Traditional Conservative Answers to Mass Shootings

Almost immediately after the horrific news of the school shootings in Parkland, Florida broke, the debate over how to address mass shootings, particularly in schools, began once again. Many began to offer sympathy and prayers for the victims. Unfortunately, such expressions of concern were often met with rage over a lack of action, including the following tweet from astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson:

Evidence collected over many years, obtained from many locations, indicates that the power of Prayer is insufficient to stop bullets from killing school children.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) February 16, 2018

I’m more than happy to offer my own thoughts on concrete solutions to these and other mass shootings with a traditional conservative approach.

Examining the Problem

One of the problems with the debate we’ve seen carried out on television or in social media is that solutions are proposed without any real analysis of the problem. Prudence demands that we carefully analyze the problem at hand before we begin to weigh possible solutions. If the “solution” doesn’t actually solve the problem, it does nothing or, worse yet, creates other problems.

It might seem like an obvious problem. One or more persons who desire to cause the deaths of large numbers of people are able to access one or more firearms, an inventory of ammunition for the firearm, and then are able to successfully use the firearm on scores of innocent people who varying degrees of ability to defend themselves.

But this statement actually raises more questions than it answers. Let’s start with the first question.

What drives someone to desire to commit mass murders?

This is perhaps the most complex question in the entire discussion. Based on information that has come out of recent mass shootings, the reasons seem to vary quite a bit. In most instances, however, it’s apparent that some form of mental illness is to blame. That is not to say that all persons suffering from mental illness are likely or even prone to violence, much less mass violence against a group of people.

Of course, we know that mental illness is not always the cause of mass shootings. People can have violent tendencies without having a diagnosed mental disorder.

How are these persons able to access firearms?

As noted above, some of these incidents are caused by people with diagnosed mental health issues. So why aren’t they being reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI?

First, it’s important to note that simply because someone has a mental health issue, it doesn’t mean they’re violent. If anything, the biggest danger that comes from mixing mental health and firearms is the possibility of suicide. The NICS system was largely designed to protect others from someone attempting to purchase a firearm, not to protect the purchaser. There’s also a constitutional issue, which I’ll address in more detail below.

Second, and this is perhaps the most critical issue, because many of these people have not been formally diagnosed with a mental disorder, there is nothing to report.

How are these people able to shoot so many people unchallenged and undeterred?

Think back to some of the locations of the worst mass shootings reported in recent years. Where did they take place? At schools. A night club. A movie theater. A college. Too many of these shootings are happening in areas where guns are either prohibited or significantly restricted. When many of these shooters are finally confronted, they often commit suicide. It’s apparent in many of these instances that they are seeking a venue in which they can proceed to kill as many people as possible, with as little resistance as possible, and often end it themselves once that resistance comes.

The Constitutional Limits on More Gun Control

Predictably, the first and loudest voices responding to the tragedy in Florida immediately called for tighter gun control laws, even going so far as to advocate for a new “Assault Weapons” Ban. Whether you like it or not, the Second Amendment presents a significant legal blockade to many of these proposed “solutions.”

I’m not going to spend a significant amount of time on legal analysis here. Instead, I refer you to Justice Antonin Scalia’s prose in the majority decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which provides the most thorough treatment of the Second Amendment ever presented by a Supreme Court decision. In short, the decision established that a prohibition of a class of arms that is frequently used for the lawful purpose of self-defense runs afoul of the Second Amendment (in the case of Heller, the subject was a handgun ban).

Now, that’s not to say that the right cannot be taken away. The Due Process clauses of the Fifth (as to the federal government) and Fourteenth Amendments (as to the various state governments), however, prohibit the denial of constitutional rights without due process.

Solutions Must Address the Reality of the Problem and the Legal Framework

Now, some may throw up their arms at this point and claim that I’m not serious about the problem, or that I’m okay with children being murdered, because I take seriously the constitutional rights of law abiding adults to possess firearms that are commonly in circulation today. Well, this presumes that there can’t possibly be any effective solutions other than restricting everyone’s rights to a certain class of firearms. I would argue, instead, that this line of thinking is flawed for two reasons: first, you can’t “unring the bell”. These weapons are already in circulation by the millions and if someone wants to get their hands on such a firearm, even illegally, they will do so. Instead, it is important to identify targeted solutions which address the actual problem.

Improve the Enforcement and Mechanisms Already Provided by Law

The reality is that new laws don’t help when existing laws and mechanisms aren’t being used properly. As we discovered shortly after the church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, the shooter was able to pass a NICS check even though he was previously convicted by the Air Force for domestic violence. The failure of government agencies to properly report such actions to the FBI must be addressed. To make matters worse, this was known only because mass shootings generate so much media buzz. How many other people were able to purchase and use firearms in more “routine” instances of gun violence that were barely covered by the media?

Increase Security in Gun Free Zones

The more we create spaces in which someone’s constitutional right to effective self-defense is substantially reduced, the more likely we are to see these heinous acts continue. State governments should look to Utah for the solution: allow teachers to concealed carry in their schools, and do not require them to tell administrators or teachers that they are carrying.

If you can’t quite stomach the idea of a school teacher carrying a loaded firearm in a school, states should at the very least begin to treat these buildings as the targets they are and restrict entrance to these schools. Armed guards should be posted at these schools and video surveillance should be used to monitor the surrounding grounds. Yes, it might make a school seem a bit less inviting, but this is the reality we face today.

Gun Violence Restraining Orders

A broader solution that still respects the constitutional rights of all parties involved would be the implementation of Gun Violence Restraining Orders in state courts.  National Review’s David French weighed in on this proposal in an article last week. These courts would work somewhat similarly to domestic violence courts that exist in many states, but would be focused on adjudicating the danger that a person presents by continuing to possess firearms. Statutes could be written that would allow courts to look beyond mental health diagnoses and instead examine the overall behavior and statements of a person to determine whether, by clear and convincing evidence (a higher standard than “preponderance of the evidence” used in civil cases, but lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt” used in criminal cases) a person’s access to firearms should be restricted or eliminated.

As French points out, however, this should be merely one tool of many used in order to reduce the chances that a mass shooting will happen again.

A Difference of Opinion on Solutions Doesn’t Mean We Don’t Care

There has been a disturbing trend that has been amplified as of late where some liberals believe so strongly that gun control is the only solution to the problem, that they declare loudly that anyone who prefers to seek an alternate solution doesn’t care at all.

Instead, the reality is that anyone who pushes a solution that doesn’t work only because it better fits their world view is guilty of the worst kind of pandering. The reality is that gun control has been tried in many different forms in cities and states throughout the country. The “Assault Weapons” Ban was tried for 10 years, and yet it did not reduce the number of incidents of mass shootings compared to the period of time prior to the ban, and in fact the Columbine shooting happened during the period in which the ban was in effect. As it turned out, mass shootings could be quite deadline as well with handguns and the bevy of “assault weapons” already in circulation.  The ban also didn’t have much impact on gun crime in general.

My hope is that some of the obsession with gun control is motivated out of a fear of the unknown. As gun owners, we should reach out to our friends, family and neighbors who favor gun control and offer to take them to the gun range sometime. I know many will not take the invitation, but some might. And in my experience, once someone has had a chance to shoot a firearm themselves, particular some of the “scarier” firearms such as the AR-15, they become more comfortable and take a more reasonable approach to firearm policy.