My Gun Control Proposal

In the eight year history of this blog, the subject of mass shootings and gun control has come up what seems like 100 times. It’s interesting to see how my reactions to each subsequent incident have changed and how they have stayed the same. Running through the commentary is a dark stream of helplessness, a heaviness of heart. 

Yesterday I made a simple observation on Facebook about how frequent these shootings have become. As is always the case, that remark invited a back and forth debate about gun control, not my intent. Instead of examining the condition of our collective hearts, we prefer pedantic discussions about the 2nd Amendment, discussions that quickly send us scurrying into our separate ideological bunkers.

Here’s what I’m left with...I live in the only first world country in the world that has to deal with this level of gun violence. Nobody else is even close. Further, the violence is getting worse, not better. The current pace of these atrocities suggests that we will experience five or six more before Christmas. Think about that for a minute. It should disturb the hell out of us. 

I am not a gun expert. I have no political instincts, little knowledge of the Rube-Goldberg process required to get anything done. But, I have this blog, and a reasonably well functioning brain, and with that brain I have thought a lot about this topic. What follows is my gun control proposal. I am fully aware that, even if implemented, this proposal will not put an immediate end to this plague. Perhaps it would get worse before it gets better. However, I do think that over time, it will help reverse the trend lines. To some, it will appear too timid, others might accuse me of being a closet radical. Here goes...

My proposal has three parts:

1. Require a waiting period for the purchase of any firearm. The length of this waiting period is negotiable. I prefer a week, but would be open to other suggestions.  This will have the effect of reducing crimes of passion, since nothing as deadly serious as purchasing a gun should be allowed to be done either on a whim or during a time of roiled emotions.

2. Nationwide, mandatory, and complete background checks should be mandated for any firearm purchase. Current background checks are not thorough enough, not widespread enough, and not always completed. Changes to privacy laws for mental health records will have to be considered, since so many of these killers have mental health issues, that if shared in a background check would deny their access to guns. For anyone who might object to this as an intrusion on their rights, I should point out that no one can merely waltz into a DMV and walk out with a driver’s license. You’ve got to take a test, provide proper identification, etc..In my profession, I am constantly required to provide full financial documentation and demonstrate proficiency to maintain my license to practice my profession.

3. The sale of all automatic and semi-automatic weapons would be banned. I have many friends who are avid hunters. My Dad loved to hunt. I have never met a single person who uses an AK-47 to kill a deer. I can imagine no reason why any ordinary citizen of this republic would need an automatic weapon. Let me here address an argument  I hear frequently when this subject comes up. It goes something like this...Doug, the American people need automatic weapons because without them, we would be defenseless if ever our government turned on us. This is what the Founders had in mind when they crafted the 2nd Amendment. All the despots of the 20th century all confiscated the guns from the people so they would have a monopoly on deadly violence. We can’t let that happen here.

Ok, I have a grain of sympathy for this view, since I am very much a liberty-loving patriot. However, the practicality of this position disappeared probably 50 years ago. Have you actually looked at our military firepower lately? Everywhere you look, even in some local governments, you see SWAT teams decked out with armor-piercing bullets, body armor, even armored personnel carriers. Navy Seals, black ops, and other special forces of our military are awesomely endowed with cutting edge killing technology. Are you seriously tying to suggest that owning a semi-automatic rifle will allow you to defend yourself against such a force? When everyone from soldiers to farmers were armed with the same muzzle loaded long rifles, this was a much more powerful argument, and THAT was the argument the Framers were making with the 2nd Amendment. Today, it seems a silly one to insist on making.

So, what about the 300 million legally purchased firearms already in American homes? The constitutionality and practically of confiscating that much firepower is ridiculous. Yes, I know that Australia has attempted confiscation with some success, but they did so without the restraints of their Constitution, and even so, passed a sweeping law, fully debated in their congress to get it done. I believe that confiscation would not work here, and would violate the constitution. It’s like saying that we should round up 15 million illegal immigrants and send them back where they came from. First of all, impossible to do, and secondly, wildly Un-American.

So, even with these three changes, we would still be a well armed nation with at least one gun for every man, woman and child in these United States. Additionally, these changes would not provide an immediate fix to this epidemic of gun-wielding, mentally ill killers acting out their hateful fantasies. But, it would be a step in the right direction. It would demonstrate that we are not powerless, that we can agree to at least try to forge a path towards less violence. It does so while preserving the 2nd Amendment, but it does ask us as citizens to put up with a little inconvenience in order to make it more difficult for a mad man to get his hands on an instrument of death.

Discuss...