Ross Ramsey is executive editor and co-founder of The Texas Tribune.

Another shooting, this time in a Walmart in El Paso, raises a familiar set of questions for politicians and lawmakers.

Add my hometown of El Paso to the list that, in Texas alone, includes Sutherland Springs and Santa Fe – places people were shot were where they went to pray, shop and go to school.

I can’t think of another situation where we would not do something together about wolves roving among us.

This has been going on long enough for what seems like every American to have a local version, and new locations – hello, Dayton – are added quickly. The wolves are everywhere, as much a seemingly accepted part of modern life as automobile deaths and opioid overdoses – dangers with solutions apparently beyond the political skills of the people we elect to office. Running for office seems to erase reason from the smart and capable characters we send to places like Austin and to Washington, D.C. They forget about the wolves.

The alleged El Paso shooter – after just a few hours, he was no longer the “latest” shooter – appears on first impression to be a loser enthralled by racist hate, emboldened by crass public officials and outfitted by toothless gun laws that don’t make sense to anyone outside of our American cultural bubble.

If we decided that every misanthrope in the nation should be armed and dangerous, we could do it with the gun laws we already have. Texas is an open-carry state, where anyone with an easily obtained state license can walk around like the lead in a Quentin Tarantino movie. For long guns, no license is required.

Guns are part of Texas lore and remain a leg of the partisan iconography after years of “Gods, guns and gays” political campaigns that worshipped the first, bowed to the second and cursed the third. It was mostly Republican but not entirely. On the first day of dove-hunting season in 1994, then-Gov. Ann Richards, a Democrat, and her opponent, Republican George W. Bush, took crews of political reporters out to watch them shoot birds. She missed three times, but the results were more embarrassing for Bush, who shot a killdeer instead of a dove. The candidate is supposed to know how to handle a gun, and Bush did OK with that. But it cost him $130 for shooting the wrong kind of bird.

Voters didn’t mind. He had his mythology right, as did Richards, though she did lose the election.

A quarter-century later, the current class of Texas politicians handles things a bit differently – like when Sen. Ted Cruz cooked “machine-gun bacon” in a campaign video by wrapping it around the barrel of a gun, firing the gun for a few minutes and then eating the bacon.

Or in the way lawmakers and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott steered the conversation toward mental- health issues and away from gun control issues after last year’s shootings in Sutherland Springs and in Santa Fe.

Attention to mental health is sorely lacking in Texas. Devoting more money and attention to that ought to be a bipartisan idea. “Red-flag” laws seem like a great idea every time there’s a new mass murder, and voters happen to think it’s a good idea, too: Why not take guns away – temporarily, even – from people who are exhibiting signs that they shouldn’t have access to deadly weapons?

Like the man who, police say, walked into the El Paso Walmart on Saturday, shooting nearly four dozen weekend shoppers, killing 20.

But Texas lawmakers haven’t been willing to enact a red-flag law. In May 2018, Abbott was open to the idea.

“Properly designed, emergency risk protective orders could identify those intent on violence from firearms but in a way that preserves fundamental rights under the Second Amendment,” he wrote in a paper on school safety. He backed off pretty rapidly, saying it was just something to consider – not something he was endorsing. A few weeks later, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick dispatched the idea.

“Regarding the topic of ‘red flag’ laws, which was discussed today in the select committee, I have never supported these policies, nor has the majority of the Texas Senate,” Patrick said after a hearing on the subject.

The shootings appall those lawmakers, but so do the solutions. Meanwhile, the wolves are roving, and we’re not doing a lot to keep the predators at bay.

Ross Ramsey is executive editor and co-founder of The Texas Tribune. Before joining the Tribune, he was editor and co-owner of Texas Weekly for 15 years. He may be emailed at rramsey@texastribune.org.

You must be logged in to react.
Click any reaction to login.
0
0
0
0
0

Recommended for you

(2) comments

Martin Strarup

Well that was a nice "feel good" article but all it did was ask questions. "Why not take guns away – temporarily, even – from people who are exhibiting signs that they shouldn’t have access to deadly weapons?" There lies the problem Ross...what signs are you speaking of? Two buddies arguing over a football game? Should we enter their homes and remove their weapons? How about a husband and wife arguing over some trivial family matter? Should we enter their home and remove any firearms?

Just how do you enforce this on someone's thoughts? I guess Patrick Henry's words "Give me liberty or give me death" would trigger a mass raid upon his home to strip him of any weapons?



It's a slippery slope when you advocate the policing of someone's thoughts or words. People say words in anger often that they do not mean and never act on those words.



If someone is crazy like the guy who shot all of those people in El Paso, someone had to have known that he was like that. How did he slip through the cracks?



In any case, you can't regulate a person's thoughts, nor can you deny him or her rights because of them or arrest him or her for them. Communists do that though so be careful of what you wish for.

Glenn Wilson

Martin -- "you can't regulate a person's thoughts, nor can you deny him or her rights because of them or arrest him or her for them." -- Of course we can. It's called Hate Crime - right out of Orwell's "1984", wherein hate, purely a thought process, not a physical act, is prosecutable at the Federal level as a separate crime and as an add-on at the state, county and municipal level. And what makes hate illegal? Political Correctness, which at one time was a term reserved for the actions of communist countries. Now it rules our lives here.

Welcome to the discussion.

Transparency. Your full name is required.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article. And receive photos, videos of what you see.
Don’t be a troll. Don’t be a troll. Don’t post inflammatory or off-topic messages, or personal attacks.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.

To subscribe, click here. Already a subscriber? Click here.