Ideas on Reducing Gun Violence

Suggested Legislative Considerations for Gun Safety in America

I am hopeful, as I believe most Americans are, that the tragic events of this weekend, where 41 people died and over 50 were injured, will FINALLY be the impetus for Congress and the President to take action to minimize these actions in the future.  Thoughts, prayers, condolences and support for victims are no longer enough.

But action must be developed with respect for the input from both sides of the aisle in Congress.  Both sides respect the rights of law abiding citizens in the 2nd Amendment.  Here is the specific unedited language of that Amendment: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  On some sides of the debate, this language has been interpreted as an absolute right for all citizens to keep and bear arms of all types, without "infringement" by any laws designed to limit gun violence.

But as Justice Scalia wrote in a previous gun control decision,  "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." It is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." (US vs. Heller).  For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution's ratification and should be permitted today.  He also wrote in that decision that “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill … or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Both sides also seem to agree on the need to prevent people with criminal records, mental health issues, with past evidence of violent behavior, or with extremist ideology tendencies involving hate for other groups of Americans, from owning firearms. But this will not be an easy action to implement, even if there is broad agreement to the principle. How we would define and track these issues before a gun purchase or as part of a regular follow up to the gun owner population, will be a challenging process?

Within that construct of the 2nd Amendment and that recent Supreme Court decision by a conservative majority, we should be able to develop laws that would be effective in significantly reducing not only the impact of mass shooting events on the extent of death and injury, we should also be able to minimize the number of these events as well.  These would seem to be goals that should benefit from broad agreement among our citizens as well as our leaders.

What might the components of a COMPREHENSIVE gun safety law include if it were designed to achieve the above goals?  Here are some suggestions for consideration and discussion:

First: High firing speed weapons and high-capacity magazines shouldn’t be broadly available to ordinary citizens.

It is often stated that guns don’t kill people, only people kill people.  But it is equally true that no one armed with a knife or a standard handgun this past weekend would have been able to kill and injure nearly 100 people in a matter of a few minutes or seconds.  Even if surrounded by “good guys with guns”, it is going to require some minutes or seconds before a mass shooter can be subdued.  

In El Paso, police subdued the shooter within 6 minutes I believe.  In Dayton, it was reported today that it was only 30 seconds between shots fired and the downing of the shooter by police who were in the area.  The police found 41 shells from the shooter’s weapon, and admitted that might not be all the rounds fired.  That would mean a firing rate of over 1 bullet per second.  It seems inarguable that the number of mass deaths and injuries in a mass shooting attack is a direct result of the type of weapon involved; the greater the number of bullets fired per second, the greater will be the number of deaths and injuries.

The two factors that impact the number of casualties in a few minutes are (1) the firing speed of the weapon, and (2) the number of bullets able to be fired in a single magazine without reloading.  So achieving the goal of limiting the number of deaths and injuries in such events would seem to require preventing weapons with high firing speeds, such as those weapons approaching the speed of 1 round per second, high capacity magazines, and the accumulation of hundreds of rounds of ammunition by ordinary citizens.

Second:  Ensure that every purchase of any firearm involves a comprehensive background check, including the mental health, past violent behaviors, and social media history, in addition to criminal records, before being allowed to purchase a weapon.  

If we agree that people with a criminal record, a mental health issue, a record of past violent behaviors, or subscribing to extremist political beliefs of hatred and intolerance of certain groups of Americans, should not have access to firearms, we have to have a background check process capable of accessing all these aspects of a gun purchaser's records.  People who seek to own guns will need to agree to waive their rights to privacy in these areas, and to have their histories checked before being permitted to purchase or own a gun through any commercial channel, gift, exchange or any other means of obtaining a firearm.

Third:  The purchase of a large number of bullets and/or magazines at one time or in a short period of time, or the accumulation of a large number of bullets, magazines, or  firearms over time should initiate a more direct investigation by authorities.  

When a gun owner looks to purchase or accumulate hundreds of rounds of ammunition, dozens of magazines, and/or a large collection of firearms, at one time or over time, this should initiate a further direct investigation of that individual’s current status.  This review would include an in-person interview and a check on how and why the larger than normal numbers of these items are being collected.

Fourth:  Gun owners should agree to have on-going reviews of their backgrounds to continue to have the right to own a gun.  Will a one time, lifetime check on backgrounds be sufficient?  

It would seem that anyone owning a gun from a past purchase will also need to undergo such a background check of their on going records. A criminal act, a mental health issue, a violent behavior incident or exhibiting an extremist belief could happen in the days, weeks, months or years after a gun purchase.  So gun owners will have to agree to those on going checks, perhaps annually, to retain their ability to own guns.  

In the 2nd Amendment, in the 21st century in America, what might the definition of “well regulated” requirements for citizens to have their rights to gun ownership not “infringed” mean?  Might “well regulated” in the 21st century reasonably require mental health checks, no violent behavior records, no “red flag” social media posts, no association with extremists ideologies, and agreement of gun owners to have these areas reviewed each year to renew their rights to continue no “infringed” rights to own guns?

The approach described above is hoped to represent a balanced, objective approach to the issue of preventing gun-related violence.  It starts with 2 clear goals, both minimizing death and injuries in mass shooting events, and in seeking to prevent them from occurring.  It then suggests actions designed to directly accomplish the 2 goals that reflect respect for the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens, while also respecting the rights of all citizens to the qualities of life in America that are stated as the Purpose for the Constitution.  

In the Preamble, our Founders stated clearly what goals the Constitution, including all the Amendments, are designed to provide for all citizens:  “…, to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …”.  It could be honestly asked, is the level of gun violence in America over the past two decades consistent with having achieved any of those goals in the our quality of national life?  Are 250 mass shootings so far this year and multiple school shootings consistent with “domestic tranquility, general welfare, or securing liberty for ourselves and our children?"  If not, we have to ask why our leaders who took an Oath of Office to Support and Defend the Constitution, do not seem capable of taking the necessary actions to do so.

I’m sure this approach and these ideas are not perfect solutions.  I hope they stimulate our leaders and my fellow citizens to consider a similar objective, non-partisan approach, starting with specific goals that would clearly reduce the violence, and then suggest solutions on actions to achieve these solutions.