The best way to respond to Las Vegas massacre
JUST WATCHED
Las Vegas Sheriff on preventing shooting
MUST WATCH
Story highlights
- Marc Randazza: Another mass shooting, this time in Las Vegas. Many are quick to politicize it. That's a mistake
- He says shooter was terrorist. His actions draw strength when we react by curtailing our freedoms. We should change nothing
Marc J. Randazza is a First Amendment attorney and managing partner of the Randazza Legal Group. Follow him on Twitter: @marcorandazza, and read his academic publications here. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
(CNN)I
woke Monday morning, safe in my bed in Las Vegas, but quite annoyed by
the pinging of the phone. And then I heard the details. Mass shooting,
many dead, and many more injured. Motivation unknown.
This
brought me to a familiar emotional place. When the Tsarnaev brothers
attacked the Boston Marathon, they attacked my home. They did so to try
and make us feel unsafe at an event that ties that great city together.
When subhuman animals
attacked the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris, they attacked something
dear to my heart: freedom of expression. Their intent was to try to
make us afraid to use that freedom. When Dylann Roof, a white man,
killed eight black parishioners and their pastor at a church in
Charleston, he tried to make us feel that we could not all live
together.
And
while the motivations of Stephen Paddock, the now-dead suspect in the
Las Vegas massacre, are unknown, they surely weren't simply personal.
Nobody fires thousands of rounds from a hotel window into a crowd of
strangers without a motive.
Terrorism
has become a new normal for us. Mass shootings happen all the time in
America, yet we seem to have no idea how to prevent them.
Monday
morning, with the blood of the victims still wet on the ground, people
jumped to politicize the event. Those whose stock in trade is racial
identity politics pointed to the race of the shooter (he was white) and
the different response the attack would have drawn had his skin been
darker.
Some may claim that the
shooter was motivated by anti-Trump animus, and that an assailant with
murderous intent would find more Trump supporters at a country-western
concert than elsewhere. Anti-gun activists jumped on a new bill that is
advancing in the House of Representatives that would loosen the rules on
buying silencers for guns, claiming that if Paddock had had a silencer,
more people would be dead.
The question today is what do we do? What do we change?
I say: Change nothing.
Do
nothing but mourn, care and investigate. Yes, at some point this event
will inform decisions on how we govern ourselves. But not today.
I
find it very difficult to believe that the alleged shooter acted alone.
And if there were accomplices, I want to know who they were, and why
they helped him.
But I do not
want to walk through new metal detectors, or deal with other
infringements upon my civil liberties as a knee-jerk reaction to this
event. Far too often, in fact, every damn time, this kind of thing
happens, the response is that we must rein in our freedoms.
Let
us remember that those who kill innocent victims do not do so simply
because they wish them dead -- terrorism is about killing a few to
strike fear into many. Terrorism is a form of activism coupled with
narcissism.
This shooter, in a sick way, may well have thought he was making a difference—that he was changing something.
Would
it be that he was ushering in a further curtailment of our freedoms? I
don't know. What I do know is that giving them away will not bring back
the (at this writing) 59 dead.
For
a period of time, Paddock will remain the gold medalist in mass
shootings in America. But let that be his only legacy. Let us not
succumb to the narcissism of this act and the desire to scare us.
No comments:
Post a Comment