Charles Huckelbury lives in Henniker.

Each time a mass killing occurs with disturbing frequency in the U.S., arguments arise concerning how best to prevent the next one. And there is always a next one, as the tragic events in Nashville demonstrate. Those arguments on prevention fall into two general categories: punishment and deterrence.

With respect to the punishment approach, sensible people agree that more serious crimes deserve harsher punishment, the infamous three-strikes laws notwithstanding. Someone who injures or kills another person deserves a more severe sentence than someone who, say, shoplifts a candy bar.

Senator Rick Scott from Florida recently called for a mandatory death sentence for anyone convicted of crimes like the Nashville murders. A death sentence would presumably also function as a deterrent to those considering such crimes. That, however, ignores the evidence.

Deterrence works only when dealing with a rational mind. Consider the Nashville killer, for example, who was being treated for an “emotional disorder.” According to text messages sent prior to the attack, the shooter planned to die at the school and even gave away her location to the police. This was from the outset a suicide mission, as it is with a majority of those committing such crimes, whether at a school or a Walmart. In other words, no threat of any kind could have stopped the carnage. If, then, the punishment part of the equation doesn’t apply, what can be done to deter potential killers?

If we think of the solution in economic terms, it becomes one of supply and demand, which coincidentally represents a practical approach to the nation’s fentanyl/opioid epidemic. If the demand remains constant or even increases, the logical approach is to reduce the supply. If a personal or social pathology prompts a desire to murder school children, then the prudent approach would be to limit the availability of the instruments that would facilitate the mass killing.

The Nashville killer bought seven guns legally and carried a pistol and two AR-style rifles. Had the Nashville police not responded as quickly and heroically as they did, the death toll would have been much higher. Think Uvalde, Texas.

With that in mind, I watched a congressional representative from Tennessee say that “criminals will always be criminals,” implying that the focus should be on punishment and not deterrence. Even granting the proposition about criminality, that doesn’t mean you don’t lock your doors at night. Accepting that crime will always be with us, we have an obligation to ourselves, our children, and each other not to make any crime easier to commit by furnishing the tools required to do so.

Given the persistent school shootings in the U.S., it seems bizarre that politicians would prefer banning books that might “harm” a sixth grader’s sensibilities over getting rid of a military weapon that is habitually used to kill those same sixth graders. This doesn’t abdicate the guarantees of the Second Amendment but merely recognizes the government’s right and responsibility to regulate what arms citizens may bear. That seems like a reasonable option that will allow children to return home after school.

]]>