We must put public safety before politics to save American lives

Three more mass shootings. More outrage. Finger-pointing. And, we fear, stalemate once again. Americans want action, or as protesters in Dayton put it, “Do something.”

We agree that something needs to be done, and more importantly, that not enough has been done already.

As political polarization in Washington and across the nation has deepened, mass shootings have gotten deadlier. It’s time for our leaders to meet in the middle and to craft meaningful reform so that Americans can go to school, shopping centers, places of worship or community festivals without fearing for their safety.

While it is unlikely, in a nation of over 300 million Americans and even more guns, that every mass shooting can be prevented, it is untenable for the trend of ever-escalating mass shootings to continue.

Proposals offered in good faith must be considered, debated and, if they pass muster, implemented. Their efficacy in preventing mass shootings, not their political palatability, should be the driving consideration. This will require all sides of the debate to check their ideological presumptions and talking points at the door and to proceed honestly and in the best interest of the public rather than the party.

This will not be easy.

The most polarizing topic in the discussion is undoubtedly gun control, and just as the nation is divided over how to interpret the Second Amendment and what should be done now, so too are the members of our editorial boards.

Some of us have long supported the assault-weapons ban, crafted after the 101 California Street massacre in San Francisco that left nine dead and six wounded in 1993. Since that nationwide ban expired in 2004, many have argued that it should be reinstated based on data that shows mass-shooting-related homicides were reduced when the ban was in effect.

Others dispute that research, opposing a ban on assault weapons on the grounds that it infringes upon the rights and freedoms of people who own guns but don’t commit murder with them. The response to mass murder, they contend, should be specific to the incidents and the perpetrators, not broadly encroaching upon constitutional rights.

The fact that we can have this debate is part of what makes our nation great, and while none of our board members is likely to abandon his or her strongly held convictions in the near future, we can all agree there is a middle ground, between doing nothing and sweeping new gun restrictions, that protects the public at large.

We urge lawmakers to seek out that middle ground when the Senate takes up the issue of gun violence in September, and we note that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has said the Senate might consider an assault-weapons ban along with background checks and “red flag” laws.

We urge lawmakers to have an open discussion that puts public safety first.

We also believe that background checks, while less controversial than gun control, are no less important.

President Donald Trump touted the idea of enhanced background checks last week and House Democrats have been pushing for such requirements all year.

According to the gun-control advocacy group Everytown, in at least one-third of mass shootings from 2009-17, the shooter was legally prohibited from possessing firearms. The nation’s background-check system, launched in 1994, is far too porous.

Background checks often are not required for purchases from private parties, commonly at gun shows or online. And state laws vary widely as to what gets reported to the national system. As a result, by one estimate, 22% of gun sales bypass the system.

Universal background checks should not be controversial. Even 84% of Republican adults support them for purchases at gun shows or for other private sales. While there may be challenges of implementation, the fundamental idea — that those who wish to purchase guns should be subject to a reasonable review of their background — is sound.

In a similar vein, the majority of Democratic presidential candidates and, last week, Trump and U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have called for laws that allow police or family members to seek temporary court orders for removal of firearms from those who might harm themselves or others.

In 51% of the mass shootings from 2009-17, according to the Everytown study, the shooter exhibited a “red flag,” including acts or threats of violence; convictions for firearms offenses; violation of a protective order; or evidence of ongoing substance abuse.

For example, the behavioral problems of the 2018 shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., were well-known to law enforcement before 17 students were killed.

Red-flag laws already exist in at least 17 states, including California. Studies show them to be helpful in reducing gun suicides, but there’s little data yet on how effective they are in preventing mass shootings.

Here, too, the underlying notion — that those at high risk of potentially turning to violence should be checked before something bad happens — is reasonable, though there must always be a commitment to respecting the due process rights of Americans.

We also note that reports on red-flag laws out of Florida and Maryland raise legitimate concerns that should be better understood.

Indeed, data and research are key to developing thoughtful and effective solutions and countermeasures.

Unfortunately, legislation dating back to 1996 prohibits the Centers for Disease Control from spending funds “to advocate or promote gun control.” The CDC saw it as a direct threat to its funding, which is controlled by Congress. So it stopped gun research altogether.

Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, DConcord, proposes creating a five-member, independent board charged with studying gun violence. The aim is to get politics out of the discussion and use scientific, peer-reviewed research to determine the root causes and offer effective solutions.

This type of independent review is critical if we are to rise above partisan politics, as we must.

New laws, where they are needed, should be debated in good faith, with the aim of preventing gun violence. We must also do a better job of enforcing existing laws that should have prevented mass shootings but didn’t.

That means ensuring background check databases are accurate and up-to-date, and taking seriously reports of threats of violence.

Finally, we must recognize changing public opinions around these issues.

For example, 89% of the nation’s adults say closing the gunshow loophole for background checks is a good idea; 57% support a ban on the sale of semiautomatic assault guns, like the AK-47 or AR-15; and 89% want to let family members or law enforcement ask a court to temporarily suspend a person’s access to guns when there are clear warning signs they pose a danger.

That was before the massacres in Gilroy, El Paso and Dayton that claimed 34 more lives.

Support for change is likely even stronger now. It’s time to break the political stalemate — time for congressional leaders of both parties and the president to act.