I feel gross even suggesting such a thing, because I'd like to think that Minnesota Star Tribune columnist Rochelle Olson isn't okay with school shootings of any kind. Unfortunately, Olson herself has deployed that twisted argument to accuse Republicans of being okay with kids being killed with "assault weapons" if they don't back a ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms.
Given that, I think it's fair to ask her a question in the similar vein she posed in her latest column, headlined "Should the next school shooter be able to use an assault rifle? Republicans seem to think so."
In that column, Olson wrote about this week's hearing in the state Senate held in response to the shooting at Annunciation Church in Minneapolis and the upcoming special session that Gov. Tim Walz has said he'll soon schedule. As we previously covered, Democrats are proposing a wide range of gun control laws in the wake of the shooting, including gun registration, licensing, bans on "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines, expanding the state's "red flag" law, and more.
Many lawmakers also made it clear that they have a problem with "law-abiding gun owners" too. There were repeated denunciations of the fact that there are more guns in the U.S. than people, which won't change unless or until there is widespread gun confiscation. Sen. Bonnie Westlin was even more explicit in her opposition to gun ownership, arguing that "law-abiding gun owners" are only law-abiding until they commit a crime.
As you might expect, Olson ignored that rhetoric in her column in favor of trying to drum up support for a ban on semi-automatic rifles, which led to this extraordinarily stupid statement.
Do we want the next shooter to have a high-capacity magazine and an arsenal of assault rifles? For now, Republicans are implicitly saying yes. They appear willing to live with the consequences.
By Olson's own "logic", since she's not demanding a ban on handguns or shotguns she must be "willing to live with the consequences" of school shooters using those items to carry out an attack. Or maybe she does want to ban all firearms, but figures taking that position would undercut her more immediate goal of pushing for a ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
In the past week we've heard a lot of folks talk about the need to dial down the overheated political rhetoric in this country, but Olson has decided instead to accuse Republican lawmakers (and presumably Republican voters too) of being okay with the murder of children if we don't go along with a gun ban. She blithely dismissed what Republicans did bring to the table, including boosting school security measures and addressing mental health. In her mind, the only real solution is to ban guns, and if you're not on board with that then you must be cool with school children being killed on campus.
Not a single Republican, not even the gun lobbyist, explained why in the world anyone needs to own an assault rifle for anything other than mayhem.
Would Olson have accepted any reason if one was offered? For that matter, I'm curious to know if she believes there are valid reasons to own handguns, and if she believes those reasons outweigh the fact that pistols are by far used in more violent crimes than rifles of any kind.
There are tens of millions of semi-automatic rifles lawfully possessed in this country, and they are rarely used for mayhem or murder. They're used for hunting, for recreational shooting, and yes, for self-defense too. Banning them wouldn't stop school shootings. Columbine happened in the middle of the ten-year ban on "assault weapons" that lasted from 1994 to 2004, and the Virginia Tech shooting, which is the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, was committed by someone using handguns, not rifles.
The horror inflicted on the children of Annunciation Church would be no less traumatic if a shotgun or a pistol had been used, and if we're serious about stopping these kinds of attacks in the future we can't pretend that banning a particular class of firearm is going to do the trick. We need robust mental health systems, as well as better reporting when friends or family members see evidence that an individual may be planning an attack. We also need to ensure that there is an armed response on campus who can engage the attacker.
These are all practical steps that can be taken without criminalizing a civil right, and would do far more to protect kids (and adults) than Olson's preferred policy choice of banning guns and hoping for the best.
Olson has the freedom to speak her mind, but if the Star-Tribune wants to do its part to help restore civility and sanity to our politics,
