Where we live: Waiting for change
When I heard about the shooting in El Paso, Texas, my heart began to race.
I am not from Texas, which is my excuse for having absolutely zero knowledge when it comes to the state’s geography. But I have family down there, and my youngest brother was in the middle of visiting them when the news broke.
After reading the first headline, I mapped the distance between where he was and where the shooting took place. He was hours away from the violence.
My brother was not in that Walmart on Aug. 3. But others’ loved ones were.
I wonder what they did after hearing the news for the first time. They did not have to use Google Maps to find out where the shooting happened. The store was a mere car ride away.
They tried to call. They sat through the same, harrowing rings that I had. But this time, no one picked up. No one answered to assure them that they were OK.
This time violence had come to their home.
This kind of bloodshed — the kind that starts with a boy who thinks he is a man, or at least, that a trigger and some ammo might make him one — has become commonplace. It is normal now.
Like, more than 250 shootings this year alone normal.
Like, that was not the first time I called my brother to check that he was still alive, normal. In December 2017 — only months before the massacres at Marjory Stoneman Douglas and Santa Fe high schools — my phone began to ring. On the other end, my friend told me a shooting had occurred near my brothers’ school.
I hung up. I tried calling both boys. Neither answered.
This was it, I thought.
Violence had come to my home.
I was finally able to get in touch with my mother. It was an isolated incident, she said. A few boys had been arguing, and one had brought a gun with him. He shot two others, both of whom survived.
I feel selfish.
More than 30 people were killed between the shooting in El Paso and one that occurred in Dayton, Ohio, the next day. And yet, here I am, writing about how worried I was that the name of someone I knew might have been on the victims’ lists.
But I fear that one day, one might.
I know I am not the only person scared that if I go to work — or to a church, or a store, or a school or a concert — I might be met by a boy who think he is a man, lying in wait to prove it.
And people are calling for change. They are demanding action.
I guess they are still waiting for someone to pick up.
Comments
Keep in mind trump has said it’s a mental health issue but has done absolutely nothing to address it.
When an AR with a 100 round clip is used to blow the heads off of people, that’s an example of a product performing exactly as intended.
We are the only country these shooting happen regularly and the only country to believe guns should be easy to get. Every country has bad actors but we are the only one eager to arm them
“...we are the only one eager to arm them.”
Simply false, Joe. You are a know-it-all that doesn’t grasp the subject, yet, you are always ready to confiscate guns. Where do you dream up this stuff?
This disgusting do nothing attitude you have is the problem
Washington, D.C.'s gun ban worsened the city's homicide rate. As The Daily Wire has previously explained: In 1976, D.C. implemented a law that banned citizens from owning guns, as only police officers were allowed to carry firearms. Those who already owned guns were allowed to keep them only if they were disassembled or trigger-locked. Trigger locks could only be removed if the owner received permission from the D.C. police, which was rare. According to prosecutor Jeffrey Shapiro, the results were not good. Annual homicides rose from 188 in 1976 to 364 in 1988, and then increased even further to 454 in 1993. The gun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, and homicides have steadily declined since then to 88 yearly murders in 2012. While Shapiro admits that there were other factors involved with the decline in homicides, lifting the gun ban clearly did not result in a rise in murders. D.C. still has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and consequently is one of the most dangerous places in the country to live, but the facts clearly show that homicides in D.C. rose after the ban was implemented and then subsequently declined after the Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional.
The gun bans in Australia and Britain also didn't work. Australia and Britain are both hailed by the Left as evidence that gun control works. However, the facts tell a different story.
Two studies – a 2007 British Journal of Criminology study and a 2008 University of Melbourne study – concluded that Australia's temporary gun ban had no effect on the gun homicide rate. Crime Research Prevention Center president John Lott had similar findings. "Prior to 1996, there was already a clear downward [trend] in firearm homicides, and this pattern continued after the buyback," wrote Lott. "It is hence difficult to link the decline to the buyback." "Again, as with suicides, both non-firearm and firearm homicides fell by similar amounts," Lott continued. "In fact, the trend in non-firearms homicides shows a much larger decline between the pre- and post-buyback periods. This suggests that crime has been falling for other reasons. Note that the change in homicides doesn’t follow the change in gun ownership – there is no increase in homicides as gun ownership gradually increased." In Britain's case, the Crime Research Prevention Center found that after the gun ban was implemented, there was initially a severe increase in the homicide rate, followed by a gradual decline once Britain beefed up their police force. However, there has only been one year where the homicide rate was lower than it was pre-ban: Additionally, there was an 89 percent spike in gun crime from 1998/1999 to 2008/2009, all of which occurred after the gun ban.
A closer look at the actual facts show that the Left's favorite examples of Britain and Australia are actually examples of how gun control doesn't work. The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. The Crime Research Prevention Center determined that since 1950, nearly 99 percent of mass public shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. As the number of guns per person has increased, gun violence has declined. This is according to the Centers for Disease Control, which found that gun ownership increased by 56 percent, and yet gun violence declined by almost 50 percent between 1993 and 2003. If the premise of gun control zealots were correct, then wouldn't gun violence have increased during that period of time? This is not a do nothing attitude, much has been done and at the end of the day criminals don't follow the law.
Don’t rely on biased “news” sources, look at the numbers.
Fact: Australia’s rate of firearm homicide and suicide has been dropping since 1996. It is correct that these rates were dropping prior to 1996 but what that article leaves out is that most of the state’s in Australia has initiated gun registration and bans on semi-automatic in mid 80’s.
Fact: over the same period, the US has seen exactly the opposite trend with both gun homicides and suicides increasing. This period of time has seen a loosening of gun laws and increases in AR style weapons. Washington DC has a record year with a 40% increase in murders in 2018 and 2019 is on pace too so forget that BS.
The reality is stark, Australia has less weapons and more restrictive laws and their rates are decreasing. The US has more guns and loose laws and the rates are increasing.
Last I checked Chicago is part of the United States so it should not be a surprise that they have gun crimes.
At one time there was a ban on newly registered guns (existing grandfathered) but that ban went away long ago.
It’s important to have facts!
But wait its not a gun free zone????? You have to do almost everything besides give up a kidney to be able to protect yourself. Damn with all those plans in place to make sure you have strict gun control laws you would think they would have no gun violence what so ever. Wait Wait what is that you say criminals don't follow the law.