Does Our Need to Do Something Validate Doing Anything?

by John Wesley Slider

The tragic events of Orlando are a call to action. We should be outraged by an act of war against any Americans, because an attack against one American is morally an attack against all Americans.

The emotions of the moment spark a need within all of us to do something. These emotions,however, do not validate doing anything or some things. Some reactions may only fill our need to do something. Many reactions simply help us feel good. Some reactions are designed to advance specific political agenda.

We should not do anything in order to do something. We should do something that effectively addresses this particular event and more importantly helps to avoid events such as these in the future.

One of the more shameful, agenda driven, responses that float quickly to the surface is the call for more gun control or greater restrictions on possession of guns. This response certainly makes some feel better – feel as if we are doing something; but does this response really accomplish what we need – increase the safety of all Americans.

Would banning guns have avoided the tragedy at the night club in Orlando? The answer is not only “No;” but the full answer is that banning guns did not work. According to the 2016 Florida Statutes, Title XLVI, Chapter 790, the night club in Orlando was a “gun free zone.” The weapons used in the shootings were illegal to possess (even more to use) in the night club. It should be noted that the gunman was finally stopped by the legal use of a legal weapons by police officers. Should we then ask, “How many lives would have been saved if one person had been in possession of a weapon and used it effectively against the gunman?”

The recent horrific event in Orlando is defined as a mass public shooting. A mass public shooting is understood to be a multiple-homicide incident in which four or more victims, not including the perpetrator, are killed with firearms in one or more proximate locations and not connected to an underlying crime or dispute over sovereignty.

The Los Angeles Times has listed the deadliest U.S. mass shootings between 1984 and 2016 in an article on June 12, 2016. All ten of these events were in gun free buildings or zones.

Gun free zones – no matter how small or large – do not discourage persons from initiating a mass public shooting. One could legitimately conclude that gun free zones actually encourage mass public shootings by presenting soft targets to potential shooters.

Proponents of aggressive gun control legislation point to European countries as examples of how tighter laws can lower the death rates attributed to mass public shootings. The statistics do not support this assertion (see Table 1):

Even if one puts it in terms of the frequency of public mass shootings and not the death rates – as President Obama carefully says – the assertion is still not supported (see Table 2):

Another “feel good” suggestion is to ban assault weapons. There is no current legal definition of an assault weapon. Many persons think that an assault weapon has a particular look (see below). Others confuse the military definition of an assault rifle with an assault weapon. In military terms an assault rifle is a select-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. The shooter the horror in Orlando used an AR-15 which is NOT a select-fire rifle by military definition.

I am not familiar with the interior of the night club in Orlando, but my first thought when I heard about the shooters choice of weapon was that tactically it was an amateur's choice. I am familiar with the military version of the AR-15 (the M-16 which has select-fire). In close quarters the semi-automatic rifle would have been cumbersome and slow at best.

Some will go so far as to suggest that all firearms should be confiscated. The argument goes that if even one life is saved then it is worth violating the constitution.

This argument based on the standard of “if even one life is saved” breaks down very quickly. First, one must ask, “Where else does our society use this standard?” If we were to apply this standard to every part of society we would quickly cease to function.

One could argue that confiscation of all automobiles would easily reach that standard. In fact, not only is the possession of an automobile not a constitutionally protected right, but a person is more likely to be killed by a car than by a rifle or a handgun. It is worth noting that more cars are used illegally at a given moment than are rifles or handguns.

A ban on allowing any immigration of Muslims is morally and constitutionally repugnant, but it too would reach the standard of “if even one life is saved.” Would it be worth such a violation of the constitution if only one life could be saved?

So, what should we do?

We should continue doing what many Americans are selecting. We should allow for the responsible legal possession of hand guns and rifles by law abiding and responsible adults.
We should continue doing what many Americans are selecting. We should allow trained, licensed, and responsible adults to legally carry a hand gun or rifle and eliminate gun free zones.
We should encourage (and possibly require) persons who legally are licensed to carry a weapon to possess insurance.
We should ban immigration (and track and limit travelers) whose nation of origin encourages or produces terrorists and ban the possession of weapons by non-US citizens.
We should put aside our desire to be "nice" and politically correct. We should profile as a law enforcement tool.
We should continue doing what many Americans are selecting. We should encourage membership in and appreciate groups such as the National Rifle Association that teach responsible gun ownership and safety. It should be noted that no NRA member has perpetrated a mass public shooting.

We should not do anything. We should do something that will decrease the number of persons who are killed in mass public shootings and the frequency of such shootings.

These suggestions may be a start.