Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums“I’ve had enough:” Oak Creek Mayor Steve Scaffidi pens editorial following mass shooting in Californ
Ive had enough.
Wednesday afternoon I was greeted by the news from San Bernardino, Calif., that at least 14 people were killed in another mass shooting incident, this time at a public facility.
Im tormented by the stark realization that as a nation that prides itself as the voice of justice and compassion to the rest of the world, we cant go through a weeks news cycle without hearing about another mass shooting and innocent people losing their lives, often in the most violent and brutal manner.
As a mayor who dealt with this issue firsthand at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin shooting on Aug. 5, 2012, Im weary of getting calls from news media asking me to comment on the most current mass shooting incident, especially when they ask me the question: What can we do about it? Controlling individual behavior is difficult, if not impossible, and trying to guess in advance what might motivate someone to commit an act of hate and violence will always be a challenge.
But in sharing this collective national shock whenever this happens, I would argue that were witnessing a fundamental and profound failure of our duty to protect our citizens from violence in any way possible, and weve turned over the debate to politicians, bloggers and lobbyists, all who hide behind tired clichés and fundamentally dishonest reasons why we cant do anything about it.
The U.S. Constitution is a powerful and wise document, but with the rights it endows come responsibility, and I would argue that in the case of gun ownership, which is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, weve let that right define the culture and environment in which we live to a degree that it has taken over our consciousness and made our citizens feel less safe.
As an elected official, I feel the burden of the question every time a mass shooting takes place. What should I be doing? What can I do to lessen the likelihood that it will happen again? Why dont we as a country take actions to reduce violence?
The answer, of course, is we could, but we dont. We use silly arguments and fall back into entrenched, absolutist positions that may make us feel better as part of a defense of our own personal agendas or political tastes. We bury our head in nonstop television coverage that progresses from eyewitness accounts, to hastily-arranged news conferences to medical trauma centers, but stops short of moving forward on any legislation, policy or social changes that could actually make a difference.
I am a gun owner. But I have to believe that one of the popular responses to mass shootings arm everyone and encourage individual and aggressive action against a mass shooter is at best naive, and at worst, dangerous. Law enforcement professionals are highly trained and understand through direct experience that carrying a gun is a powerful responsibility and doesnt guarantee that a shooter will be stopped.
The shooting at the Sikh Temple was a clear example of that, with one of our most experienced officers coming within an inch of losing his life. Expecting citizens to prevent or slow down perpetrators of violence seems logical, and in some cases might actually be possible, but it could result in the gun owner losing his or her life when mistaken for the shooter. As a country, weve lived through the wild west mentality of frontier justice. It didnt work. It only made the weakest members of our society less safe.
And it wont work now.
What can we do?
Why not start with researching and funding programs that have been proven to reduce violence? We live in a country of tremendous resources and brilliant minds who tackle difficult and complex problems every day. Why would we not care as much about this epidemic of violence as we do about all the other ways people die every day?
Steve
Wednesday afternoon I was greeted by the news from San Bernardino, Calif., that at least 14 people were killed in another mass shooting incident, this time at a public facility.
Im tormented by the stark realization that as a nation that prides itself as the voice of justice and compassion to the rest of the world, we cant go through a weeks news cycle without hearing about another mass shooting and innocent people losing their lives, often in the most violent and brutal manner.
As a mayor who dealt with this issue firsthand at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin shooting on Aug. 5, 2012, Im weary of getting calls from news media asking me to comment on the most current mass shooting incident, especially when they ask me the question: What can we do about it? Controlling individual behavior is difficult, if not impossible, and trying to guess in advance what might motivate someone to commit an act of hate and violence will always be a challenge.
But in sharing this collective national shock whenever this happens, I would argue that were witnessing a fundamental and profound failure of our duty to protect our citizens from violence in any way possible, and weve turned over the debate to politicians, bloggers and lobbyists, all who hide behind tired clichés and fundamentally dishonest reasons why we cant do anything about it.
The U.S. Constitution is a powerful and wise document, but with the rights it endows come responsibility, and I would argue that in the case of gun ownership, which is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, weve let that right define the culture and environment in which we live to a degree that it has taken over our consciousness and made our citizens feel less safe.
As an elected official, I feel the burden of the question every time a mass shooting takes place. What should I be doing? What can I do to lessen the likelihood that it will happen again? Why dont we as a country take actions to reduce violence?
The answer, of course, is we could, but we dont. We use silly arguments and fall back into entrenched, absolutist positions that may make us feel better as part of a defense of our own personal agendas or political tastes. We bury our head in nonstop television coverage that progresses from eyewitness accounts, to hastily-arranged news conferences to medical trauma centers, but stops short of moving forward on any legislation, policy or social changes that could actually make a difference.
I am a gun owner. But I have to believe that one of the popular responses to mass shootings arm everyone and encourage individual and aggressive action against a mass shooter is at best naive, and at worst, dangerous. Law enforcement professionals are highly trained and understand through direct experience that carrying a gun is a powerful responsibility and doesnt guarantee that a shooter will be stopped.
The shooting at the Sikh Temple was a clear example of that, with one of our most experienced officers coming within an inch of losing his life. Expecting citizens to prevent or slow down perpetrators of violence seems logical, and in some cases might actually be possible, but it could result in the gun owner losing his or her life when mistaken for the shooter. As a country, weve lived through the wild west mentality of frontier justice. It didnt work. It only made the weakest members of our society less safe.
And it wont work now.
What can we do?
Why not start with researching and funding programs that have been proven to reduce violence? We live in a country of tremendous resources and brilliant minds who tackle difficult and complex problems every day. Why would we not care as much about this epidemic of violence as we do about all the other ways people die every day?
Steve
http://fox6now.com/2015/12/02/ive-had-enough-oak-creek-mayor-steve-scaffidi-pens-editorial-following-mass-shooting-in-california/
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/tormented-wisconsin-mayor-rips-gun-lovers-who-think-they-can-stop-mass-shootings/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 842 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (16)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
“I’ve had enough:” Oak Creek Mayor Steve Scaffidi pens editorial following mass shooting in Californ (Original Post)
kpete
Dec 2015
OP
sibelian
(7,804 posts)1. "researching and funding programs that have been proven to reduce violence" - YEEEEEEESSS!!!
THAT'S what I've been thinking as well. It's the culture that needs to change. The guns are just the symptom.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)2. For the culture to change...
RW Hate-talk radio, Fox news, and a whole lot of preachers would need to be silenced.
Throd
(7,208 posts)5. Trash the 1st amendment to get rid of the 2nd amendment?
Eeeesh.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)3. They were shut down by the NRA lackeys in Congress.
One on the medical consequences of the prevalence of guns and another identifying RWNJs as the primary terrorist threat in the US. Obama made Napolitano go out and APOLOGIZE for the existence of the latter study.
Good luck with that.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)4. OK. That's just weird.
How did the NRA benefit from this? Were either of these studies spun towards reduction in gun ownership numbers?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)6. The NRA blew fifty gaskets at the thought that RWNJ gun-humpers
were considered a terrorist threat, which they clearly are.
Congresscritters always lick the hand with the money/treats/bribes in it.