This one doesn’t fit neatly into the usual left/right divide. Consider this:
1. It’s all about Islamic extremism. Then why did he drive two hours to shoot up a gay nightclub, and why did his father say that gay people set him off? Do we know for certain that he wouldn’t have done this if he had been a member of the extreme Christian right? No, we don’t.
2. No, it’s about hating gays. Then why did he pledge allegiance to the Islamic State? Can we be sure that he wouldn’t have found another target eventually even if he didn’t care about gays? Once again, the answer is no.
3. It’s about controlling assault weapons. Having an assault weapon undoubtedly added to the body count, but it didn’t cause the massacre by itself.
Neither party should seek to benefit from this event; it’s just an American tragedy, and should be treated that way by everyone. As far as I’m concerned, there are only two lessons to be learned, and they aren’t in any way new:
1. Having an armed guard doesn’t provide a guarantee that a guy with better weapons and the advantage of surprise can’t cause a massacre.
2. You can’t stop everyone who wants to be a mass murderer in a free society that happens to be awash in weapons. Fortunately, history tells us that the incentives for political violence ultimately fade away, either because they are eclipsed by other, more pressing issues, or because the futility of the effort becomes apparent at some point in time.