Professor Joseph Sabino Mistick's characterization of us as feeling “a practiced sadness” after the Washington Navy Yard shootings in his column “In the aftermath of yet another mass shooting, we're finding out, soberly, who we are” (Sept. 22 and TribLIVE.com) is offensive and untrue.
We feel the loss of any life, with the random acts of violence shaking our belief that we are safe in any environment. Stating our society is evil because of the maddening acts of deranged individuals is more upsetting when stated by a learned person than an opinion piece downgrading America by the Russian president.
I can only assume Mr. Mistick is a proponent of government action to control the use of firearms by ordinary citizens. I would agree if there was evidence that such restrictions would stop gun violence. Is there a supposedly more gun-safe environment than a military base?
Of course, updating the background-checking system with legal liability consequences for noncompliant gun stores is one part of the equation. Also, revising the different states' mental health laws and procedures for mandatory treatment for certain individuals is another part.
Though we will never have a serious discussion of this serious issue with gratuitous remarks made to inflame the emotions of one's political proponents while degrading one's opponents.
Show commenting policy
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.