Seek effective ways to reduce violence

Recently, The Nugget published an interesting letter to the editor addressing the current national gun-ban debate. The piece was authored by a member of a profession (psychology) that has direct bearing on the issue of mass-casualty gun violence. Perhaps my professional experience might also offer some insight into the issue.

I served as a police officer in Los Angeles County for almost 25 years and have attended far too many violent crime scenes to count.

Many of these scenes had multiple victims.

I was also involved in training for police response to "active-shooter" on school grounds following the Columbine incident.

That incident served as an impetus for law enforcement to adopt fundamental changes in our handling of active-shooter incidents.

Although we realized from the outset that absolute prevention was not a reasonable expectation, we nonetheless immediately set out to improve the methods in which we dealt with these events.

We in law enforcement were forced to take a good, hard, critical look at our inadequate protocols because the stakes were so high that they demanded it.

I am hopeful that practitioners within the mental health professions will also strive to improve their protocols. I cannot accept that these professionals have no room for improvement in the role they play in preventing mass-casualty gun violence at the hands of those currently undergoing treatment. I understand that persons dealing with mental health issues seldom walk in to a psychologist or counselor and confess their plans to slaughter innocents, and that most persons suffering from these afflictions will never harm anyone. However, it is reasonable to ask these professionals to try to develop the ability to read danger signs.

We are not looking for perfection, just substantive improvement.

Obviously we are all horrified by the recent tragic shootings, but a logical approach that is devoid of emotion is the only way to impact the recurring problem. I am not suggesting that there is not an appropriate time for emotion in response to these events, nor am I suggesting that emotion should not serve as a motivator to address the problem. What I am suggesting is that any effective approach to the problem requires well-thought-out and reason-based reactions, not emotional ones.

Leaving the constitutional aspect of gun ownership aside (albeit some would argue this is the most important aspect), the following are a few things to keep in mind when considering whether gun bans offer a practical approach to the problem.

• Those of us who have worked in gang-infested or other high-crime areas are well aware that simplistic gun-ban laws have no appreciable impact on the ability of criminals to obtain firearms. One can either accept the fact that this is the case, or insist on enacting more and more ineffective laws that will never impact the problem except in a harmful manner by disarming law-abiding citizens.

Conversely, laws that address individual behavior have a relatively high success rate when paired with serious incarceration.

Gun-ban legislation would create a false sense of accomplishment with regard to the mass-casualty murder problem in this country. History shows us that this false sense of accomplishment phenomenon tends to impede the implementation of alternative, and more effective, solutions to these problems. Haven't we all had enough of the "feel-good" legislation that offers no real benefit?

• All of the recent shootings in question are examples of unauthorized persons gaining access to firearms not belonging to them. Ensuring that gun owners adequately secure their firearms from unauthorized hands is something that needs to be addressed by statute, education, and peer pressure. Substantive reductions in the incidence of drunk driving show this to be an effective strategy. And keep in mind that these reductions took place without rendering cars or alcoholic beverages illegal.

Contrary to what we are being told by many in the limelight, banning high-capacity firearms will reduce the private person's ability to defend himself or herself. On more than one occasion I have witnessed or verified incidents where private citizens have successfully defended themselves with "evil assault weapons" against what would have otherwise been insurmountable threats, mostly without a shot being fired. Although these scenarios are rare (much like having one's house burn down), a responsible citizen should have the ability to decide how much insurance they wish to purchase.

• Of course I would encourage politicians and others in this country to embrace logical and open discussion about how we can prevent guns, or weapons of any type, from getting into the hands of those who would harm our children or other innocents. I would also welcome the reduction of any of the contributory precursors or accelerants for these horrific incidents, including violent video games, movies glorifying capricious violence, and widespread media amplification (often the equivalent of advertising for the deranged) of these incidents.

• I am convinced that the most expedient and effective means to address these school shootings requires a "hardening the targets" approach. We must take the physical protection of those places housing our most precious human treasure seriously. Like it or not, we must accept the fact that crazies and terrorists have identified schools and other "soft targets" as an opportunity to inflict massive harm with little probability of failing in their efforts.

Highly trained and well-armed security personnel, coupled with security oriented structural designs and protocols, should be implemented immediately at every school in the nation. After all, isn't this precisely the approach that high-ranking politicians and wealthy private parties in our country utilize to ensure their own safety? Funny how politicians seem to get it right when it's their own safety that is at stake!

Knee-jerk gun-ban legislation may very well serve to make many of the uninformed feel good about themselves, but those of us who live in, and understand, the real world recognize the need for alternative approaches that will actually impact this serious problem.

••••

Frank LaFlamme served on the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the Culver City (L.A. County) Police Department for a total of 23 years. His assignments included patrol in South Central L.A., gang enforcement in East L.A., federal DEA task force in L.A., robbery and homicide (detective), and a station-level terrorism liaison position following 9/11. He was also assigned as a police training sergeant and volunteered as a peer counselor for officers involved in police shooting incidents. He holds a BA in political science as well as an MA in criminal justice.