Try enforcing existing gun laws first
Here we go again with yet another “national conversation” about guns that is neither a conversation nor national. And not productive.
Understandably, as with the Newtown, Conn., elementary school massacre in 2012, the agonized outcries and visceral fears after the outrageous Broward high school deaths on Feb. 14 erupt from parents who entrust their most prized treasures to a public school. The betrayal is horrendous. The suffering unimaginable. And we flail around trying to find answers for the unimaginable, the inexplicable, the unacceptable.
There must be something we can do to prevent such awful events. There is. We could have.
We’re certain to hear much more of the tiresome, trite arguments from all sides this week as the annual Conservative Political Action Conference meets near Washington. You know, Second Amendment, our blessed children, only government can do something, government has no place, yada yada.
No one needs a crystal ball to know what will come of all this: nothing. Same as after previous incidents.
Remember a little more than five years ago to protect himself against political backlash, President Obama handed the molten gun-control debate to Vice President Joe Biden to honcho new restrictions through Congress so school shootings would never happen again? Nothing.
We could do what Israel’s been doing in large schools for decades after terrorists killed scores of children in an attack. Lock the doors. Train and arm a few unidentified teachers to conceal-carry.
Perhaps some new restrictions will be necessary. Recall after the even worse mass shooting in Las Vegas last fall even the National Rifle Association endorsed restrictions on the so-called bump stocks that turned his long guns into virtual automatic weapons. What happened after that “national conversation”?
Nothing, until just this week when the president ordered a ban.
So, here’s a silly idea that doesn’t involve dramatic photo ops outside the Capitol. It’s not something to fuel angry marches for news cameras. Won’t fire up cable show bookers to get guests arguing vehemently between the Pepcid and Cialis ads.
This isn’t a game played out for anyone’s entertainment—or political gain. Why don’t we try making all the existing enforcement and preventive tools work— really work—before we slide routinely into the comfortable, predictable and almost certainly unproductive arguments about dubious news ones?
If the goal is not just to score political points—how silly to even mention such an outlandish idea these days, right?—but actually to make such murderous mayhem less likely, it’s pretty smart to do what you already can do legally. Try the obvious. It’s so crazy, it might just work.
Let’s look at the Broward County tragedy with a touch of pragmatism: This confessed killer had a long history of anti-social behavioral problems and mental trouble. Sounds eerily familiar.
He’s been a long-time problem in high school such that it expelled him. Red Flag. Not waving. And fellow students warned. Police visited his home 39 times. 39 more flags.
Everybody talks about cancer in America. But mental health is touchy; someone’s obvious maniac is another’s harmless crazy uncle. In 2016, the kid made a Snapchat video while cutting his arms and announcing he was going to buy a gun.
The FBI took a Russian tip and interviewed the Boston bombers. But did nothing. Now it says it couldn’t find Nikolas Cruz. Seriously? Red flag waving.
Forget for a moment arguing whether any civilian outside the Middle East needs such a weapon, this kid followed all existing rules and laws. He passed the established background check. He purchased an AR-15 and ammo and numerous magazines. Why? Because existing red flags weren’t in the system.
Remember 9/11 and the after-report that found numerous little pieces of separate suspicious planning on file that others knew nothing about?
So, what new law could make people do what they already can do but aren’t?