Does being a shooting victim give you moral authority to argue for gun control?

Victor Joecks’ Wednesday commentary, “Being a victim doesn’t automatically make you an expert,” misses several important observations and realities.

I would argue that being a shooting victim has more relevance to the suffering and realities of gun violence than discussions by observers who “conduct a reasoned debate” and calmly balance the “rights” of gun owners with those who have experienced suffering and continue to fear a repetition of such violence when they return to school, their respective house of worship or any public event.

By innuendo, Mr. Joecks suggests that students and shooting survivors have become props of the media. I only have to turn on my TV to see and hear endless interviews with politicians and talk-show hosts regarding the very same topic.

By far one of the most troubling comments by Mr. Joecks was the statement that politicians who demand that Congress “do something” to stop school shootings can’t even tell the public what that “something” is. In addressing an especially complex problem or controversy, the rational approach is for the interested parties to sit down and to discuss the issue and its impact, look at possible solutions and to relinquish self-interests and be willing to reach a compromise that serves the interests of the public. Public safety and public health issues should trump any other factors, e.g., politics, finances and even Second Amendment rights.

Children have become the focus of gun control advocates because they are the victims of senseless gun violence. It is appropriate to share their experiences and their rightful fears that unless “something” is done, these senseless acts of violence will recur. History does repeat itself.