Photo by Samer Farha

The consequences of this week’s shooting at the offices of the Family Research Council in Gallery Place haven’t been limited to the health of the injured security guard—there have been back-and-forth accusations as to whether the shooter was enabled by organizations backing same-sex marriage, for one. Now, somewhat predictably, both pro- and anti-gun advocates are using the incident as evidence that either the U.S. needs way more guns or way fewer.

Yesterday it was Mayor Vince Gray’s chance, opining during a TV interview that D.C.’s strict gun laws need to be maintained and that the harder it is for people to get guns, the less likely that these sorts of shootings will be. CNN’s Piers Morgan said much of the same this week, stating that incidents like the FRC shooting seem to prove that more gun control is necessary.

On the other side of the debate, the Washington Times’ Emily Miller—who herself went through the process to register a handgun in D.C.—writes today that the shooting proves that D.C. needs to allow residents to carry concealed weapons.

“Mr. Johnson might have been able to do his job without getting shot had the city recognized his constitutional right to bear arms,” she opines, referring to Leo Johnson, the wounded security guard. (She admits that she doesn’t know if he was carrying a gun or not, though, which certain private security guards in the city are legally allowed to do.) Miller later tweeted: “[I]f Johnson hadn’t used his body as a shield, an employee with concealed would have been last chance.”

And today, a crowd of protesters has gathered in front of the Wilson Building to demand that D.C. loosen its gun laws to allow residents to more easily buy, register and carry handguns in the city. (“What do we want? Guns! Where do we want em? None of yer business!”, went one of the chants.)

Is there anything to be learned from the FRC shooting that can speak to D.C.’s gun laws? Not really. Gray’s point is as shortsighted as Miller’s: shooting suspect Floyd Corkins could just as well have bought his gun illegally in D.C. (as many people do), and that Johnson may not have had a weapon could speak more to his company’s policies than it does to D.C.’s need for concealed carry permits. (Certain classes of private security guards in D.C.—and there are thousands of them—are allowed to carry weapons.)

All told, this week’s shooting was an isolated incident in D.C.—for all the political advocacy that goes on in this town, almost none of it is settled with guns, after all. Crafting laws based on isolated incidents usually produces terrible laws, and this case would be no exception. Is there an argument to be made for concealed carry in D.C.? Sure. Plenty of residents could say they would feel safer knowing they had a gun on their person. Is every gun owner a possible FRC shooter? No.

Some organizations have realized this, opting to stay out of the post-FRC fray. The Coalition to End Gun Violence issued a thoughtful statement in which it implored activists on either side of any debate to prevail on the merits of their claims, not fear. “We must continue to approach the political process peacefully, as equals. Let us prevail by the character of our ideas and the force of our arguments, not by the barrel of a gun.”