It seems that every time some deranged individual turns to mass murder as an outlet for frustration or mental problems, anti-gun advocates at all levels begin calling for more restrictions on gun ownership. This is before the news channels have even announced the final body count. Such was the case with the late March shooting in a Nashville, Tennessee, Christian elementary school. The evil former student killed three children and three adults working at the school.
Nashville Shooting Spurs the Wrong “Solutions”
First off, our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, their families, and all affected by this mass murder. It was a terrible tragedy, and we are heartbroken over the loss of life and innocence. Putting an end to such violence should be a goal of all Americans.
That said, promoting wrong “solutions” does nothing to solve the problem. In this case, the immediate push for restrictive gun legislation came as soon as news channels reported that the mass murderer had taken two “assault weapons” into the school during the attack.
Following the shooting, President Joe Biden immediately called on Congress to pass a ban on so-called “assault weapons.”
Later in the day, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre doubled down on Biden’s demand, adding a few more restrictions to the president’s wish list.
“How many more children have to be murdered before Republicans in Congress will step up and act to pass the assault weapons ban; to close loopholes in our background check system; or to require the safe storage of guns?” Jean-Pierre asked during a press briefing.
Three Knee-Jerk Proposals
A look at those three proposals relating to this particular shooting shows why this knee-jerk reaction, repeated after each mass murder, wouldn’t have changed a thing.
The real miracle is that there was no further death or injury to anyone else. This is thanks to teachers and staff locking doors and hiding children. Besides, if such guns were “banned,” would a person willing to commit mass murder of schoolchildren really worry about obeying that law?
Further, banning these popular semi-auto rifles is a direct infringement on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. That’s not just my opinion, it’s also the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.
With more than 24 million of these rifles in circulation today, they are clearly commonly owned for lawful purposes. This meets the threshold set by the Supreme Court in its Heller decision.
Biden’s goal of so-called “universal” background checks would have done nothing to stop the attack, either. (I say “so-called” because criminals would ignore it, like they do other laws, making it far from “universal.”)
Police officials announced after the murders that the suspect had legally purchased seven guns from five different stores. All after passing background checks.
Regarding safe storage laws, most gun owners already know it’s their responsibility to practice safe storage of their guns. Whether carried on their person, in their vehicle, or stored in their home.
It’s hard to see how Biden and his communication director could think any law pertaining to storage would have kept the 28-year-old killer from accessing the firearms used in the attack.
Harden the Schools
What would be effective at stopping such attacks without trampling the rights of lawful Americans is to make schools harder targets. Reinforce entrances and exits, and make sure there are armed security personnel on site any time students/staff are present.
In fact, Nashville Metro Police Chief John Drake gave an update to the press following the murders. He stated that he believes such measures actually saved some lives the morning of the murders. At the press conference, Drake said that investigators have determined the suspect had considered a different target to attack. “But because of threat assessment by the suspect, too much security, she decided not to,” said Drake.
Incidentally, you might have noticed that we try to refrain from using the terms to describe the killer so popular in the so-called “mainstream” media. Terms like “mass shooter,” “active shooter,” and “school shooter.”
Those are terms meant to draw more attention to the device used—the gun—than to the evil perpetrator of the crime. “Killer” or “murderer,” which we prefer to use, is much more accurate and doesn’t carry the anti-gun connotation.
As for the use of the word “evil,” we can all debate what exactly that entails. But in contrasting good and evil, few, I believe, would argue that a person charging into a school and killing innocent children and adults doesn’t fall toward the evil end of any such spectrum.
In the end, limiting access to firearms for the law-abiding—the only people who follow gun laws—would do nothing to stop evil murderers already committed to killing other human beings. That being the case, calls for further restrictions are misguided at best.