Los Angeles Times - 06.08.2019

A10 TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2019 LATIMES.COM/OPINION

OPINION

EDITORIALS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOW TO WRITE TO US

Please send letters to

[email protected]. For

submission guidelines, see

latimes.com/letters or call

1-800-LA TIMES, ext. 74511.

A

fter a weekend of numbing
carnage — more than 30 dead
and more than 50 injured in
mass shootings in El Paso and
Dayton, Ohio — President
Trump stepped forward Monday morning
with a tweet calling for a bilateral embrace
of “strong background checks,” whatever
that means, and “perhaps marrying this leg-
islation with desperately needed immigra-
tion reform.”
So in the space of a single tweet the presi-
dent called for laughably light legislative
changes — neither gunman would likely
have been stopped by a background check
— and then turned his message to outra-
geously cynical politics. What does immi-
gration reform have to do with what has be-
come our national pastime, killing one an-
other en masse and often with military-
grade firearms and semiautomatic hand-
guns? Trump infamously sees everything in
terms of a deal, so it shouldn’t surprise us
that he would seek to gain a political advan-
tage in his fight to reduce immigration by
trading on the bodies of the dead.
The truth, though, is that the bloodiest
of the two massacres apparently was pro-
pelled by the shooter’s desire to counter
“the Hispanic invasion of Texas,” as his
“manifesto” phrased it — a theme that ech-
oes the language Trump has used since his
2016 election campaign, which began with a
speech that described Mexican immigrants
as “rapists” and drug smugglers. Since then,
Trump has repeatedly referred to migrants
“infesting” and “invading” the country.
So “marrying” immigration reform to a
background-check bill would reward the al-
leged Texas gunman by using his despicable
act of anti-Latino violence as a lever to
achieve his goal, which just happens to align
with the president’s own animus toward
people from what he infamously described
as “shithole countries.”
Yes, we should have universal back-
ground checks for gun purchasers (al-
though it’s unclear if that’s what Trump was
calling for). Such checks are, politically
speaking, the low-hanging fruit of gun con-
trol. Even a majority of gun owners support
universal background checks, because it is a
basic, common-sense step. Who in their
right mind thinks it’s a good idea to sell guns
to people with a history of violence, addic-
tion or mental illness? Even if we take the
2nd Amendment at its broadest interpreta-
tion, a right to bear arms is not absolute.
Just as the 1st Amendment isn’t absolute —
this newspaper can’t libel people, and no
one can yell “fire” in a crowded theater un-

less there is, indeed, a fire. Those are com-

mon-sense accommodations that still pre-

serve fundamental rights.

Banning private possession of weapons

of war is also common sense. The U.S. needs

to reinstate the federal assault weapons

ban.

But we hear none of that from the White

House. After his morning tweets, in which

he also said the media have “contributed

greatly to the anger and rage that has built

up,” the president addressed the nation

from the White House Diplomatic Room. He

offered condolences to the victims and to

Mexico, whose citizens were among the El

Paso targets, and called for national unity to

“confront white supremacy.”

“Hatred has no place in America,” he

said. All well and good. But then he offered a

checklist of mostly baby steps, such as more

“red flag” laws to remove firearms from peo-

ple whose relatives fear they might strike

out in violence, and stopping the glorifica-

tion of violence in video games. But he also

called for stronger mental health laws in-

cluding “when necessary involuntary incar-

ceration,” and making hate-driven mass

murder a capital offense punished by death

“delivered quickly, decisively, and without

years of delay.” Both of those proposals

raise significant constitutional issues.

Trump said nothing about banning com-

bat-style weapons. And he seems to have

forgotten his support for “strong back-

ground checks” in the time between his

morning tweet routine and his arrival in

front of the cameras.

It’s good, we guess, that Trump felt the

pressure in the aftermath of the attacks to

make some gestures toward rationality, and

to concede publicly that white supremacy is

unacceptable. But frankly, we doubt

whether Trump can serve as an effective

messenger for the idea that Americans need

to come together against violence and rac-

ism. He’s been fanning the flames of division

and fear for too many years now to be the

guy who tells us what to do next, especially if

he’s not willing to take meaningful steps on

gun control.

The nation knows what the problem is,

and while mental illness may be a part of it,

it’s only one part. Mentally ill people without

access to firearms, particularly guns that

can kill scores of people in seconds, tend not

to commit massacres on a large scale. Nei-

ther, for that matter, do sane people without

access to guns. Too many people have too

easy access to too many firearms; that is our

problem. As is a political system that is in

the thrall of the gun lobby and abjectly re-

fuses to respond in a sensible, proactive

manner to preserve the safety of people as

they go about their everyday lives, be it at-

tending a garlic festival in Gilroy, Calif.,

shopping in El Paso, or having a late-night

drink with friends on a hot summer night in

the heart of Ohio.

Trump and the mass shootings

The president’s cynical response to

weekend carnage falls far short of

what’s needed to protect the U.S.

T

he city of Los Angelesis con-
stantly wrestling with how to
balance the rights of desperate
homeless people living outdoors
with the rights of the rest of its
residents. One area of conflict has been
what to do about homeless people who live
in their cars or RVs, which many Angelenos
say take up too much space and dump too
much trash in residential neighborhoods.
In February 2017, the city instituted a new
ordinance that banned people from sleeping
in their vehicles in residential neighbor-
hoods from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. — and at all
times within 500 feet of a park, school or day-
care center. That meant the majority of
streets in the city were off-limits.
But while the law banned car-dwelling in
a lot of places, it affirmatively allowed it in
commercial and industrial areas. (There
were even some maps handed out by the
L.A. Police Department showing where peo-
ple could park at night.) Additionally, City
Council members said that parking lots
across the city would be designated “safe
parking” areas where homeless people
could safely park, use a bathroom and work
with outreach workers to get social services.
The council renewed the 2017 ordinance
last week. And if city officials want to bar
homeless people from sleeping in their vehi-
cles in residential neighborhoods and near
schools and parks, that’s their prerogative.
But the law will work — and be humane —
only if the city holds up its end of the com-
promise and provides alternative parking.
And that’s not happening.
Safe parking lots — generally run by non-
profit organizations — take time to locate
and money to set up. There are about 180
safe parking spaces available in various lots
throughout the city, and that number is pre-
dicted to grow to 450 in the next year. But
consider this: According to the official

homeless count, there were more than 9,

people living in about 5,700 vehicles of all

kinds in the city of Los Angeles in 2019. A

mere 450 spaces won’t solve the problem.

True, there are still industrial and com-

mercial areas where people can legally park

and sleep. But since the ordinance first took

effect two and a half years ago, overnight

parking bans have been instituted on hun-

dreds of blocks throughout the city, a signifi-

cant number of them in those neighbor-

hoods.

These parking bans are granted by the

City Council at the request of individual

council members to placate upset property

owners. Some of their complaints are legiti-

mate: Heavy commercial trucks parking on

streets rather than in lots; oversized vehi-

cles on narrow streets where drivers’ sight

lines could be blocked. But most are just de-

signed to keep homeless people away.

How does that solve anything? You can’t

institute an ordinance that narrowly re-

stricts where homeless people can sleep in

their cars and then whittle away at the only

places they’re allowed to sleep legally. That

just leaves homeless people with nowhere to

go; they’ll be rousted from street to street

with no options.

There are already so many more home-

less people than there are available shelter

beds that the city has agreed to allow people

to sleep on sidewalks at night in the city. If

the City Council can’t find more spots for

homeless people to park, they will have little

choice but to get out of their cars and sleep

legally on the sidewalks. Will residents pre-

fer that?

Dealing with homelessness has to in-

volve give and take. The city’s effort to re-

strict people from sleeping in their cars in

residential neighborhoods is unworkable if

it does not offer them alternative places to

park. The city has to make that happen.

Where the homeless may park

When I was a little girl in

the 1950s and ’60s, I never,

ever imagined that I would

be caught up in gunfire

while shopping with my

mom and dad. They didn’t

either.

When does this stop?

Have we lost our soul as a

nation?

This is about so much

that has gone wrong — too

many guns in the wrong

hands, ignorance and

inaction regarding mental

illness, a growing sense of

isolation by many, intoler-

ance of those we disagree

with or who look different

than us, and a sense that

society has lost its way.

My thoughts are with all

the victims of the latest

tragedies and all the simi-

lar tragedies that keep

happening. I remain hope-

ful that we will find our way

and make these terrible

events subside.

Marlene Carney

La Verne

::

Some Democrats pre-

dictably used the recent

tragedies in Texas and

Ohio for political purposes,

unfairly blaming our presi-

dent. The blame for these

mass shootings is entirely

on the killers, and it is

Congress’ responsibility to

legislate logical solutions

to help prevent another

tragedy.

Lawmakers must do so

without violating our 2nd

Amendment, which clearly

gives law-abiding Ameri-

cans the right to own a gun

and protect themselves

from those who ignore our

laws.

Bonnie O’Neil

Newport Beach

::

I thought President

Trump promised us, in his

inaugural speech, that

“this American carnage”

would stop “right here,

right now.”

Maybe if he and his

Republican enablers had

taken even one single step

toward that goal, we would

not have more mass shoot-

ings than days so far in

2 019.

Larry Markes

Los Angeles

The ‘mental

illness’ cop-out

Re “Two massacres, no

answers,” Aug. 5

President Trump men-

tioned mental illness as

one of the main causes of

mass shootings. That

would be fine if true, but

does mental illness show

up on a gun purchaser’s

background check?

I think the president

knows what the problem is.

We must reinstate the

assault weapons ban that

was originally written by

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

(D-Calif.) and enacted into

law in 1994. That law ex-

pired in 2004 and was not

extended. What other

weapons can kill 20 or 30

human beings in one min-

ute?

The president needs to

advocate for the ban with-

out regard for the innocent

citizens who say they need

assault rifles for sport and

hunting.

To do this, he must

break the ties he has with

the National Rifle Assn. by

choosing life over the inter-

ests of politicians. He can

start by returning dona-

tions made by the NRA

and at last be looked upon

as a leader.

Diana Strain

La Mesa

::

The tragic events in

Gilroy, El Paso and Dayton

have resulted in a lot of

political rhetoric, unfortu-

nately at the wrong mo-

ment, for more gun control.

Some have not wasted any

time in assigning blame on

Trump.

That is regrettable

because it will not do any-

thing for the healing this

nation needs. This is the

same technique used by

right-wing extremists

during the last adminis-

tration when police officers

were killed and President

Obama was accused of

having blood on his hands.

Furthermore, guns

have not been the only

instrument used to com-

mit horrendous crimes,

but they are the only ones

identified as needing to be

banned.

Ammonium nitrate

fertilizer, pressure cookers,

trucks, machetes and

knives have been used in a

number of horrifying mas-

sacres, and we don’t hear

any politician trying to ban

them.

The problem is not the

instrument used to com-

mit those crimes, but peo-

ple who are full of hate.

Raul De Cardenas

Los Angeles

::

The 1st Amendment

establishes the right of the

people to assemble peace-

fully. That statement is

laudable and reassuring

until we read, in the 2nd

Amendment, that “the

right of the people to bear

arms shall not be in-

fringed.”

The devastating massa-

cres have made it clear that

the imbalance created by

the U.S. Supreme Court’s

interpretation of the 2nd

Amendment renders the

assurance of the 1st

Amendment essentially

meaningless.

Rights need to be set in

balance, one against the

other; otherwise we end up

in the chaos and fear where

we now find ourselves. The

obvious solution is to fit

both amendments within

the larger context of the

common good, where no

side has a preponderance

of power and all people can

go about their daily lives

without fear.

Peter A. O’Reilly

Redondo Beach

Gun control will never

stop terrorists. The real

cause is the lack of security.

Paid guards will not risk

their lives to stop the kill-

ers.

The answer, as shown in

Israel, is that only military

men trained to stop armed

attackers and placed wher-

ever crowds congregate

can end the epidemic of

mass shootings.

Call out the military, Mr.

President.

Philip Springer

Pacific Palisades

Just call them

‘the shooters’

Re “Suspect was forthcom-

ing in interrogation,” Aug. 5

I am one of the rapidly

growing number of Ameri-

cans who have lived

through a mass shooting.

These events naturally

garner widespread media

attention, and I urge the

Los Angeles Times to

reconsider how it covers

these events.

Recent research has

examined the relationship

between media coverage

and mass shooting conta-

gion. Similar to the recom-

mendations for reporting

on suicide, reporting on

mass shootings can adopt

research-based recom-

mendations to reduce the

risk of contagion and copy-

cat effects. This includes

minimizing the emphasis

on perpetrators’ names,

photos and motives in

order to reduce notoriety.

The Times’ coverage of

the mass shootings in

Gilroy, El Paso and Dayton

has not adhered to these

recommendations. Along

with necessary policy

change, responsible media

coverage can be part of the

solution to this public

health problem.

Kelly Trumbull

Los Angeles

::

After a gunman killed 51

people earlier this year at a

mosque in Christchurch,

New Zealand, Prime Min-

ister Jacinda Ardern re-

fused to say the shooter’s

name. Mass shooters crave

notoriety, and we give it to

them every time we men-

tion them by name.

What if, when more

mass shootings happen —

and grievously, we know

they will — the media did

not state the shooters’

names, but instead re-

ferred to them only as “the

shooter”?

Let’s not give these

individuals the notoriety

they seek. If this small step

deters even one shooter, it

will be worth it.

Mike Still

Duarte

Impeachment,

no conviction

Re “Why not impeach?”

letters, Aug. 3

I find it interesting to

read letters to the editor

pointing out that the Re-

publicans control the

Senate and they will never

vote to convict and remove

President Trump if the

House impeaches him.

I would like to remind

those letter writers that

the Senate never voted on

President Richard Nixon.

The televised congres-

sional hearings on Water-

gate brought enough testi-

mony, truth and knowl-

edge to the American

people that Sen. Barry

Goldwater and other Re-

publicans told Nixon he

had to resign.

A House impeachment

inquiry of Trump would be

televised and allow the

truth to be told via testi-

mony, tax returns and

other ways that the Trump

administration could not

prevent. The majority of

Americans would see the

blatant corruption in the

highest office in the land.

Therefore, for the sake

of our democracy, let the

impeachment inquiry

begin.

Susan Newell

Palm Desert

American inaction

Re “Democrats tie shootings to Trump rhetoric,” Aug. 5

We Americans tout the U.S. as the greatest country on

Earth. But I have to ask, would the government of such a

country passively accept more than 250 mass shootings

already this year, the latest being in El Paso and Dayton,

Ohio?

Would its Senate ignore a reasonable House-passed

bill ensuring background checks for gun purchases?

Would it condone the unrestricted sale of assault rifles

often used in mass killings? Would it complacently accept

unrelenting racism and hatred spewing from its

president?

A truly great country would in no way tolerate the

regular slaughter of its citizens, would immediately

legislate to keep assault weapons out of the hands of

people who have no business possessing them, and

would demand that its president demonstrate common

decency and compassion for all individuals.

Tom Stapleton

Glendale

Mario TamaGetty Images

A MEMORIAL near the Walmart in El Paso where

a gunman killed at least 22 people Saturday.

EXECUTIVECHAIRMANDr. Patrick Soon-Shiong

EXECUTIVEEDITORNorman Pearlstine

MANAGINGEDITOR

Scott Kraft

SENIORDEPUTYMANAGINGEDITOR

Kimi Yoshino

DEPUTYMANAGINGEDITORS

Sewell Chan, Shelby Grad, Shani O. Hilton,

Julia Turner

ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITORS

Len De Groot, Stuart Emmrich,

Loree Matsui, Angel Rodriguez

Opinion

Nicholas Goldberg EDITOR OF THEEDITORIALPAGES

FOUNDED DECEMBER 4, 1881 Sue Horton OP-ED ANDSUNDAYOPINIONEDITOR