Daily Herald opinion: Impotent distractions: There is one sure means of reducing public violence; why won’t we adopt it?

It seems unlikely that the individuals who have made attempts on the life of former President Donald Trump — or anyone susceptible to the temptation to try to kill a presidential candidate — will be influenced by newspaper editorials pleading with people to stop shooting at politicians.

Nor do we hold out great hope that further pleas for everyone to temper our political rhetoric will have much impact on such would-be assassins — much though we yearn for political campaigns focused more on issues than personal animosities. Indeed, the initial assessments of the suspects in both attacks on Trump suggest they were less influenced by political rhetoric than purely personal objectives. An early FBI report indicates the Butler, Pennsylvania, shooter was just looking for attention and Trump’s appearance there provided a convenient opportunity. The suspect arrested in Sunday’s apparently foiled attack near Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida, has a mixed political history marked by suggestions of violence and, at first glance, seems most focused not on general political hatred but on eliminating the potential for support of Russia in its war with Ukraine.

There is one factor, however, that noticeably connects both crimes and that could have an impact on other individuals with whatever inclinations toward killing a presidential candidate. The easy access to a powerful weapon of war.

The Butler shooter used an AR-15-style assault weapon. The suspect in West Palm Beach apparently left behind a Russian make of assault weapon known as an SKS-style after a Secret Service agent fired at him.

Assault-style weapons such as these have become the clear weapon of choice for people prone to high-profile murderous violence, whether it be to attack high school students in Winder, Georgia, parade goers in Highland Park, Illinois, or a former U.S. president in Butler, Pennsylvania, and now West Palm Beach, Florida, or any of dozens of such crimes over the past two decades.

Opponents to controls on these weapons repeat a litany of bromides intended to distract attention from the gun. They call for greater efforts to fight mental illness. They argue that all sorts of tools are available with which to commit violent death, including knives, poisons, motor vehicles and more. Where political violence is involved, they point to weaknesses in Secret Service procedures.

But these are surely nothing more than distractions.

Yes, without question we need greater resources devoted to mental health issues, and perhaps such attention could reach people affected by mental or personality disorders and prevent some horrible crimes. And, yes, improvements may be needed in our mechanisms for protecting public officials. But let’s be real about such arguments. Knives, poisons and motor vehicles are of little value to would-be assassins, whatever the weaknesses of current Secret Service measures, and weapons designed to kill multiple people at long distances certainly add to the complications facing agents charged with protecting our leaders.

There is a reason that horrendous acts of violence are followed almost immediately by calls for restricting access to such weapons. These weapons are the one constant linking such acts, and they are the one that we can do something meaningful about.

We are bitterly sorry for the apparent attempts on Trump’s life. Like others, we urge more restraint and civility in our public discussions about political issues and campaigns. We know one factor with the certain potential to reduce public violence — restricting access to the weapons used to cause it. With every new outrage, it becomes harder and harder to understand why we don’t all demand action, and why Congress won’t supply it.