Dear family and wider friends,

Here's my reaction to the shootings yesterday, all about the circle of "us."

Paul Ryan's comment as Speaker of the House was poignant:  "An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us."  His remarks drew applause from the entire House.

     I agree totally, except the circle of "us" is too narrowly drawn.  

      Before the baseball-playing Republican members of Congress and lobbyists were assaulted by a disgruntled political opponent, now dead, and with the third ranking member of the GOP caucus in critical condition, several others of "us" had been killed in San Francisco at a UPS warehouse by a disgruntled worker.   

     The Speaker and commentators referred only to Representative Steve Scalesi, talked about more protection for ordinary members of Congress, and called for bipartisan cooperation to lessen the bitter political divides. Of commentators I heard, only Lawrence O'Donnell referred in his "last word" segment to the several other Americans killed that day.

     "Us" should mean all of us.  

     As a Catholic and as a Democrat, I feel all life is sacred -- mine, yours, the not-yet-born, the born disabled, the born poor -- all human life is, for me, sacred and worthy of protection. Yes, that is an article of faith with which you may not agree, but it is mine.

     Will we get there, to a wider definition of "us"?  

     Will GOP members of Congress repeal their quietly inserted prohibition in a law to forbid the Center for Disease Control from researching gun-related deaths in the U.S.,totaling  last year  some 33, 000 deaths?  

     It was the NRA that lobbied Congress for and won that prohibition on even research.  Meanwhile, we are the only nation with more guns than citizens.  The NRA and the current Administration is pushing for allowing unrestricted access to silencers on all weapons.  That directly threatens our police and public safety.

     Why not regulate the acquisition of weapons of military utility, such as AK-47s and AR-15s, which threaten our first responders daily? If we can require, governmentally, folks who get behind a wheel to study, take tests and pass them, before they get a license, why does it not make eminently more sense to require the same of anyone who wants to own a weapon that can kill a person instantaneously or more slowly via bullets that rip through organs?

     Why not require every firearm to bear a serial number as every engine block in a vehicle does? Why not a traceable radio frequency code on every weapon manufactured?  They are used in crimes as well as by law-abiding sportsmen and citizens who want to protect themselves in their own homes.

     Why do we have so many firearms outlets along the border with Mexico which sell to whomever and that are then used in narco-trafficking?  Ask the NRA and the gun manufacturers who sponsor the NRA.

     NRA members statistically, per news reports, actually favor sensible gun management legislation.  Not the NRA leadership or gun manufacturers, placing profits above people's lives. I repeat, gun management is sensible.  It is not taking guns out of the hands of citizens.  Should people without mental capacity bear arms?  Should felons bear arms?  Etc.

     The protective circle of "us" is too narrowly drawn.

     As Gabby writes below, we need the courage to overcome the obstacles to sensible safety and health measures.  3000 Americans and foreigners - immigrants - died on September 11, 2001.  33,000 Americans died by gun violence last year.  Isn't it patriotic to use our government-of, -by, and -for the people to do something about that rolling disaster?

     I ask the Republican members of Congress to join the Democratic and independent members of Congress to do right by America, for all of us. 

     More guns of greater caliber means simply greater harm to more people, families, and communities.  Enough with Sandy Hook, with Columbine, with Orlando, and so on.  

   Time to act, my friends, for all of "us."