On a single day in America, two tragedies unfolded that should force us to confront an uncomfortable truth. A shooting tied to the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner captured national attention, while here in Chicago, a police officer was killed and another critically wounded when a suspect somehow produced a firearm inside a hospital, according to authorities.
We are quick to blame political rhetoric, and yes, the tone of our public discourse has become more toxic and more dangerous. But if we are honest, rhetoric alone does not pull a trigger. The common thread in both of these incidents is far simpler and far more troubling: America’s deep addiction to guns and violence.
We live in a country where even a suspect in custody, inside a hospital, can access a firearm. That is not a failure of a single system. That is a reflection of a society saturated with guns. Until we are willing to name that reality, nothing will change.
We tell ourselves that more vigilance is the answer. More security, more scanning, more lockdowns. But is that the life we want? Are we willing to constantly look over our shoulder at a concert, in a park, at a movie theater or inside a school, just to preserve lightly restricted access to firearms? At what point do we admit that this tradeoff is not working?
This is not about politics. It is about patterns. And the pattern is clear. The violence does not stop because the tools of that violence remain everywhere.
So the real question is not whether we are outraged. We always are. The real question is whether we are finally willing to confront the root cause.
When does the madness stop?
— Joseph Harrod, Chicago
Deterrence and incarceration
The news media and journalists have chronicled how a man with a gun — who never should have been walking among the citizens of Chicago — shot and killed a Chicago police officer and critically wounded his partner. It was a tragic day for those officers, their families, the city of Chicago and the United States.
America has lost the concept of deterrence and incarceration, the very reasons those institutions were established. We cannot simply ignore the past when it comes to our thinking and legislation. While there should be exceptions for a youth on their first arrest, it is a different story when there are several pages of prior offenses.
We do not need more laws; we simply have to put and keep violent offenders in jail. If not, it all seems OK until it happens to you or someone in your family.
— Roberto L. Garcia, Chicago
Stronger federal laws needed
After reading many articles about the double cop shooting at Swedish Hospital, I was dismayed to read that the SAFE-T Act is being blamed yet again. The defendant, Alphanso Talley, had a lengthy criminal record dating to his teen years. He entered the criminal justice system well before the SAFE-T Act came into effect. One can also blame the most recent judge who did not detain him, but there were multiple judges, and a mandatory supervised release system that heard evidence about Talley’s violations of conditions for almost a decade.
There are two pieces of information about which I have not read. One concerns a public safety assessment score. The PSA is an instrument that is administered by pretrial officials who score whether or not a defendant is a flight risk or a danger to society. Judges get these scores and use them as a guide. Talley, with his lengthy rap sheet, should have scored poorly and raised many red flags.
An alleged straw purchaser who bought the weapon in a gun store in Indiana was mentioned. She had a long history of drug use. Prosecutors stated she was in and out of rehab, never staying very long. No one checked this before she purchased the gun? I guess our federal gun laws do nothing to mandate checks on whether or not these applications are truthful.
Stronger federal gun laws and wider use of the PSA might have prevented this tragedy.
— Jan Goldberg, Riverside
Failure from ‘catch and release’
Another failure of Gov. JB Pritzker’s SAFE-T Act, or better called “catch and release.” This time, it cost the life of one Chicago Police Department officer and another clinging to life. How many more?
And he wants to be president? Wake up, Illinois.
— William L Neurauter, Palatine
USPS should justify increase
I recently read that the cost of a first-class stamp will probably be going up by 4 cents soon. I get it. The cost of fuel, employees, brick-and-mortar buildings, equipment, maintenance of the delivery trucks. I’m not complaining about the cost of mailing out birthday cards.
I would like to know how these increases are actually helping me get or send my mail in a timely fashion.
On Sept. 16, I mailed a birthday card, gift enclosed, to our grandson in Florida. It arrived in November, well past the Oct. 4 birthday. My Connecticut friend received our Christmas card in March. An Easter greeting, postmarked March 31 from Connecticut, was delivered here April 24, well past Easter. Another Easter greeting, postmarked April 2 from our son in Florida, arrived April 23. A Christmas card, sent from St. Charles on Dec. 15, arrived here in March. Perhaps the mailperson walked it here.
I took the envelopes, as directed by the U.S. Postal Service website, to the post office to see if this problem could be solved. The very patient mailperson in the St. Charles facility explained that, unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done. He suggested that I go to the post office whenever mailing something and get it “time-stamped.” He also suggested that if I am mailing a card that contains a gift, I use an envelope that could provide tracking.
He then took the time to explain that he could not help me with the “informed delivery” issue. I have used it since its inception, but for some reason, it canceled my subscription. No problem. Two and a half hours on the site, and I fixed the issue, of which there was none, but at least it works!
If a company wants an increase, it is my firm belief that it should provide better service and rectify its ongoing issues.
— Priscilla Virelli, Geneva
Note to readers: In honor of our “Chicago 2050” op-ed series, we’d like to hear from you about your hopes for what Chicago will be like in 25 years. (Sincere thoughts only.) Send a letter of no more than 400 words to letters@chicagotribune.com. Be sure to include your full name and your city/town.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
