Looking for answers after mass shootings

Americans are griefstricken and struggling for solutions after a recent series of mass shootings.

On July 28, a gunman killed three people, including two children, and injured 13 others during the Gilroy, California garlic festival. On Saturday, a shooter opened fire at Walmart shoppers in El Paso, Texas, leaving 22 dead. Barely 15 hours later, a gunman fired 41 shots in a crowded nightlife area in Dayton, Ohio, leaving nine dead and 27 injured.

Such attacks could happen anywhere, which is what makes this so chilling. Americans are demanding more than “thoughts and prayers,” given the alarming frequency of such shootings. Sixty-two people have been killed in mass shootings in the United States this year.

We all agree about the shocking nature of what transpired. From there, it’s harder to come to agreement. In the aftermath of such horrific events, there are understandable calls to “do something,” and often sweeping and polarizing proposals are presented to address the problem.

While it may be tempting to rush to conclusions about the right way forward or retreat to ideological corners, it’s important to consider any idea, regardless of how consistent with our worldviews they might be.

That’s not to say, of course, that all ideas have equal merit or will withstand scrutiny. Some ideas are halfbaked. Some have a ring of truth but are so vague that they are largely meaningless. And others, particularly those with respect to gun ownership and availability, are laden with practical, political and legal limits and pitfalls. What we must look for are workable and effective solutions.

We can be sure to dismiss the half-baked ideas, like restricting violent video games. Researchers have studied that issue since the Columbine shootings in 1999 and have found no link between games and violence.

But, there are proposals on stronger footing, like “red flag” laws that allow a gun owner’s relatives and police to ask a judge to remove guns from people who they fear are a danger. We’re open to the red-flag proposal, although it’s tough to pinpoint criminals before they act out — and our nation must always ensure due process.

Predictably, many people want sweeping new gun restrictions. We’re open to carefully tailored laws, but hastily drafted ones have a history of doing little more than providing soundbites.

Some analysts have called on the feds to crack down on white nationalists. That approach would be useful, but is not a panacea given the shooters’ varied and twisted motivations.

More immediately, we must also ensure that existing laws are working as intended, and judge new proposals by whether or not they’d have actually prevented mass shootings that have occurred.

But there are other changes that must be made through personal conduct rather than laws.

For starters, Americans and their politicians should tone down incendiary rhetoric that might energize extremists. We were pleased by President Trump’s postshooting condemnation of “racism, bigotry and white supremacy,” which reflected a refreshing change of tone. This is a small but significant starting point that we all should remember as we type away on Facebook or Twitter.

We also need to be honest with ourselves. There is no simple, obvious fix to the problem of mass shootings. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t helpful policies — or that we should do nothing until someone opens fire on another store or park.

Many will analyze specific proposals in the coming weeks, but at this time we urge a thoughtful, deliberate and fact-based approach that is laser focused on solutions and not just headlines.