What our gun laws say about us

In the modern list of mass shootings on American soil, a disturbing pattern has emerged.

In the modern list of mass shootings on American soil, a disturbingly familiar pattern has emerged: Military-style semiautomatic weapons with large magazines purchased, borrowed or stolen in the days leading up to the attacks.

Who doesn’t wish James Holmes had been stopped from purchasing four guns in the 60 days prior to his attack, including the semiautomatic Smith & Wesson M&P 15, a civilian version of the U.S. military’s fully automatic M-16, that he coupled with a 100-round magazine?

Who doesn’t regret the murderous efficiency of the weapons used by Stephen Paddock on Oct. 1 as he killed 58 human beings and injured hundreds more who were simply trying to enjoy a concert in Las Vegas?

Yet on the question of gun limits, our nation remains hopelessly divided.

The gun control debate is so politicized between liberal and conservative camps that it becomes a convenient demonizing weapon of its own.

In calling for an honest debate, we know we’re asking a lot: That both sides suspend the acrimony. Americans have a culture of responsible gun ownership, and we should respect those who wish to have the weapons to protect their families and themselves, hunt and enjoy sport shooting responsibly.

But we also must remember there are limits to our freedoms.

Just as we don’t shout “fire” in a theater and thereby violate the spirit of our First Amendment rights, we shouldn’t violate the spirit of our Second Amendment rights.

But we are doing exactly that by allowing easy access to gun technology so dangerous that when an idiot gets hold of it the damage he can do is as devastating as we witnessed in Las Vegas.

An attack this horrendous injures the very psyche of our nation. The human loss and misery tears at our hearts and crushes our souls.

Americans need to decide whether owning and selling these killing machines — designed for military use and stripped of their fully automatic capabilities for civilian sales — is worth the price we pay in added death and injury every time a psychopath targets civilians.

Our freedoms come with a cost. After 9/11, the pendulum swung too far toward state surveillance of Americans. We surrendered liberties to the government as we swore never again. There’s certainly a line that we should not cross in the gun debate as well.

But our gun laws are far from that line. They are so permissive that in 49 states anyone who can pass a federal background check, wait at least 24 hours and shell out serious cash can walk away with a semiautomatic, .50-caliber rifle like those used by U.S. military snipers and gunners to pierce metal barriers and hit targets a mile away.

Sadly, the window of opportunity to ban military-style rifles has likely closed. When Congress let the 1994 assault weapon ban expire in 2004, it opened the already porous flood gates to sales.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in District of Columbia vs. Heller that the Second Amendment protects weapons “in common use,” although it emphasized the legality of “prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

The Sig Sauer AR-15 (used to kill 49 people in an Orlando nightclub), the Smith and Wesson M&P and the DPMS Panther Arms (used to kill 14 at an office party in San Bernardino, Calif.), are sold in mass and “in common use.” Any effort now to ban sales of “assault weapons” would likely fall to Heller.

It is heartening to see lawmakers in Congress, Republicans and Democrats, getting serious about banning devices used to modify guns so they fire like an automatic weapon, as Paddock employed.

But that is the least they can do. Now that GOP lawmakers are in control, they should show the nation how responsible they can be when it comes to limits on Second Amendment rights.

Gun laws shouldn’t be seen as mere limits. Rather, they make a statement about what it is we consider acceptable as a people. We should view them as a guiding star to think about the technology as new innovations come on line.

Our laws reveal much about us. Limits shouldn’t suggest that we are fearful and weak. They cry out that we are strong enough to know better.