The Big Mo

A gun bill in Washington

“We will look forward to the Big Mo being on our side, as they say in athletics.”

— George H.W. Bush

Maybe momentum will carry the day. When it comes to the gun debate, there have been many pushes and pulls lately, but little momentum so far. There’s a chance things could change.

The U.S. Senate worked over the weekend, and it appears as though a bill to place limits on some guns, or at least on the people who can get them, could be a reality. In Washington, this is nothing to sneeze at. But on the heels of several mass shootings in the last 30 days, even American politicians can prove educable.

The bill is still being formed. So the exact language isn’t quite baked through-and-through. But what little has been reported seems a good step. Or series of good steps. No, it’s not perfect, but Washington allows the perfect to be the enemy of the good too often. First steps are fine, too.

Twenty senators, including 10 Republicans, are working on this:

• The bill would make the juvenile records of gun buyers under the age of 21 available when they undergo background checks.

Some of us didn’t know that wasn’t already the case. Surely privacy laws keep juvenile records from being broadcast or made public through the prints, but that they were shielded from background checks is surprising. Most of the recent mass shooters haven’t been long out of the juvenile world themselves, so this change will be hard to oppose.

• The agreement would offer money to states to enact red-flag laws.

We don’t know why states would need money from Washington to do this. It seems such laws could be regular parts of the docket. But surely there are details to come.

• The agreement would offer money to states to bolster school safety and mental health programs.

Now you’re talking about big money. Yes, the country must improve its mental health capabilities. And this is not only a brick-and-mortar problem. We are reminded of this column, by Dr. Charles Krauthammer, in 2012:

Monsters shall always be with us, but in earlier days they did not roam free. As a psychiatrist in Massachusetts in the 1970s, I committed people — often right out of the emergency room — as a danger to themselves or to others. I never did so lightly, but I labored under none of the crushing bureaucratic and legal constraints that make involuntary commitment infinitely more difficult today.

Why do you think we have so many homeless? Destitution? Poverty has declined since the 1950s. The majority of those sleeping on grates are mentally ill. In the name of civil liberties, we let them die with their rights on.

A tiny percentage of the mentally ill become mass killers. Just about everyone around Tucson shooter Jared Loughner sensed he was mentally ill and dangerous. But in effect, he had to kill before he could be put away — and (forcibly) treated.

And as far as school safety, throw money at that problem! The reason the monsters, as Dr. Krauthammer calls them, seek out schools is because so many of them are soft targets. Let’s make sure every school has an armed resource officer on campus whenever children are, and watch school shootings dry up.

• The senators are proposing closing background check loopholes. Which not only makes sense, but is consistently supported by Americans who are polled. Few things in the gun debate get such agreement among the American people as background checks, and thorough background checks at that.

• According to the story about the bill: “Convicted domestic abusers who do not live with a former partner, such as estranged ex-boyfriends, would be barred from buying firearms, and it would be a crime for a person to legally purchase a weapon for someone who would not qualify for ownership.”

We would like to see the argument against that idea. On second thought, no we wouldn’t. Our blood pressure can only take so much.

The problem, perhaps, will be twofold. Like the poor, we’ll always have those who will fight any gun law. But their ranks are being reduced with every mass shooting.

There also might be a rebellion from the more progressive politicians, who think none of this goes far enough. But if they think even getting here has been easy, they haven’t been paying attention.

Yes, this most certainly is the lowest common denominator for both sides in the gun debate/standoff. But if we can all agree to these things, then . . . .

There’ll be help for the mentally ill, schools will harden their shells, Americans will get their druthers on background checks, and abusive types will find it harder to get firearms. We should all agree to that. Right?

First steps are fine. There is no law that says We the People have to slay all the dragons at once.