It's time for parents to stop making excuses and start driving change.
If we define gun violence as using a gun to end a human life, the FBI is telling us that less than 10 percent of those fatalities would be eliminated if we got rid of all violent crime.
Violence here is no longer theoretical, and weak Texas gun laws are giving it every chance to happen.
I'm licensed for CCW and I carry a gun from time to time. So I'm not opposed per se to the notion that guns do more good than harm. What I do oppose is constructing an argument for either position out of whole cloth.
What was once the "tool" of law enforcement types, the military, and hunters is now the equivalent of an iPhone, a talisman of connection and social order. It's something that just about anyone can put in a pocket, a purse, or simply strap on in the full light of day in a land where all of us seem to be heading for the O.K. Corral.
It has somehow become acceptable to many of my colleagues to simply express condolences and repeat tired excuses for inaction like "we can't legislate away crazy," or "guns don't kill people, people do." Meanwhile, their intransigence allows the violence to continue as the roots of this problem are ignored.
Too often, articles end by ridiculing the gun owners. However, it's far more productive to suggest ways that enable law-abiding gun owners to co-exist in a society not riddled with gun violence.
It follows a teen boy who takes an unlocked pistol out of his mother's bureau drawer, slips it into his backpack, walks into his class at school and, when there are no other kids in the room, plops the gun down on the teacher's desk and says, "I don't feel safe with this at home." And that's it.
It has been a week since Ismaayl Brinsley, a deranged man with a long criminal record, killed two New York City police officers, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, in cold blood, but so far we haven't heard a word from the National Rifle Association.
Something is deeply awry in our nation with the world's biggest economy that lets its children be the poorest group and the younger they are the poorer they are during their years of greatest brain development. The Prince of Peace is mocked as we let a child be injured or killed by guns every thirty minutes.
Thirty years ago today the inviolate right to self-defense and the battle over firearm civil liberties were joined in one of the unlikeliest of battle zones -- New York City.
What do you think is more important -- to protect the right of Americans to own guns or to control gun ownership?
Since anyone with a concealed-carry permit is, by definition, one of the good guys, the gun industry and its supporters work overtime trying to get concealed-carry accepted as the law of the land.
Since Sandy Hook, there have been at least 92 school shootings in America, and too many individuals killed with guns to count.
There is nothing inevitable about gun violence. And while the scandalously high rates of murder in both Brazil and South Africa are treated by many as "normal," there are encouraging signs of change. Targeted crime prevention measures and public health interventions pursued in both countries are cause for cautious optimism.
The surgeon general, whatever his or her views on gun control, has no political authority, and will do absolutely nothing about gun control in office. Even if the position did allow for that, why would that unsettle anybody?