Matthew Tully

A man in California, still raw from losing his son to a madman's bullets, stood up and railed in recent days against the "idiots in government" who have ignored the nation's plague of gun violence while bowing to the gun industry and the special-interest organizations they help fund.

The man, Richard Martinez, broke down as he looked into a TV camera, his anger deep and directed at the apathy that has followed years of shootings on college campuses, in so many neighborhoods, and even at an elementary school. The video of his interviews and speeches is powerful and, as a parent, hard to watch. Recorded just days after six college students died in a spree of violence near Santa Barbara, Martinez pleaded for action so that the death of his only son might at least "mean something."

"People need to understand that real people died here," he told CNN.

In Mr. Martinez, some of us see a hero.

State Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour, one of the state's most vocal defenders of gun rights and of the National Rifle Association, sees something else. Above a picture of Martinez and a link to a story about his words, Rep. Lucas complained on his Facebook page that it was an example of the "vile exploitation that those of us that believe in our Natural and Constitutional Right to defend ourselves MUST stand up against."

Lucas insisted later that he wasn't calling Martinez vile and that his complaint was with the media types who he believes are exploiting the father. He seems to have missed the fact that Martinez is a grown man who was clearly eager to say what needed to be said. He seems unaware that like many grieving parents before him, Martinez willingly spoke out against the gun culture that has ended so many young lives.

I understand the strong feelings many people have about gun rights. But what struck me was that Lucas and others could see a tragedy like this latest one and think first and most deeply about what it might mean for their side of the gun debate. His chief concern seemed to be shutting down any conversation about new gun laws. And that's straight out of the NRA's cynical playbook.

I called Lucas and asked why he thought it was wrong for a father to speak out against the type of violence that had killed his son. Lucas said he felt nothing but sympathy for Martinez and other parents like him, even though his Facebook page was filled with criticism of gun control advocates and few words of sympathy for victims. He said he is just frustrated with gun-control advocates and the debate that follows every mass shooting.

"The media bears as much as responsibility as anybody," Lucas said.

Why, I asked?

"Because they are talking about 'The Gunman,'" Lucas said. "He murdered people with a knife. He used his car to kill people, so why aren't they calling him 'The Car-man'? They always go to the gun."

I should note that there was ample coverage of the fact that the killer used a knife and a car in addition to guns as he committed his atrocities. But the debate turned to guns because more than 11,000 people per year in recent years have been victims of homicides involving guns and little is being done about it. The debate is about guns because we are not facing an epidemic of people intentionally killing others with their cars. Unlike with guns, efforts to make cars safer are embraced routinely. We're also having this debate because gun violence has ripped apart so many cities.

(As I wrote this column Thursday afternoon a news alert announced that yet another homicide had occurred on the streets of Indianapolis. And as I edited it Friday morning another news alert told of three people killed and a police officer shot on the Eastside.)

Lucas and I have talked at length about our deep disagreements when it comes to gun policy. I believe stronger background checks would help, as would an all-out crackdown on the illegal possession of guns and dealers who sell a disproportionate number of the guns used in criminal acts. I believe we should look at the horrific violence that grips many cities, such as Indianapolis, and consider it a crisis. I don't believe that longer waiting periods, restrictions on assault weapons or limits on the number of weapons a person can buy in a month or year infringe on constitutional rights.

Rep. Lucas disagrees.

"People are asking, 'Oh my God, what can we do?' " he said, arguing that no matter what laws are passed there will be large numbers of deaths caused by everything from medical errors to car accidents to gunshots. "Putting everything in perspective and knowing that, one, we are all going to die, it seems like we are setting zero to be the perfect goal, and that will just never be reached."

No kidding. But that's an example of what is wrong with many debates these days — the idea that if a problem cannot be eliminated, then any attempt to improve it is a waste of time. I see a lot of value in even a small reduction in the amount of gun violence in this country.

Lucas rejects any and all new laws when it comes to guns. His solution is one you hear a lot about these days, one that boggles my mind: more guns. As we talked about the shootings in California, he said, "If those people had been armed, they could have defended themselves and they would have had a chance."

I look at things differently.

If our nation took gun violence more seriously, if our politicians didn't bow to the extremists at the NRA, if we remembered that great nations can tackle great problems sensibly, if we worked harder to make sure people who shouldn't have guns didn't have them, and if gun-rights advocates would encourage smart debates rather than work furiously to shut them down, then perhaps we would be able to save some lives.

Tully: What the NRA should be shouting about

Tully: NRA supporters fire back at my criticism

You can reach me at matthew.tully@indystar.com or on Twitter @matthewltully.