Letter to the editor: Why can’t we work together on shootings? | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Why can’t we work together on shootings?

Disbelief. Terror. Shame.

These are some of the feelings which we as Americans are becoming used to. How often do we tune in to find out that there has been another mass shooting event? How many occurrences before we take action? When will we come to an agreement on taking preventative measures to prevent these all-too-common events of mass violence? Most importantly, why are our differences in opinions so extreme and so unwavering that we are incapable of working together and coming up with a lifesaving solution?

Whether it is a matter of stubbornness or pride, countless lives have been ended and many more have been destroyed in situations that were largely preventable. According to most sources, a mass shooting is defined as a shooting event in which four or more individuals are killed or injured in a single setting. This definition is not, however, used across the board, which is why you will see the count of mass shootings since Sandy Hook range anywhere from 43 to 1,962. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, there have been 142 shootings that took place at schools since the shooting at Sandy Hook in December 2012.

Until we are capable of putting aside our differences, admitting that there is an issue, and work together to formulate a solution, there is nothing preventing these shooting events from happening.

My deepest sympathies go out to all of those who have suffered.

Haley E. Sullivan


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.