A fill-in-the-blanks massacre
It’s the same story over and over. And America’s response is growing more and more predictable.
One question, always, is whether the gunman obtained his firearms legally. At age ____ and with no diagnosed mental illness, ______ was able to buy his _______-caliber, _______ assault-style weapons legally in _________. Although _____’s neighbors and acquaintances said there were plenty of signals, the alleged killer had never been arrested nor was he the subject of a restraining order that might have made him ineligible to own the firearms. But in truth, such limits are too elastic to be a significant deterrent. Had _______ been ineligible to buy the weapons through a federally licensed gun shop, he could have turned to private sales at gun shows or over the internet, where background checks are not required.
Reaction to the latest massacre was swift. Lawmakers mouthed empty words of sympathy, the NRA quieted its Twitter account, gun-control advocates howled at the moon (and with just as much effect). President Trump waited a day and then blamed the Democrats and President Obama for the killing. In truth, the best the nation gets is some initial spark of resolve and the occasional proposed reform that goes nowhere.
Meanwhile, a community mourns. Among the dead was ________, who bravely tried to step between ______ and his victims, hoping to protect them from bullets fired at a rapid rate. __________ was struck ______ times, but by throwing himself at the gunman, authorities say, he gave ________ a few extra seconds to flee. It was a heroic act, to be sure, one that likely will be mentioned at his funeral next week — a funeral that would not be occurring were it not for the easy availability of weapons of war.
Will this time be different? Will this atrocity finally spur the hard hearts in Washington to take steps to reduce the easy availability of military-style weapons? Don’t hold your breath.