When I look back at over a decade of writing about gun violence, I am struck by the fact that I keep writing essentially the same thing. This is not because I am a lazy writer. This is because almost nothing changes other than the names. Those who oppose gun control have a script they follow after each mass shooting, and it contributes to ensuring that nothing changes.
Immediately after a mass shooting, some people demand more gun control. In response, those who oppose gun control respond with thoughts and prayers. They then say that now is not the time to discuss gun violence. Are they right?
On the one hand, this might be reasonable After all, strong emotions can impede good reasoning, and laws should be well crafted. There is an abundance of fallacies “fueled” by emotions that lead people astray from good reasoning, even when they are acting in good faith. Examples include appeal to anger, appeal to pity, and appeal to fear. In these fallacies, something that creates an emotional effect (anger, pity or fear) substitute for a logical reason to accept a claim. People are more likely to commit such fallacies when they have strong feelings. For example, a person’s anger about and fear of violence might lead them to think a bad law is a good idea.
A reasonable concern is that people will make poor decisions about laws or policies while feeling strong emotions and these decisions can have negative consequences or lead to ineffective solutions. One can argue that better decisions would be made after emotions have cooled down and we should make laws and policies when our reasoning is at its best. As would be expected, the same people who advise a waiting period for discussing gun violence are quick to press for laws they favor when something happens that supports their political narratives, such as when a migrant commits a crime or has a traffic accident.
On the other hand, waiting to discuss gun violence has downsides. First, concern about gun violence fades over time as people are distracted and their emotions cool. So, a delay might not lead to a more reasonable discussion of gun laws and policies but to no real discussion at all. This is illustrated by the usual media cycle: there is a focus on the shooting for a few days and then coverage fades until the next incident. So, it seems reasonable to push for serious discussion when people are paying attention.
Second, there is the worry that the call to wait is not motivated by a desire to have calm reflection but a tactic to take advantage of the media’s and the public’s short attention span. If the discussion can be held off long enough, people will forget (as noted above) and the status quo will continue.
While I favor a rational discussion, this can be done without waiting until people have mostly lost interest. As such, the time to discuss the matter seriously is now. And always has been.