Business-as-usual response in the aftermath of the Michigan State mass shooting

Few issues elicit more visceral responses and polarize our nation than gun safety. The recent mass shooting at Michigan State University (MSU) once again ignited this flame, with calls for more firearm restrictions and controls that would hopefully curb such events. 

As seen from the recent shootings in Half Moon Bay, Monterey Park, and now at MSU, every such event has its own unique characteristics and features.

If eliminating mass shootings and mass killings were easy, they would have been stopped years ago. The fact is that they are complex, with an uncertainty that makes them exceedingly difficult to predict. No one can forecast where the next shooting will occur, how it will be executed, the age and background of the perpetrators and who will be targeted, as seen by the array of shootings so far in 2023. 

There are two basic positions when it comes to reducing mass shootings and mass killings. One side argues that more restrictions on firearm purchases and access will reduce shootings. They believe that weapons kept out of the hands of assailants will make everyone safer. 

The other side argues that fewer restrictions on firearm purchases and access will reduce shootings. They believe that if weapons, including concealed weapons, are ubiquitous in the population, assailants will think twice before initiating a shooting. 

Both these arguments have flaws and merits in certain circumstances. Yet there is no one-size-fits-all strategy.

Responses that will uniformly stop all mass shootings and mass killings do not exist. The single largest miss-use of firearms is suicides, which account for over one-half of all firearm deaths. In 2023 so far, over 3,800 suicides have been reported with a firearm. If just 4 percent of all suicide deaths with firearms were stopped, this would dwarf the number of deaths due to mass shootings combined so far this year. 

So, what principles can be applied to reduce needless and avoidable firearm deaths? 

Focus on the person, not on the weapon

Firearms are efficient killing weapons. But they are not the only such weapon. Knives and bats can inflict significant harms. The mass killing in Saskatchewan, Canada in September 2022 highlighted how knives can be a dangerous weapon for destruction.

Focus on the response, not on blame

When a mass shooting or mass killing begins to unfold, everyone must respond appropriately and decisively. This was seen in the Monterey Park mass killing, when people confronted and disarmed the shooter in a second location, preventing countless lives lost.

Focus on safety, not on bans

The preponderance of gun owners are responsible. They understand how to store their weapons and how to keep others safe around them. They feel safer with a firearm in their home, for personal protection. They may also engage in hunting or sport shooting. Any blanket ban needlessly penalizes them. 

Most would argue that something has to change, or needless and avoidable deaths will continue. Everyone can agree on this. What no one can agree with is what needs to change. 

The Michigan legislature plans to introduce tighter gun control laws, including improved background checks, safe storage, and red flag laws. Some of these policies may even have some merit. However, if such laws are necessary and useful, then a mass shooting like what was seen at MSU should not be needed to launch such new legislation.

By metaphor, if there was a known flaw in an airplane design, would the Federal Aviation Administration need to wait for an airplane crash to demand that it be fixed? Of course not. Anytime there is a knee-jerk reaction to a mass shooting calling for more firearm restrictions, such calls are politically motivated. 

Every needless and avoidable firearm death is a tragedy. The family and friends of the victims must live with their loss for the rest of their lives. Instead of engaging in ineffective political debates, let’s begin an open and bipartisan dialogue to make gun safety a top priority. Without such bipartisan communication, we are certain to witness yet another sequence of needless and avoidable deaths, somewhere, in some venue, over the next few weeks. It remains to be seen what it will take for the two factions to work together to craft a common solution.

Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a professor of computer science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. A data scientist, he applies his expertise in data-driven risk-based decision-making to evaluate and inform public policy.