This has become obscenely routine in a country with almost as many guns (300 million) as people. But here we go again with more post mass-killing thoughts.
*It’s beyond tragic and frustrating to be yet again in the gory aftermath of a mass shooting and consequent carnage. It’s also beyond infuriating to yet again be privy to the same suspects making the same ideologically suspect arguments about better-armed “good guys” and “enforcing the laws” we already have. Plus, it’s always Groundhog’s Day for context-challenged, Second Amendment worshipers who see no relevant difference between militia-era muskets and contemporary society AK-47s. Such thinking gives stupid and simplistic bad names.
*It’s been pointed out that the Navy Yard shooter had wanted an AR-15 and actually had tested one at a gun shop. Presumably, there could have been even more victims. But he was thwarted from buying it legally. There’s a state law that prohibits the sale of such assault weapons to non-Virginians. So, let’s see if we have this right. The ownership of an assault weapon was a matter of residence, not a matter of something unthinkable for anyone not in the military or law enforcement. Common sense remains an elusive target.
* These were some of the wrenchingly haunting, by now familiar, words of Dr. Janis Orlowski, the chief operating officer of MedStar Washington Hospital center after the Navy Yard shooting: “There is something wrong, and the only thing that I can say is we have to work together to get rid of it. I would like you to put my trauma center out of business. I really would. I would like to not be an expert on gunshots. … This is not America.”
Alas, it is. It’s a part of American exceptionalism that we’ve allowed to be perverted.
* We now know that Aaron Alexis, the Navy Yard shooter, was more than familiar with ultra-violent, home-console games that allow you to fire away at simulated targets. The late Adam Lanza, of Sandy Hook infamy, was also similarly enamored. While most violent video-game players never turn into mass murderers, there should be no denying the possibility of a connection. Forensic psychiatrist Vasilis K. Pozios, one of the founders of the consulting group Broadcast Thought, sensibly put it this way: “Exposure to violent imagery does not preordain violence, but it is a risk factor. We would never say: ‘I’ve smoked cigarettes for a long time, and I don’t have lung cancer. Therefore there’s no link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer.’ So why use such flawed reasoning when it comes to media violence?”
* We’ve recently been reminded that Starbucks, known for its progressive take on hot-button political issues such as gay marriage and the environment, is walking a rather fine line in the gun-control debate. The Seattle-based company recently took out prominent ads in major newspapers to announce (“respectfully request”) to customers that guns were, well, not welcome in its cafes. (Imagine, having the need to actually say that.) But CEO Howard Schultz said Starbucks will not flat-out ban them, which they legally (“no shoes, no shirt, no sidearms, no service”) could. Nobody wants to invite employee-armed customer confrontations–even though lattes and lugers are hardly complementary.
The bottom line: Despite Starbucks’ unwelcome mat, there is still the possibility of encountering a caffeinated customer packing heat.
* Last Saturday’s Tampa Tribune did a front-page story on guns and businesses, including International Plaza, who could be dealing with armed customers. The “Gun Showdown” piece, which included an informative Q&A, jumped prominently to page 8. Directly below: A half-page, color ad for Shooters World. Talk about placement.
* This one-ups the “Gunshine State.” The Des Moines Register is reporting that an unusual loophole has allowed some blind residents to get concealed-carry permits. But, no, the blind still can’t get a driver’s license in Iowa.