There may be no 'fix' for gun violence

After one absorbs the shock and horror of the Las Vegas mass shooting, the significant question is "What is the fix?" An answer is critical because the shooter's method is unique and will likely spawn copy-cats. The discussion breaks into two areas: 1) the adequacy of gun control; and 2) the feasibility of protecting citizens in the modern era.

Before the victims' corpses were cold, the usual opportunistic politicians asserted that current gun controls - already extensive - are inadequate. But, the anti-gun folks want more than new law. They really seek to repeal the Second Amendment, to ban gun ownership and to confiscate all weapons.

That would be messy, but doable.

However, recall that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with helping hunters and marksmen. It intended an armed populace that would preclude the emergence of modern-day King Georges in the U.S. Frankly, we especially need that right today.

The other question is "How much protection does the citizenry want; and will it bear the cost?" If every concert-goer in Vegas had a body-guard, the results would have been no different. Security on high-rise roof tops will not assure that all rooms in a building lack shooters. What is the defense for weapons discharged on crowds by drones? Is placing costly metal detectors and luggage screening devices into hotels acceptable?

Since 9/11, the citizenry has been assaulted by terrorists, had its privacy invaded in spades and been subjected to all kinds of inconvenience. How much more of our freedom, our open society and our treasures are we willing to give up?

My sense is that a more "secure" police state would be unacceptable.

Thus, there is no "fix." As we move forward, we may have to get used to accepting casualties as the real cost of maintaining a free and open society.

Charles F. Falk

Schaumburg