I read with interest your June 23 editorial entitled “More guns are not a solution.” You characterize reasoning for eradicating “gun free zones” as weak. I find your polemic flawed in several respects.
First, “gun free zones” are an invitation to radical Islamic terrorists, and other deranged individuals, to perpetrate the type of heinous crimes that we have seen in Orlando, San Bernadino, Chattanooga, etc. You advocate checking our Second Amendment right of self-defense at the door of venues where people congregate.
You then surmise that “collateral” deaths would be a “possibility” if concealed carry holders were permitted to have their weapons in these venues. By extension, your reason concludes that being unarmed in the face of a terrorist attack somehow makes the victims safer. To my mind, that is beyond a logical conclusion.
You cite that there was an armed individual in Pulse the night of the attack in the form of a veteran off-duty Orlando police officer who traded gunshots with the killer, but was badly outgunned. Once that threat evaporated when the officer retreated, the attacker was obviously secure in his belief he had no other victims who were armed in the club.
The tactical advantage of a concealed weapon is that a perpetrator does not know the person is carrying a gun. You question, “Would a terrified civilian hit a target a trained officer missed?” That depends on the proficiency of the shooter and the element of tactical surprise that you so cavalierly dismiss.
The fact of the matter is that whenever a mass shooting takes place by some radical Islamic terrorist or some other unhinged individual, the reflexive response of the liberal left is to attempt to curtail the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.