Column: In the wake of Vegas massacre

Fifty-nine people. As of this writing, that is the number slain in the Las Vegas massacre last weekend. 

In the wake of these horrific events, we reflexively try to rationalize what happened. 

Who is this man, and why did he commit such an atrocity? In the coming days, answers to these questions should arise. But another, more pressing question haunts us daily: Why does this continue to happen?

Bill O’Reilly, in a post on his site, attributes this curse of routine massacres as a necessary cost. “This is the price of freedom. Violent nuts are allowed to roam free until they do damage, no matter how threatening they are.” 

O’Reilly then goes on to say that the Second Amendment is clear in that Americans are allowed to own firearms to defend themselves, “even the loons.”

So, the greatest country in the world is handcuffed by its freedom. You might even say we are crippled by it, if “loons” can gallivant around with weapons as a matter of course. 

If we cannot agree that the status quo is unacceptable, about what can we agree? The problem with the “gun debate” is that there isn’t one. 

I cannot stake out a position on the issue because I have yet to see reasonable alternatives to the status quo. 

Gun rights are zero-sum, at least in how the argument is framed. Any encroachment on the availability of these weapons is decried as cloaked tyranny. 

And so it seems reasonable enough that we might enter into thoughtful discussion on how we might improve the endemic violence we accept de rigueur. 

The United States, aberrant from the rest of the world, sees mass murders almost daily. I believe that we are better than that, but not if we refuse to address it.

I have criticized my peers and others for being entrenched in their views, but we are not to blame in this case. 

If anyone in this nation should engage in serious debate, with no reservations, it is our elected officials. Why, then, would the Center for Disease Control, for years be discouraged and prevented from studying the effects of gun violence and its prevention? 

We cannot expect a serious conversation to emerge from our government officials when no money goes toward those questions.

Conspicuously absent from this column will be a solution to gun violence in the United States. 

If it were so easy that a 21-year-old college student could solve it, I imagine we would have done so years ago. Going forward, we should start from basic propositions and find common ground. 

The same questions we ask every time, which is far too often, are a good place to start: Why does this happen, and can we do anything to stop it? 

The answer has to be yes. If we are too scared to have an honest discussion about these constant tragedies, nothing will ever improve.