Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) recently announced that he was reversing his previous stance against a federal ban on so-called “assault weapons,” as a way of preventing more gun violence.

The lawmaker made remarks shortly after the shooting in which he explained his new position.

I have opposed efforts to ban deadly weapons of war like the assault rifle he used to carry out this crime. The time has now come for me to take responsibility for this failure. Which is why I now call on the United States Congress to ban assault rifles, like the one used by the sick perpetrator of this mass killing in my hometown of Lewiston, Maine.

Golden: I have opposed efforts to ban deadly weapons of war like the assault rifle he used to carry out this crime. The time has now come for me to take responsibility for this failure. Which is why I now call on the United States congress to ban assault rifles pic.twitter.com/0k60XJQoaB

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 26, 2023

Golden’s change of heart, which appears to be motivated by emotions related to the shooting, reminds me of the adage that “hard cases make bad law.” The mass shooting in Maine was a horror that nobody should have ever had to face. Indeed, other incidents of this type pull at all of our heartstrings regardless of which side we fall on the gun debate. But using these tragedies to restrict gun rights is clearly not the answer.

As many studies and experts have pointed out, banning certain types of guns does not decrease homicides related to guns. Moreover, at least one of the locations the Maine shooter targeted was a “gun-free” zone, which further illustrates that more gun laws do not make people any safer. A sign at the door of the bowling alley asked patrons to leave their firearms in their vehicles. 

Yet, the shooter did not obey these signs. Indeed, most active shooter situations occur in areas in which firearms are not allowed, which means the law-abiding folks in these places are more vulnerable to mass shooters and other types of violent criminals.

It is also worth noting that the shooter had an extensive history of mental health issues and even made threats of violence against his military regiment. Even further, Maine’s “yellow flag” law could have triggered a confiscation of his guns – yet this did not happen.

There are also plenty of studies showing that gun owners are more likely to use their weapons to defend life than to victimize innocent people. In fact, a significant percentage of active shootings have been stopped by armed citizens, as a new report released by the Crime Prevention Resource Center (CPRC) shows.

The report noted that the FBI’s statistics on these cases do not tell the whole story. The Bureau says armed citizens have stopped only 14 out of the 302 active shooter incidents between 2014 and 2022. The media has used these numbers to paint the picture that this rarely happens.

However, the CPRC’s report reveals that 41 percent of active shooting incidents were stopped by armed citizens. Furthermore, in incidents taking place outside of “gun-free zones,” 63 percent of active shooting cases were stopped by a “good guy with a gun.”

The organization’s report shows that, in reality, armed civilians stopped about 157 out of 440 active shooter situations during the aforementioned time period. Dr. John R. Lott Jr., the head of the CPRC, indicated that this discrepancy is the result of FBI oversights and misclassifications, including omitting cases in which armed citizens scared away attackers or were mistaken for security personnel.

Mass shootings elicit a plethora of emotions. The senseless killing of innocent folks elicits outrage, sadness, grief, confusion, and other feelings. But they should not overwhelm the nation to the point that it takes actions that not only violate people’s natural rights but also make them less safe.