IndyStar

We just don’t get it about guns. We are told repeatedly by some politicians and the NRA that mass shootings would not occur if more of us had guns. Well, in Dallas, five men with guns were killed by a lone shooter. They were in a crowd that had many trained men carrying weapons. Reports of officers being shot and killed continued for an hour and a half. Two hours later, the police reported they had the suspect cornered. After fruitless negotiations, concern for officers’ safety led to the use of a robot bomb to neutralize the threat.

There goes the notion that a few untrained citizens with guns in public places will make us safer from mass shootings. These were trained officers, and there were many present. This shooter only targeted a small minority of the people present, but he could have killed many more.

This shooter would have been able to pass a background check. Background checks will help screen some out, but as a psychiatrist I know that aside from a history of violence or addiction, predicting violence is nearly impossible. If Americans want fewer mass shootings, they need to give up their addiction to assault rifles and similar weapons of mass destruction. They are not needed for self-defense, but semiautomatic weapons with large magazines are required for a successful mass shooting. Getting rid of civilian assault weapons, including those disguised as sporting guns, and high-capacity semiautomatic handguns is the best answer to limiting mass shootings, which every other country with a high standard of living, political stability and low crime rates recognize. The Second Amendment was written at a time when very skilled hands could fire a rifle about three times a minute. Its writers would be appalled at the carnage that has ensued when it is used to defend a nearly unfettered right to the means for a sniper to kill five police officers over two hours or others to kill 12 to 50 people in a couple of minutes in a church, nightclub, school or theater.

Stephen R. Dunlop, MD

Indianapolis