Perspectives: Red flags we’re missing on gun control

November 11, 2018 Utah Channel 3

OPINION — Two firearms-related tragedies have taken place in the past week. One is a matter of intense media focus while the other is being downplayed.

For those who are willing to think outside the 3-by-5 index card of allowable opinion, there are some clear lessons to be gleaned from each of them.

The killing of 12 innocent people by a deranged gunman in a California nightclub has provided fertile soil for the usual cast of gun control opportunists and political ambulance chasers. What few people seem to be asking is how could such an atrocity occur in a state with such strict gun laws?

California has a 10-day waiting period on handgun purchases, which it also limits to one handgun per month. It prohibits private sales and requires a background check on every firearms purchase. It regulates ammo sales.

It prohibits regular capacity magazines. It discourages concealed carry by the law-abiding by making permits virtually impossible to obtain. California also vigorously tracks and disarms those convicted of a crime and others it considers “dangerous.”

Despite all of these obstacles, the gunman was able to legally purchase his handgun and carry out the murder of 12 other people. How exactly would more restrictions have helped anyone?

It’s a revealing example of the kind of statist blind faith that encourages true believers to trust the authorities to protect them even as it makes it as difficult and expensive as possible for the law-abiding to protect themselves. We’re supposed to believe that if enough people are willing to give up their freedom and the primary responsibility for their own personal safety, bad things will cease to happen.

Someone is trying to sell us a box of rocks.

The reason so many decent folks tend to buy into this authoritarian mythology is that shocking acts of mass violence tend to short-circuit our emotions and our ability to think rationally. That means we’re more likely to make choices in an attempt to feel better rather than carefully considering whether we’re actually affecting positive change.

Aaron Pomerantz, a graduate student in social psychology at the University of Oklahoma, has written a worthwhile essay on “The Four Things Everyone Gets Wrong About Mass Violence.”

Among the responses Pomerantz identifies are the tendency to engage in emotional decision-making, which limits our capacity to see alternatives or to recognize flaws in our plans. We also tend to oversimplify and assign simple causes for actions that are often the result of highly complex societal and psychological issues.

He explains the availability heuristic which persuades us to believe that shocking events like mass shootings or shark attacks are happening more frequently than they actually are. When the media and political class talk about these things as if they were a daily occurrence – which they are not – we fallaciously believe that the authorities are right to take extreme action.

Pomerantz also points out the tendency to engage in hindsight bias in which we behave as if we “knew it all along” when someone points out signs that might have indicated impending trouble. Public policy that has been shaped by hindsight bias can be seen every time we are expected to submit to official molestation while passing through security at the airport.

Who in their right mind would wish for more of that?

A tragic example of where this can lead can be found in the second story of gun-related violence that played out last week in Ferndale, Maryland.

Police officers shot a 61-year-old man to death after showing up at his home to confiscate his firearms based upon a newly enacted “red flag” law. Those laws have been enacted by a handful of states who will forcibly disarm citizens upon the mere accusation that they may be unstable.

When gun-toting strangers showed up banging on his door at 5 in the morning, Gary Willis met them at the door with a gun in his hand. When the police officers demanded he hand over his guns, Willis refused and was shot after arguing with the police.

In typical statist fashion, the police chief of Anne Arundel County tried to spin the story as proof that the so-called “red flag” laws had worked exactly as intended. But did they?

Chief Timothy Altomare stated, that “[W]e don’t know what we prevented or could’ve prevented. What would’ve happened if we didn’t go there at 5 a.m.?”

None of us knows what they might have prevented but we damn sure know what they caused.

If preventing unnecessary violence was the goal, it seems like they failed miserably.

Preemptive laws invite abuse. To avoid that, hold specific individuals accountable for their actual behavior that causes harm to others. Leave everyone else alone.

This was once understood to be the basis for legitimate government. Force alone doesn’t grant legitimacy.

Bryan Hyde is an opinion columnist specializing in current events and liberty viewed through what he calls the lens of common sense. The opinions stated in this article are his own and may not be representative of St. George News.

Email: bryanh@stgnews.com

Twitter: @youcancallmebry