CLICK BELOW TO REDISCOVER HUMANITY
A DECADE+ OF STORYTELLING POWERED BY THE BEST WRITERS ON THE PLANET

Mass Shootings – The Moral Decay of America?

–Assault Weapons Ban is Sensible Start to Curb Carnage

Outbreak of Savagery

It’s no secret that something is very wrong in America when almost anyone can easily obtain assault weapons, with endless ammunition, and then randomly shoot up crowds of innocent people. When it comes to societal rules of civility and moral responsibility, it appears we haven’t advanced much since the gun-ridden days of the Wild West.

This is just the latest sign of America’s moral decay, which is due in large part to the failure of government to adequately address the outbreak of gun-related savagery.

According to The Washington Post:

  • “The statistics on mass murder suggest it is a phenomenon that does not track with other types of violent crime, such as street violence.”
  • “It does not seem to be affected by the economy or by law enforcement strategies.”
  • “The mass murderer has become almost a stock figure in American culture, someone bent on overkill — and, so often, seemingly coming out of nowhere.”

Interestingly, the above quotes are from a front-page article in July 2012 after a mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, resulted in a dozen dead and 60 wounded. President Obama said at the time:

“We recognize the traditions of gun ownership passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.” “I believe a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals, that they belong on the battlefield of war not on the streets of our cities.”

Yesterday, the former President felt compelled to speak out again:

Confusion by Conservatives

It’s telling that leading fixtures of the conservative movement, from a former Supreme Court justice to a major media outlet, have expressed doubts about keeping assault weapons in the hands of the general public. The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch conservative, inferred that the Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms” is not necessarily ironclad, according to a 2012 interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne,” Scalia said regarding the context of the Founding Fathers’ original intent during the 18th century. When asked about how the modern-day Supreme Court might rule in a case involving the legality of assault weapons in the public sphere, Scalia offered a tepid reply, “We’ll see…It will have to be decided.”

Justice Scalia: Guns may be regulated
Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court’s most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second…
www.govexec.com

And even the ultra-conservative New York Post wrote the following Monday in a front page editorial:

  • “The Second Amendment leaves ample room for regulating gun rights, just as every other constitutional right has its limits.”
  • “The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to own ‘guns in common use.’ That doesn’t cover the semiautomatic weapons regularly used only in mass shootings.”

This sounds like plain common sense from leaders of the conservative establishment, rather than more nonsense. Still, tough questions linger:

  • Why is the debate over sensible gun control still so controversial after wave upon wave of mass murders?
  • Why have countless sessions of Congress failed miserably to take strong legislative action remedying the eruption of gun violence?
  • Why can’t Congress finally find middle ground to save innocent lives?

Is it really so farfetched for some conservatives to comprehend that citizens of goodwill can support the Second Amendment on one hand, while simultaneously rejecting legalization for weapons of war on the other? This doesn’t have to be a superficial either/or proposition, as hardliners on both sides of the gun debate have recklessly asserted per their entrenched public policy positions. But lawmakers have proven to be morally bankrupt and politically inept over the past quarter century since the last assault weapons ban became law.

The Post says: Ban assault weapons now
“God bless the people of El Paso, Texas. God bless the people of Dayton, Ohio,” President Trump tweeted Sunday. God…
nypost.com
David B. Grinberg
David B. Grinberghttps://www.linkedin.com/in/davidgrinberg-pr/
David is a strategic communications consultant, ghostwriter, and literary PR agent on issues of workforce diversity, equal employment opportunity, race and gender equity, and other social justice causes. He is a former career spokesman for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), where he managed media relations for agency headquarters and 50 field offices nationwide for over a decade. Prior to his public service at the EEOC, David was a young political appointee for President Bill Clinton in the White House: Office of Presidential Personnel, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A native New Yorker and University of Maryland graduate, David began his career in journalism. You can find David online via LinkedIn, Twitter, Medium, Good Men Project, Thrive Global, BIZCATALYST 360°, and American Diversity Report.

DO YOU HAVE THE "WRITE" STUFF? If you’re ready to share your wisdom of experience, we’re ready to share it with our massive global audience – by giving you the opportunity to become a published Contributor on our award-winning Site with (your own byline). And who knows? – it may be your first step in discovering your “hidden Hemmingway”. LEARN MORE HERE


7 CONVERSATIONS

  1. Mr. Grinberg,
    As a Certified Firearms Instructor and someone who has studied firearms, firearms law and the current mass shooting phenomenon, I was with you up until the end of your list, where you ran off into the weeds of prohibition. Yes, the problem of mass shootings goes far beyond guns and requires a multi-vectored approach. What it has NOTHING to do with, however, is so-called “assault weapons.” First off, the term is meaningless; it’s not about machine guns, which are already prohibited, by and large, in the U.S. It also has nothing to do with “high-capacity” magazines, which have been around for over a century now. There’s no such thing as “high-powered ammo” that differs for military vs. civilian use. (And again, ammunition specifically for warfare, such as incendiary/explosive rounds are already prohibited.) The reality is that people playing politics made up the term “assault weapons” in order to ban firearms they think look scary. Compared to their civilian non-assault counterparts, the differences are cosmetic. In fact, the .223 (5.56) round used by the AR-15 is considered too small and impotent to hunt deer with, and the same holds true for the AK-47’s 7.62x39mm round. Yet said ban would make those illegal, while the mighty 30-06 and the infamous .45-70 Government that cleared the American Great Plains of buffalo would still be readily available.

    These inconsistencies and dichotomies are due to ignorance on the part of non-gun-owners. The simple fact is that banning so-called “assault weapons” is wrongheaded. We learned this during the Clinton era ban, where we did indeed witness a gradual decrease in shooting incidents, but at EXACTLY the same rate as the months leading up to the ban’s implementation, and again in the years immediately following it. According to Clinton’s own Justice Department, the ban had “no measurable impact” on the number of shooting incidents or their severity. An unfortunate side effect to such bans, of course, is that the innocent are also disarmed, shifting, then, the balance of power to the gangs, drug dealers and other criminals responsible for most of the carnage.

    America has always had a lot of guns around, yet we’ve never seen the kind of mass shooting phenomenon we see today. Firearms technology hasn’t made any radical progress over the years, and if you actually compute the number of incidents vs. the number of guns in circulation, shooting incidents (per firearm) have actually DECREASED. This tells us in no uncertain terms that this is a SOCIAL issue. As such, it’s going to take more than Congressional policy, which already makes any possible misuse of firearms (or their manufacture, sale, etc.) illegal. It’s going to require us to shift the focus from the tool (guns) to the reasons why someone decides it’s a good idea to pick one up and open fire. It won’t be an easy quick fix. If it was, we’d have done it long ago.

  2. David, thank you for sharing this piece. Common sense gun legislation is… well… common sense as you’ve articulated so well here. Most of what you delineate above is a priority for the majority of the population. The statistics are staggering, and only through civil discourse will anything change. Your voice is needed. Keep up the good work.

    • Thanks so much, Melissa, I really appreciate your kind words. And ditto that for you. It’s really fascinating to understand some of neuroscience related to the gun issue and people’s behaviors. I always enjoy reading your excellent articles, which are insightful, timely and intellectually stimulating. Keep up the awesome!

  3. David, thanks for your perspective.

    Unfortunately, your article is simply a big long insult or “I’m smarter than you” piece. i want to thank you for saying:

    I lack common sense
    See other solutions than NYT suggests
    Not smart, since i disagree with your first steps
    Not sensible since I disagree with your first ideas
    And apparently not of goodwill because I disagree with your assault gun ban

    And that’s just the first page. You appear to come from the “cling to their guns and religion [read as Constitution]”, and calling a large portion of the population “deplorables” style of communication.

    And most especially if these are not done through amending the Constitution.

    If you’re interested in dialog, you might check out my piece here: https://www.bizcatalyst360.com/speak-into-their-reality/

    • Michael: Thanks very much for taking the time to read my article and provide your valuable feedback. Although I strongly disagree with your characterization and assumptions about my writing style, it’s nonetheless critically important that all voices be heard in a constructive open dialogue online. I also appreciate the link to your article, which I can’t wait to read. Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.

    • Thanks for the reasoned reply. We don’t have to agree to have a dialog.

      Love to hear what you think about my article.

    • Interesting read, Michael. Yes, people see things through their own narrow lens as filtered by the media they consume, which often leads to confirmation bias. That’s why I make sure to consume a diversity of news from media sources on the right and left to gain a better understanding of the issues from all sides. FYI—I’ve been a registered independent for over two decades. My last political job was working for President Bill Clinton.
      Lastly, one of my favorite quotes is from Socrates: “All I know is that I know nothing.”

TAKE STROLL INSIDE 360° NATION

TIME FOR A "JUST BE." MOMENT?

ENJOY OUR FREE EVENTS

BECAUSE WE'RE BETTER TOGETHER