrying a weapon. She states that our right to bear arms is ï¿½so-called” and the consequences of that ï¿½so-called” right are dead children and educators. This argument is false, inane and ridiculous. Last time I checked, the right to bear arms is still in the Second Amendment of our Constitution. The terrible shooting in Connecticut was the consequence of a sick lunatic going on a rampage. Unfortunately, there is no way to totally put a stop to these awful incidents, but we can protect ourselves and our children by being aware and realistic.
Conscience and sanity cannot be legislated through more gun control. Criminals and/or crazy people donï¿½t follow the existing laws and never will. Guns are out there and always will be. I choose to own them lawfully; it is my right. If you choose not to, so be it. Just donï¿½t tell me that I shouldnï¿½t own them because a deranged killer picked one up. If anything, it solidifies our need and right to bear arms even more than before.
Gun control not the answer by James Strelchun, Bend (December 30. 2012)
The solution to the tragedy in Newtown is not more gun control laws, which many anti-gun zealots advocate. … No existing or new laws could have prevented this crime from occurring. Currently, anyone intent on inflicting harm in a school knows that they will not encounter any armed opposition, since all schools are considered ï¿½gun-free” venues. Further, any facility that posts a ï¿½gun-free” sign is simultaneously posting an invitation to all criminals to commit their crime on those premises without any fear of armed opposition. What could have prevented the Newtown carnage would have been an armed teacher, aide or principal, who could have acted immediately to stop the killer, well before any outside responders would have arrived. …
God is the issue by M. Frank Cook, Redmond (January 1. 2013)
The issue is not about banning guns. The issue is about America attempting to ban God ï¿½ and we do that at our own peril.
Protection need in first five minutes by Melissa Hassell. Bend (January 1. 2013)
… If the police chief is not comfortable with teachers being trained and armed, how then do we protect our children for the first five minutes until ï¿½trained” police arrive? I think a teacher trained in firearms is better than what we currently have: nothing. Children and teachers will continue to be slaughtered in the first five minutes until police arrive. Lockdowns are important but passive. The good guys are not allowed to protect themselves and the children are completely unprotected for the first five minutes. …
Editorial: Don’t Jump to Conclusions or Legislation after Shooting
The Editors / The Bulletin / December 18. 2012
The impulse to rush into action in the wake of a tragedy like the one in Newtown, Conn., last week is understandable. The idea that someone can walk into a school or a theater or shopping mall and simply begin shooting is appalling.
There have been plenty of suggestions to introduce legislation in the last few days.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has said she will introduce legislation next month to reinstate the national ban on assault weapons, which lapsed in 2004. A similar measure will be introduced in the House of Representatives. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, meanwhile, believes gun control should be the president’s top priority in the months ahead.
The proposals don’t stop at the federal level, either, and they’re not all aimed at limiting access to certain types of guns or ammunition.
Here in Oregon, state Rep. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, told three school superintendents in southern Oregon that bans on weapons at schools must be lifted. He believes, he said, that every school should have at least three people on campus trained to use firearms and armed in case they need to do so.
That proposal, by the way, did not sit well with the Medford chief of police. “Teachers don’t go into teaching to be police officers,” he said. Expecting them to use a gun effectively in moments of crisis is not rational unless they train “constantly” for that sort of situation, he added.
What we knew Friday morning about the Sandy Hook School shooting is not what we knew Monday, and what we knew Monday is not likely to be what we’re certain of by Thursday.
Friday, for example, we “knew” that shooter Adam Lanza’s mother had been a teacher at the Sandy Hook Elementary School; by Monday we knew that wasn’t true. We also knew by Monday that Lanza’s brother was not involved in the shooting.
Until authorities and the public have a much more clear understanding of what actually occurred during Friday’s tragedy, changes to the law may miss the mark. We shouldn’t forget how these recent shootings made us feel. But we should give the victims a response marked by thoughtfulness, not just speed.