Colorado theater shooting: now is not the time for a gun control debate

It's a natural urge, in the aftermath of events as appalling as those in Denver, to want to do something, or failing that, to say something. (This is especially true if your main job is saying or writing things; and yes, this post's no exception.)

For any of us who think the case for tighter gun control in the US is indisputable, the obvious thing to say is that less complacent firearms policies might have prevented the tragedy. Twitter is full of people expressing that opinion. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg added his voice Friday morning, urging the presidential candidates to replace "soothing words" with "stand[ing] up and tell[ing] us what they're going to do about it."

The problem with this is not that it's "too soon" to start talking about gun control: as Justin Wolfers put it, "it's always too early. Except when it's too late." It's also not because talking about gun control "politicises" the event, which is a favoured claim of the gun lobby following deadly shootings. (Here's Joshua Treviño of the Texas Public Policy Foundation making extensive use of the tactic on Twitter.)

Neither argument holds water: if the Denver events materially altered the debate, no discussion could come too soon. And accusing others of politicising the news is, of course, itself an act of politicisation. Anyway, mass killings fall, rightly, within the domain of politics: that's a good thing about politics, not a problem.

There are two reasons why we should still restrain ourselves for a few days, though. First, because the investigation into the shootings may unearth information that sheds light on the counterfactual scenario – what actually might (or might not) have happened differently, given tighter laws. And second, for the obvious reason that very extreme acts, and our instantaneous emotional reactions to them, are so incredibly unhelpful when it comes to formulating policy.

Gun control supporters need to accept that the Denver gunman might well have found a way to arm himself, or to kill in significant numbers, regardless of the law. It might even theoretically be the case that, as hardline gun control opponents claim, more guns – an armed cinema audience, in other words – might have led to fewer deaths. At the same time, though, gun control opponents need to accept that this doesn't, even slightly, bolster the case against gun control. It bolsters neither case.

All it shows, on the basis of presently available information, is that some people will go to extreme lengths to do unthinkably terrible things.

Maybe, there are serious implications here for American mental healthcare; but we can't know that yet. But it isn't to diminish the Denver tragedy in any way to suggest that it simply doesn't support anyone's point of view on gun control. That's why we should wait a little: not out of "respect", or to avoid being "political", but to let the kneejerk reactions subside, and more information emerge.

This isn't an argument for splitting the difference between gun control supporters and opponents, by the way. I think there's overwhelming evidence in favour of more control. I just don't think that the Denver shootings are that evidence, yet.

We'll have a better debate – one that might actually have some beneficial outcomes – if we don't have it right this second.