You survived a murder-suicide in which an estranged husband shot his wife and then killed himself.
He was rude enough to do it in her office instead of in the privacy of a home, so it became an active shooting instead of a few seconds on the late news or the lead item in a police blotter report.
But you felt the need to share it. Why? Would you have been equally distraught had the woman, spotting her ex with a gun, produced her own handgun and shot him dead? What if the man had mortally wounded her with a knife? Beaten her to death with a tire iron or crowbar?
Or, since I have become very cynical, is it because you visualize a link between your “victimhood” and the monstrous attack on churches by a Muslim-hating lunatic; you like Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s response and you think your “testimony” adds to the debate?
As far as I can determine from your article and the various reports of the incident, neither you nor anyone else in that building was at risk. The ex-husband came in, shot his former wife multiple times and turned the gun on himself. That’s a bit different than a free-fire zone in a church where everyone was a target.
How would any of those so-called “common-sense” gun laws you like have prevented the incident in your office building? As far as we can tell, they have never prevented a mass shooting or active shooter incident, even in places where those laws were in effect.
Colorado enacted universal background checks in 2013. By 2017, the homicide rate had increased by nearly 42%. Increases in the homicide rate were also reported in Delaware and Washington state, both of which had also enacted universal background check laws.
Should we now assume that universal background check laws not only fail to prevent murder; they actually increase it?
You call for changes to the U.S. Constitution because it is inconvenient. Fine; it’s also inconvenient for those that favor censorship and the establishment of Christianity as the state religion. In fact, it’s inconvenient for a lot of those who wish to impose their views on others.
Let’s say you get supermajorities in the House and Senate to approve a new amendment. Now all you have to do is get 38 states to approve it.
Mind that it takes just 13 states to oppose ratification to kill a new Amendment. I can name 13 states that would refuse to ratify without consulting a map. With a little effort, I can probably name 38 states that would oppose it. After all, 44 states have language similar to the Second Amendment in their own state constitutions.
I have had a bullet pass close enough to my head to hear it. I have had friends who were shot. One was shot by a robber after my friend had already surrendered his wallet and valuables. Should I use that to call for more people carrying guns? No; I believe that is a personal decision everyone must make for themselves. But I do believe they should have the choice.
This is life. Bad things happen. Killers don’t respect laws against murder; why would they be deterred by a gun law? No country on earth has ever been able to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. So people need to have guns to defend themselves, just like the police need guns. There isn’t a law enforcement agency on earth that is totally disarmed.
There are some choir members who will praise your testimony. However, there are also heretics like me who aren’t so easily impressed.