Plymouth residents have a right to feel safe – and indeed, to be safe – when they do business in our town’s administrative offices. On April 5, Town Meeting members will have a chance to vote on whether that right will be protected. They will vote on whether Plymouth opts out of a key provision in the Massachusetts Act “Modernizing Firearms Laws” signed into law last year. That act, which was endorsed by the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, includes a provision that prohibits carrying firearms into municipal buildings. At the same time the act allows individual towns and cities to opt out of that provision.
Those who urge Plymouth to opt out are essentially arguing that allowing “good guys with guns” into public spaces makes us safer by ensuring that, in the event of an attack, a “good guy” would quickly and accurately identify and neutralize the attacker.
As an Army veteran, as co-chair of the Plymouth No Place for Hate Committee, and as a citizen of Plymouth I totally reject that argument. My position on this issue is personal and I am not representing the official position any group. Let me explain.
I am a combat-trained veteran who served as a sergeant in Vietnam with the 1st Infantry Division. During my Vietnam deployment I learned that, when one comes under fire, even well-trained soldiers experience an adrenaline rush and momentary confusion. In those critical and often chaotic first moments, one doesn’t always think straight or shoot straight. Soldiers – and, I must add, police officers – are trained to recognize and manage those natural human reactions to a threat. Well-intentioned civilians, people who have not been recently trained to respond to an active shooter in live-fire situations, cannot be expected to react instantly, accurately and decisively to disable or kill an active shooter. To expect them to do so is delusional and dangerous. Defensive shots fired in a near-panic mindset would not all find their intended target. In a crowded public space, the risk of collateral damage to innocent bystanders is unacceptably high and could be tragic.
As a member of the No Place for Hate Committee, the risk of more guns in Town Hall is direct. The Committee was established to stand up against hate. One of our responsibilities is to protect and advance the rights, dignity and safety of people who are too often targeted by hate groups with intimidation and violence. One way we do this is by speaking before other town boards and committees to bring hateful acts to light and to advocate for appropriate town action. By publicly condemning hate groups – as we did with the neo-Nazi groups who recruited members here in 2023 – we recognize that we might become targets ourselves. The hatred and anger we oppose is often emotionally charged and can quickly escalate into threats or acts of violence. If the Town Meeting votes to opt out and allows loaded weapons into the Town Hall, it would signal that when we participate in potentially emotive public meetings committee members should be armed and prepared to defend ourselves. Or that we must depend upon armed vigilantes to protect us. I reject both as morally offensive and, for the reasons stated above, dangerous.
And finally, as a citizen of Plymouth. America’s Hometown, I reject the ideological claim that more civilian guns in public spaces make us safer. The overwhelming evidence from across America demonstrates that this is simply not the case. Quite the opposite. If the threat of bad people with guns in Plymouth’s administrative offices is real – and sadly it probably is – there are other, safer and more effective means of providing our collective security. Metal detectors, the presence of well-trained police officers and other options should be considered as more responsible, morally more acceptable and saner alternatives.
I respectfully urge Town Meeting members to help all Plymouth residents feel safe and be safe when in our administrative offices. Please permit only police officers to enter Plymouth administrative offices with loaded firearms. Please vote no on opting out of the Modernizing Firearms Laws Act provision.
– Peter Matlon