A place to start
We must address mass killings
Another tragic day in America. Another mass killing of our children with guns. Thoughts and prayers are not enough.
Allow me to start by saying that by no means am I anti-all-guns. My family has hunted for generations and I agree that some people need guns for protection … but … our country has to come to grips with the loss of life that our existing gun policies are enabling.
Every region of our country, and so many families, have suffered the tragic consequences of mass shootings—with loved ones massacred in mass shootings followed by anguished cries of mourning and hopeful prayers calling for more sensible gun policies.
We hear the refrain that our problems of mass killings are a mental health issue. We also hear that maybe it stems from violent video games.
Really?
Other countries have people that suffer from mental health issues, and video games are everywhere. Yet our country is unique in terms of the large numbers of gun-related deaths and mass killings. We have 4 percent of the world’s population and almost half of all privately owned guns in the world. In 1968 President Johnson gave a speech noting that there were 160 million guns in America, more guns than families. Now, there are 400 million guns in America, more guns than people.
So what can we do? Here are some ideas.
First, we have to commit to a longterm strategy. Substantially reducing the number of guns in our country is going to take time. It will not happen in single terms of office. It is a multigenerational issue and it may take us 75-100 years to substantially reduce the number of guns.
Second, how could we begin to reduce the number of guns in America given the rights established by the Second Amendment and as interpreted by the Supreme Court? A good place to start would be a longterm federally funded national gun buyback program coupled with unalterable biometric firing mechanisms for newly manufactured guns.
Local buyback programs are generally ineffective; after all, they are local. Other countries have established national buybacks and reduced the number of guns in circulation, notably Australia and New Zealand. The percentage of Australian households with a gun has declined by 75 percent over the last 45 years. I am not proposing that a lawful gun owner would ever be required to sell back their guns (other than weapons of war). The program would need to be well-designed and long-running, but it sure seems like a good use of tax dollars.
Third, “personal” guns. All new guns should only work for one person. How so? Mandate unalterable biometric firing mechanisms that work only for one person. Over time, a one-owner innovation would significantly help stem the growth of usable guns in our society.
Fourth, limit magazine capacity and firing speeds. Magazine sizes can be limited. Hunters are used to restrictions on the number of shells in a gun magazine. After all, if you legally hunt ducks, you can only have three shells in your gun. Is there any rational reason that we allow guns that are essentially weapons of war to be manufactured, sold and possessed by civilians in our country that have magazines that hold dozens of bullets and can be rapidly fired?
Fifth, our country previously outlawed the sale of assault weapons, which are weapons of war, and there was a decline in mass shootings. Let’s do it again. But this time let’s go a step further, and make the law permanent. We could couple it with a buyback during a year of amnesty and thereafter it becomes a felony for a civilian to possess a weapon of war.
Sixth, robust and effective background checks and waiting periods. They are not a panacea, but they do help prevent weapons from being in the possession of people who, frankly, just shouldn’t have a gun. Most states restrict people who have committed certain categories of crimes from possessing a gun. So, we have already crossed the threshold of restrictions based on past conduct. Is it a step too far to at least require a reasonable waiting period and a robust background check before anyone can acquire a gun? Isn’t a bit of inconvenience a fair trade for a safer society?
Finally, we need judicial processes that allow possession of a gun to be curtailed when there are substantial indications of a personal instability or violent intent.
Undoubtedly there are many other good ideas on how to address these issues, but let’s get moving.