Demonizing law-abiding gun owners will not help

Is it possible to stop mass shootings? No. Is it possible to curtail them? Maybe.

While it would be theoretically possible to stop all shootings if we could magically eliminate all firearms, gunpowder, and the knowledge to make them, we all know that it is impossible to do so.

The rush to restrict or ban objects associated with these horrible acts reminds me of the notion that cats were believed to be the source of the Black Death. To halt the spread, cats were killed. We now know that it was the fleas on rats that were the vector. Oops. Problem not ameliorated.

The media like to focus on the misuse of firearms. I guess that it makes good headlines. To a lesser degree, they do mention uncool means (e.g., vehicles in Nice and Berlin or bombs in Bath and Boston or arson in NYC and Kyoto). But a gasoline graphic just can’t compete with an evil gun, eh?

The idea that any particular law or set of laws will stop a determined individual from acting out is sadly absurd. Law enforcement research has found that the majority of these mass shootings involve months of planning by the perpetrators. These aren’t people who “go off.”

A heartfelt if naive letter from a high school student was in the Concord Monitor this morning. She thinks that not all states require a background check to buy a firearm. Does she not know about the Brady law and NICS? She also notes that 47 states have laws prohibiting guns near schools. Does she not know about the Safe Schools Act?

Do you know what about 95 percent of mass shootings have in common? They are in “gun-free zones” like the schools referred to in the Monitor letter. I used quotes as the assailants don’t seem to be deterred by those laws. You know what is deterred? Law-abiding citizens who could fight back if they were allowed to carry defensive firearms.

Also notable is that most of the mass shooters obtained their firearms legally. As in, they passed the Federal background check. A couple obtained them by fraud (i.e., straw purchases) or murder of the legal owner.

Currently, a refreshed push for so-called red flag laws is afoot. The impetus is that, if we can somehow recognize that someone could potentially harm others, we can restrict access to one means of harm. Apparently, the notion of due process is less important than “doing something.” The propositions ignore that this “dangerous person” is still free and able to make a new plan. Most of the bills are ex parte, so the subject of the order doesn’t have an opportunity to plead his or her case until after the confiscation. Imagine that happening with your vehicle after an anonymous person reported that you might drive drunk or that you might be thinking about driving into a crowd at a protest.

I believe that most, if not all, states already have laws in place to place someone in custody for psychiatric evaluation for 72 hours. Why does this tool not get used (e.g., with the Parkland or Dayton shooters)?

The FBI’s researchers have made some suggestions regarding reducing mass shootings. The thrust of these suggestions is to deny the disaffected potential murderers their glory. The media shouldn’t trumpet their names, their photos, their statements, and their body counts. People who feel the need to get revenge and to [finally] be noticed may well be dissuaded when they see that their acts may not be on the 24/7 news cycle.

My final point is regarding the outpouring of support for mentally ill people from mental heath professionals and sympathetic citizens. These folks say that we shouldn’t demonize people with mental illness because not all ill people are a danger. Sounds reasonable. So, why is it reasonable to demonize millions of firearm owners because a handful have murdered others? When the media focus on the misuse of firearms and practically ignore the 1-2 million defensive firearm uses, can we be surprised that most non-gun owners believe that guns are bad?

Rick Notkin

Gilford