Debunking Misconceptions About the Lewiston Shooting Promoted by Gun Control Advocates
On October 25, a tragic incident unfolded in Lewiston, Maine, where Robert Card, a 40-year-old Army Reservist and military firearms instructor, killed 18 people and injured 13 others at a bowling alley and a bar. Card, who had a history of serious mental health issues, led law enforcement on a multiday manhunt, leaving residents in fear before ultimately taking his own life. Following the incident, several gun control activists took to social media, making several claims about the incident that warrant further examination.
Claim 1: Card was a "Good Guy with a Gun"
One of the claims made by a prominent Ivy League professor and gun control advocate was that Card was a "good guy with a gun" until the moment he opened fire. This claim suggests that Card was no different from millions of lawful gun owners in America, implying that all gun owners pose a potential threat to public safety.
However, this claim overlooks the fact that Card had a long history of mental health problems and violent behaviors, which were recognized by those around him, including the military. His family members had noticed his declining mental health as early as January, and by May, they had contacted local law enforcement and his Army Reserve unit due to their concerns about his access to firearms. Card was even ordered to undergo a mental health evaluation due to his erratic behavior. Therefore, labeling Card as an ordinary gun owner not only ignores his history but also unfairly stigmatizes millions of peaceful gun owners.
Claim 2: A Waiting Period Could Have Prevented the Incident
Following the Lewiston shootings, California Governor Gavin Newsom suggested that a 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases, which had been rejected by Maine's legislature earlier in the year, could have prevented the incident.
However, this claim overlooks the fact that Card purchased the rifle used in the shooting in July, more than three months before the incident. Furthermore, Maine's current laws already provide several avenues for intervention, such as the "yellow flag" law, which allows law enforcement to temporarily seize guns from individuals deemed a danger to themselves or others.
Claim 3: Maine Needs More Restrictive Gun Control Laws
Some have argued that the Lewiston shooting is indicative of a broader violence problem in Maine that necessitates more restrictive gun control laws.
However, despite its low grades from gun control groups, Maine consistently ranks as one of the safest states in terms of violent crime and homicide. The Lewiston shooting was, in fact, the first and only mass public shooting in the state. Therefore, the claim that Maine needs more restrictive gun control laws is not supported by the state's crime statistics.
In conclusion, while the Lewiston shooting was a tragic incident, it should not be used as a platform for promoting misconceptions about gun control. Instead, it should serve as a reminder of the importance of enforcing existing laws and addressing mental health issues.
This article was originally published by The Daily Signal. The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here should be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation. If you have an opinion about this article, please email letters@DailySignal.com, and we may consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular "We Hear You" feature. Please include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
Conclusion: Implications for New Businesses
The tragic shooting in Lewiston, Maine, and the subsequent debate over gun control, present important considerations for new businesses, particularly those dealing with firearms or mental health services. This incident underscores the importance of responsible business practices, understanding of legal frameworks, and the role of public perception.
Responsible Business Practices
New businesses, especially those dealing with potentially dangerous products or services, must ensure they operate responsibly. The shooter's access to firearms despite a history of mental health issues highlights the need for businesses to have robust checks and precautions in place.
Understanding Legal Frameworks
The debate over existing gun control laws and their enforcement emphasizes the importance of businesses understanding and complying with the legal frameworks in which they operate. Businesses must be aware of the laws and regulations relevant to their industry and ensure their practices align with them.
Role of Public Perception
The public reaction to the shooting and the subsequent debate over gun control can significantly impact the public perception of businesses associated with firearms or mental health services. New businesses must be aware of how their actions, and the actions of others in their industry, can shape their public image.
In conclusion, the Lewiston shooting and the subsequent debate over gun control highlight the importance of responsible business practices, understanding of legal frameworks, and the role of public perception for new businesses.