Can we address gun violence without passing new laws?
Ididn’t plan to write about guns again today, but my two recent columns about Pittsburgh’s proposed ban on assault weapons got a lot of response and opened a dialogue, so I’m going to keep it going. I recognize that shootings may not be what you want to think about a few days before Christmas, but this is an important topic.
In the hundreds of emails
I received in the week since I supported Pittsburgh’s plan and suggested that Pennsylvania do the same, I heard from a lot of gun owners opposed to a ban who made good points.
They noted that guns don’t kill, people do, and some choose guns as their tool. They said the over- whelming number of shootings are committed with handguns, not AR-15s and other firearms that are the subject of the proposed ban in Pittsburgh. They pointed out that gun laws like the one in Chicago clearly haven’t solved the problem.
There were other points, too, but the overall theme was that banning assault weapons won’t stop mass shootings, that there are underlying factors that must be addressed, ranging from poverty to addiction to mental health. I wholeheartedly agree.
Clearly, a ban on anything is drastic. If there could be a serious, civil discussion about how to address gun violence from other angles, maybe enough progress could be made that bans wouldn’t be called for. But that’s not happening. Every idea is fought.
The bottom line is we must do more to keep guns — all guns — away from the people who are most likely to use them to hurt someone. It’s just a question of how we accomplish that, without making law-abiding people pay the price.
Some people offered suggestions, especially the need to better identify people with mental health problems. How our mental health system fits in with gun ownership sorely needs a harder look.
A report this week from President Trump’s Commission on School Safety cited research that up to 25 percent of mass shooters had been treated for mental illnesses, and more than 75 percent had prior symptoms of mental illness.
“I thoroughly believe each citizen of our country who wishes to possess a firearm should pass a mental qualification test,” wrote one reader, who said he is a Marine. Another, who said he owns an AR-15, suggested a “psychological screening” be required.
Other suggestions included mandatory training and a better background check system.
Trump’s commission endorsed the use of extreme risk protection orders, a legal process to declare someone too dangerous to possess a gun, at least temporarily. That’s part of the plan in Pittsburgh, too, and also has been proposed at the state level.
That idea has merit. As long as people have an opportunity to defend themselves, what’s the harm?
Those ideas have been proposed before, and they would only go so far. So I suggest we go further. None of what I’m about to say would have any impact on law-abiding gun owners.
Instead of prohibiting only felons from having guns, let’s prohibit anyone who has committed a crime of violence or aggression from owning a firearm. If they’ve snapped before, they could snap again, and having a gun handy might not be wise.
You slap your spouse or kids? You punch your boss? You run someone off the road? No gun for you.
If that’s too extreme to stomach, we could restore their ability to be armed if they keep a clean record for five years. I believe in second chances. But it should be two strikes and you’re out.
The biggest challenge is what to do about criminals. They don’t care about laws. If we locked more of them up, for a long time, it might prevent repeat offenders.
Let’s say that anyone who commits a crime using a firearm faces a minimum mandatory sentence of five years. It doesn’t matter what the crime is. You point a gun at someone during an argument? You show a gun during a robbery? You fire at someone, regardless of whether you hit them? Off to the slammer.
Sure, that’s tough. And it’s contrary to the changing nature of our penal system, where mandatory minimums are being phased out. But we have to be tough on gun violence.
I don’t believe laws deter crime — if they did, we wouldn’t have so much of it — but maybe some people would think about the consequences of committing a crime with a gun if they saw their buddies locked up and knew prison time was guaranteed.
At the least, maybe parents would talk about it with their children, to stress the potential.
So, back to the idea of a ban.
I recognize that there’s little chance of that happening, in Pittsburgh and in Pennsylvania. State law is clear that municipalities can’t pass gun laws that are tougher than state gun laws, and there’s been little interest in changing the state law.
But suggesting a ban has gotten people’s attention. So let’s see what else we can do, so we don’t have to propose something so drastic.
paul.muschick@mcall.com 610-820-6582 Paul Muschick’s columns are published Monday through Friday at themorningcall.com and Sunday, Wednesday and Friday in The Morning Call. Follow me on Facebook at PaulMuschickColumns, Twitter @mcwatchdog and themorningcall.com/muschick.