Online subscriber? Please Log In
  

Need Help? | Forgot Your Password?

Price for the right to remain fully armed

In America, victims of mass killings are collateral damage

Dec 16, 2012 | 3 Comments


Like many others, I can’t stop crying. Not openly, but deep inside. Walled-off by well-crafted defense mechanisms.

I don’t want to dwell on the unthinkable anguish of the families, but I can’t escape the media barrage of details, speculation and commentary. I don’t blame the messenger, but I hope people will challenge the message.

Don’t let the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and other mass murders fade into memory as if they represent unanswerable questions.

We ask, “Who could do something like this?” Regrettably, the functional answer is, “Someone who can purchase or otherwise acquire personal weapons of mass destruction.”

We ask, “Why?” and then get mired in the psycho-babble. We don’t need experts to tell us that humans suffering from the most extreme mental illnesses are capable of unspeakable evil. We know about the mental illnesses, but not how to prevent them.

We understand the easy accessibility to mass-murder weaponry, and we choose not to change. As mass killings rise, Americans reportedly have reduced their support for gun control.

I don’t have the emotional energy to research and report on the pros and cons of gun control right now. But if the status quo continues, it means we have considered the cost-benefit ratio and decided that these deaths are an acceptable price for the right to remain fully armed.

In the final analysis it will mean that these victims, young and old, are considered collateral damage.

- Jeb Bladine
publisher

Facebook comments

Would you like to comment on this article?

Only online subscribers may comment on articles. Click here to see how you can subscribe.
Already a subscriber, please

Note: Some articles do not accept comments at all.

Comments

08:12 am - Tue, December 18 2012
kona said:
Interesting comment Jeb.

You said, " But if the status quo continues, it means we have considered the cost-benefit ratio and decided that these deaths are an acceptable price for the right to remain fully armed.

In the final analysis it will mean that these victims, young and old, are considered collateral damage."

Similarly/sadly, we have had this discussion in society before. The exact same comment could be said about the use of alcohol. The stakes being considerably higher with alcohol use. And, in Yamhill County it is even glamorized.
09:42 am - Thu, December 20 2012
Dances with Redwoods said:
"But if the status quo continues, it means we have considered the cost-benefit ratio and decided that these deaths are an acceptable price for the right to remain fully armed."

Does this mean that the News-Register will no longer participate in any paid advertising of high-capacity lethal weaponry. That would be one bold step on your part, Jeb. ..or.. have you already done the cost-benefit ratio thingy on that decision?
04:54 pm - Thu, December 20 2012
troy prouty said:
I think the correct term is collateral damage.

people that die in violence from semi-auto guns are collateral damage so people can continue to purchase them.

troy prouty*
© 1999- News-Register Publishing | © The Associated Press
The News-Register and NewsRegister.com are owned and operated by News-Register Publishing Co., P.O. Box 727, McMinnville, OR 97128.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Web design & powered by LVSYS