“My neighbour is in the street with a gun.”
“What’s his name?”
“Jack Bennest.”
“He’s not in our database of authorized gun owners. He can’t have a gun.”
“It looks just like those assault rifles you see on TV.”
“Those are prohibited weapons. Could it be a shovel?”
“I don’t thinks so. Besides, everybody knows that he’s … ”
“… I cannot discuss what we know about Doctor Bennest.“
“He’s not a doctor.”
“We have spent a lot of time and money on our databases and … (click) … Hello? Hello?”
Somebody kills somebody. That’s homicide. Somebody shoots a number of somebodies. That’s a mass shooting … maybe. Depending where you live and when, and depending whether you are government, media, or academic, the ‘number of somebodies’ threshold can vary. Three, four, or five usually qualifies … sometimes including the shooter but not when the shooter is related to the victims.
Whatever.
After – sometimes during – each mass shooting anywhere in the world three things happen: one, the media feeds on the free lunch; two, the call is made for more gun control; and three, the question is asked: why didn’t the intelligence agencies see this coming? In many cases there is a fourth response: law-abiding citizens buy more guns.
The media is going to continue to report the news and, although they are less likely now to give notoriety to the shooter, they are self-regulating. It is unlikely that very many governments will seek to censor the media. The print, radio, TV, or on-line outlet is motivated by simple economics and will strive to maintain their audience.
Reporting news makes money.
In several countries, the ownership of firearms by otherwise law-abiding people has been made more difficult. Licencing, registration, storage, and pre-purchase scrutiny have been the primary legislative tools. In recent years, the focus has turned to the features of the firearms themselves such as magazine capacity, rate of fire, and concealability. Firearms are often banned by type and sometimes by appearance.
Bureaucracy and bans are about as effective as hiding tobacco products behind curtains and prohibiting the sale of alcohol.
In some countries, intelligence agencies have increased their surveillance even though, when it comes to domestic surveillance, most legislators are reluctant to mandate broader and deeper data gathering. They recognize that the vast majority of us are law-abiding and that we don’t particularly like being monitored. Politicians are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to increasing surveillance of their electorate.
Besides, intelligence work is expensive and prone to error.
I would rather that we and our governments do nothing than continue with responses that are ineffective, intrusive, and unnecessarily expensive.
Let’s all address the underlying cause.