Another senseless shooting rampage, this one closer to home, draws emotions if not increasing concern over the public's safety.
Exactly a week after the horrific Newtown, Conn., school massacre, unemployed truck driver Jeffrey Lee Michael, 44, loaded guns into his pickup truck in Geeseytown, Blair County, and began a shooting spree that claimed the lives of Kimberly A. Scott, 58, of Duncansville, Ken Lynn, 60, and Mr. Lynn's son-in-law, William Rhodes Jr., 38. The two men were Mr. Michael's neighbors; Mrs. Scott, a church volunteer, was shot inside Juniata Valley Gospel Church.
Michael then wounded three state police troopers before he was shot dead by troopers.
Police have no explanation for what “set off” Michael, just as Connecticut authorities cannot explain what prompted Adam Lanza's shooting spree a week earlier that killed his mother, five other adults and 20 children before he turned his gun on himself.
Unfathomable dementia has no rational explanation. Yet in the heart-wrenching aftermath of both tragedies, those far removed suggest societal “causes” and proffer public “solutions.”
But the “controls” they demand will not remove guns already in the possession of individuals who might one day snap — or, for that matter, stop the senseless from acquiring guns illegally. Such remedies rushed into law will only impede law-abiding citizens from acquiring the means to protect themselves.
The need for which today, sadly, should not be underestimated.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.