One more mass killing produces more questions

When a tragedy similar to the shooting at the Colorado movie theater occurs, I'm left with a lot of questions.

My first question is how many mass shootings will we have before our society decides enough is enough and it is time to prevent future ones through legislation.

According to Friday's Omaha World-Herald, there have been 14 mass killings in the United States since 2007, claiming the lives of 147 people, including 12 from Aurora.

Obviously, that isn't enough mass shootings for Americans to somewhat infringe on their interpretation of the second amendment and ban the kind of weapons used in last week's shooting spree.

All of the weapons and 6,000 rounds of ammunition the suspect possessed were acquired legally, within the framework of state and federal legislation.

Again, I ask how many shootings will it take to drastically change that legislation?

During 2001, terrorists overtook four planes thanks to lax security measures. That's all it took. One 9/11 tragedy and Americans were not only willing to go through a ton of inconvenience and sacrifice their search and seizure constitutional rights while paying an extra $10 per flight for that infringement.

That one tragedy was also enough for Americans to roll over and forgo other constitutional rights by allowing the passage of the Patriot Act. In fact, we were so willing to hand over those constitutional rights so easily, we renewed the Patriot Act with little discussion 10 years later.

But when it comes to the second amendment, which was written when people had to use single-shot muskets, there is no give, which leads me to my next question.

Why do we think the second amendment applies to 100-shot magazines and semi-assault rifles modeled after ones used in the military?

I understand the need-to-defend-yourself argument, and certainly recognize the appeal of hunting.

To both ends, there are guns in my house and while I've never used them to defend myself, more than one rabbit, quail, squirrel, racoon and duck has met its demise because of those weapons.

But I've never thought “gosh darnit, if I had 100 shots, I would have got that pesky rabbit.”
Nor have a heard of someone successfully defending himself and his family against an army of zombies with banana clips and an SR-15.

That leads to my next question. Why do people believe we live in such a black and white world?

Why can't we have gun legislations that allows deer hunters to have their high-powered rifles and homeowners to keep a handgun in the sock drawer while at the same time, prohibiting possession, production, and sales of anything that holds more than 15 bullets or is capable of shooting a bullet a second.

I've shot an assault rifle before. There are two uses for them: an adrenaline rush at a shooting range and what we saw in Colorado last week.

As much fun as it is to shoot a rifle similar to ones issued to those in the military, we don't have any problem prohibiting John Q. Public from lobbing grenades, firing mortars, and using bazookas for kicks, even at a controlled firing range.

That leads me to my next question: Why do we let people carry rifles similar to the ones reserved for the military that are designed exclusively for one purpose: killing people?

In discussing the shooting in relation to gun control, a Wisconsin senator said this Friday:

“You simply can't keep these weapons out of the hands of sick, demented individuals who want to do harm. And when you try and do it, you restrict our freedom.”

This is the standard argument that surfaces regarding gun control: the criminals will get the guns while the law abiding citizens won't.

That's true. The same can be said about drugs. Criminals will get drugs, even though there are laws prohibiting them.

Alcoholics will get behind the wheel of a car, drive drunk and kill people, even though there are laws prohibiting that behavior as well.

But yet I don't hear us clamoring to repeal those laws, simply because we can't make criminals stop being, well, criminals.

It's also important to note a lot of these mass killings have not been at the hands of hardened criminals anyway. Normal, ordinary, law-abiding citizens were responsible. You know, the ones gun supporters are trying to protect from additional restrictions and infringements on their freedom.

This isn't about self-defense anymore. This is about common sense.

How many more people have to die before we realize that?

Gregory Orear is the General Manager/Editor of the Red Oak Express. He can be contacted at publisher@redoakexpress.com