Note to Minnesota Hunter: No, Guns Aren't the Problem

Especially as he goes on to talk a bit about the Minneapolis shooting.

It starts off well, too, saying he was there not to call for gun control, but to stand vigil with those wishing to honor those who were shot. I can respect that. I'd like to think I'd do the same under the circumstances.

But he goes off the rails in short order.

I wasn’t there waving a sign about gun laws. Growing up in western Minnesota, hunting and gun ownership have been a way of life and a rite of passage for me. I’ve been shooting since I was 5 or 6 years old. I have always been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and believe that people should have the right to defend themselves. Our Constitution was designed that way, and that is the law of the land. I have no qualms with that. In fact, I own a carry gun, a Glock 43x.

But right now, as a father, I am beginning to understand the argument for a ban on the kind of weapon used in the shooting at Annunciation.

I have hunted just about every corner of the state, from up near the Canadian border in the Beltrami Island State Forest all the way down to Worthington in the southwestern corner of the state and everywhere in between. Last year, I was able to take my son to the woods for deer hunting for the first time, a moment I treasured.

Like any other time in my life, when it comes to mass shootings, I always look at the root cause and say, “Yep, that is the problem.” In almost every scenario, it is some type of mental health issue that is the root cause for someone to commit such a horrific act, and I have always landed there and left it there.

As my son and I were participating in the events of that Wednesday night, seeing the thousands of people out showing love and support to those impacted by the horrific event of the morning, it really hit differently being there with my child, especially when he started telling me about the lockdown drills they practice in school.

Here's the issue I have with this.

The author, Zach Lindstrom, says he carries a Glock 43X. That has a 10-round capacity, so it's unlikely that any magazine capacity limit would impact his carry gun, but that's not really the point here. No, the point is that it's magazine-fed. That means a quick swap of the magazine and you're back in business, regardless of the capacity.

The killer at Annunciation Catholic School met no armed resistance when he opened fire. None.

That's because he'd specifically chosen a gun-free zone. We know he did because he flat-out told us he did.

So, when he started shooting, he had all the time in the world to reload.

Further, he shot through the glass. No one needs a high-powered rifle to do that. A Glock 43X would do it just fine.

Now, the reason I focused on the author's weapon here is because he's down with potentially banning the weapon used, but he fails to note that the gun he says he carries every day was just as capable of carrying out this attack, killing just as many people, and firing just as many rounds as the weapon used.

This matters because it's not the weapon that's the problem. It's not the tool, it's the tool using it.

The dangerous variable in this entire incident is the person who decided to kill a bunch of innocent children at mass.

So no, we don't need to restrict the gun. No, we don't need measures focusing on firearm restrictions. What we need is to end gun-free zones so potential mass killers don't have such an easy time picking targets. We need armed citizens to potentially be anywhere and everywhere there's a crowd, so a would-be killer won't know if he'll go down as a prolific killer or the guy that got capped at the Greenwood Park Mall before he could ever get rolling.

We don't need restrictions. Restrictions put those children at risk in the first place.

What we need is to recognize that.