Armed, but protected?

Arming county employees is not a security plan

The Benton County Quorum Court, by a 14-1 vote, shored up its National Rifle Association credentials last week.

Under the guise of protecting county employees, the 15 justices of the peace on the Quorum Court passed an ordinance allowing elected officials — including themselves — and employees to carry concealed handguns, if they hold a state-issued permit allowing them to conceal a handgun.

Pat Adams, justice of the peace for District 4, and Brent Meyers, jus- tice of the peace for District 14, co-sponsored the ordinance.

The JPs suggested they were doing this for the county’s employees, which is interesting. When County Judge Barry Moehring polled county workers, 72 percent of those responding said they feel safe in their workplaces. With that high a percentage, what’s the need for introducing guns into the workplace? Some employees also indicated a screening station with metal detectors — a device designed to prevent the introduction of guns into their work environment — would make them feel even safer. Support for allowing all employees to carry concealed handguns came in under 40 percent.

That doesn’t sound like a compelling case for changing county policies about handguns or that county employees were lining up to demand more guns in county facilities. Indeed, the sponsors of this ordinance began their campaign without regard for whether evidence supported their push.

“It’s just a basic right to carry that weapon,” Adams said back in May. He said he supported the measure as a constitutional right and as a means of self-defense.

Concealed carry rightly is about individual self-defense, as Adams suggested. If any of the county justices of the peace, however, believe they’ve just amplified the county’s security plan, they’ve missed the target.

Yes, maybe an assailant looking generically for a target for a mass shooting will avoid county offices because of the possibility there’s a “good guy with a gun” working there. That assumes he’s thinking rationally, which one could certainly dispute by the very fact he’s decided to shoot up someplace as a way of expressing himself. So let’s not assume rational thought.

Still, for the most part, shootings aren’t random acts in random locations. It’s far more likely if a shooting happened at a county office — heaven forbid — it would be someone motivated by a personal connection, i.e., an former employee angered by a supervisor’s actions or a taxpayer frustrated with government and willing to behave illogically. The deterrent effect would likely not kick in with that type of individual; if he’s mad at a county office and is intent to shoot someone, a county policy isn’t likely to divert him to a local ice cream shop or grocery store in his pursuit of revenge. Deterrence is a tiny fraction of the potential influence from Benton County’s new policy.

Perhaps, though, the Quorum Court members thought their actions were, in effect, creating a county employee militia. Maybe they have visions (delusions?) of a fast response to a threat, a rapid-action team of armed county employees breaking away from their usual duties of hauling gravel or filing legal papers so they can engage the threat.

That’s just not going to happen in almost all cases. Whether we’re talking sexual or domestic abuse, bullying or an active shooter, most people will not intervene. There’s a reason they’re called bystanders. Especially when things are confused and uncertain, human nature is to hang back. There’s a certain assumption that someone else will get involved. As a society, that’s why we stand in awe at the people willing to run into the burning building or toward the gunfire. Heroic actions are few and unpredictable. More guns with county employees and elected officials don’t guarantee anything in terms of security.

Law enforcement officers now must train for mass shooting scenarios in which there can be “good guys” with guns. That’s great, but rest assured an officer running to- ward the shooting will be likely to view anyone with a gun as a threat to them and to others. Nobody issues white hats and black hats so everyone can tell who the good guys are.

Nobody should view Benton County’s new policy as part of its security arrangements, which must be reliable. Law enforcement is far more reliable than concealed carry permit holders.

Arkansans permitted for concealed carry also ought not be pretending they’re part of a SWAT team. The very idea of concealed carry is personal defense, and many instructors teach there’s no shame in running away from a threat. Run. Hide. Fight. In that order, to the extent possible. The entire idea is to live another day. Personal defense means protecting oneself and those one is with from a threat that cannot be escaped. Having a bunch of armed, barely trained employees is not a security plan.

Last week’s decision demonstrates what a couple of impassioned lawmakers can do with a Quorum Court eager, for heartfelt or political reasons, to earn their bona fides as defenders of gun rights. Ultimately, in our view, this was about a handful of justices of the peace miffed they’ve had to give up their right to carry a gun when they enter county buildings. In their view, we suspect, last week’s action was a major achievement in defense of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Then again, one could also argue it just got a lot easier for a dispute within the workplace to escalate into the use of deadly force. Remember that 2014 shooting in a Florida theater in which an 74-year-old man told a younger movie-goer to stop texting during previews? An argument broke out and the older man pulled his gun and fired, killing the man who had been texting his daughter’s daycare. Is there any reason to believe that argument would have turned fatal if nobody had been carrying a gun?

We note that case not to argue against concealed carry permits, but as a reminder that the presence of a gun does not always preserve the peace, but is actually the ingredient that leads to more harm.

Benton County cannot assume armed county employees means a more secure work environment and should not base any part of its overall security plan on their presence.