In my previous blog article I began discussing the current shooting spree crisis in the U.S. Here I aim to identify what I believe are some necessary steps toward resolving the crisis. These are my personal opinions of course, as is that the only way to resolve this crisis is for decision-makers in Congress to turn a deaf ear on extremist points of view, and truly get to work for the good of the country.
Make gun laws federal, superseding any state laws. One only has to look at the hodgepodge of state-specific gun laws to realize that it’s an unmanageable mess. The ability of a potential homicidal maniac to drive across state lines from a state of tough gun laws to an adjacent state with lax gun laws, well… am I the only one who finds this preposterous? Many laws belong at the state level. At this point in time, gun control should not be one of them. Either make gun laws federal, or force every state to have the same laws. What we need is consistency.
Extensive background checks across the board. After 9/11, the creation of the TSA turned what used to be routine airline travel into a time-consuming, inconvenient ordeal. But guess what? It worked. It made airline travel safer. Public safety trumps people’s inconvenience. Personally I think the same applies here. Will extensive background checks make it a bit more tedious for people to acquire guns? Sure. But it’s what we’ve earned as a society. If we can’t go more than a couple of weeks without a major shooting spree, we’ve earned whatever pumped up background checks need to be put in place to prevent lunatics from owning guns.
Limit the types of guns/ammo available to the public. This one will be tricky. Tricky because just as there are pro-gun extremists who feel anyone should have the right to own a machine gun, there are also anti-gun extremists who play the word definition game, calling just about anything an “assault weapon.” I’ll be the first to admit to not being a gun expert, which is why I feel lawmakers should sit down objectively and transparently, and begin by defining weapons as to their capability. Once that task is completed, comes the difficult part of establishing exactly what type of weapons the public should be entitled to own. Protection of one’s home and family does not require the possession of machine guns or grenade launchers. Weapons of mass destruction did not exist when our founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Registration and licensing. Do you have a car? Then you know it must be registered as a motor vehicle for use in your state’s roads. You also need a driver’s license to operate your car. The same should hold for guns. All guns should be registered, and all gun owners should have a license, or permit, or whatever is appropriate. It is amazing to see the number of states that currently do not require for firearms to be registered, nor for gun owners to have permits.
Mental health screening. Everyone is talking about it now, and it’s the currently popular “go-to” for pro-gun advocates who would rather deflect the attention toward this issue, rather than the focus being put on the guns themselves. Regardless, it is nevertheless extremely crucial and necessary. This area sorely needs to be pumped up as much as possible. A person who premeditatedly kills as many people as possible, all of them complete strangers, obviously has mental health issues. Whether these mental health issues involve racist thoughts and beliefs, or whether life’s pressures cause a person’s psyche to snap, turning him/her into a murderous lunatic, it takes a mentally ill person to mow down complete strangers without any remorse.
Having said all this, please note that at no time is the 2nd Amendment being violated. None of the above constitutes the complete banning of guns, nor the taking away of people’s guns.
But each one of us should ask ourselves… is avoiding a little inconvenience at the time of buying a gun worth continuing with the inhuman streak of shooting sprees?
Parece obvio verdad? Pero….no se cuantas desgracias mas tienen q ocurrir para el cambio😕
Thank you for your comment, Lissie. I will translate for our English-speaking readers. “It seems obvious, right? However… I don’t know how many more tragedies would need to occur before any changes are made.”
Indeed it should be obvious. It is hard to believe that this just continues happening without any real changes in policy or the law. One would hope that these recent back-to-back tragedies would serve as the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back” in finally getting something substantial done by the government.
All very well thought out and sensible ideas. Solutions that seem obvious to most thinking people get dragged down into the bog that is our current political system and social climate. Lobbyists for the gun industry make sure to fuel that “The government wants to take our guns!” fire and people become closed-minded to any option that involves any form of gun control because of the proverbial “slippery slope”.
The right to own takes precedence over the right to live. It sounds dramatic, but that’s kind of what it boils down to in my opinion. My somewhat cynical self thinks that as long as these shootings continue happening in Walmarts, movie theaters, public schools, night clubs, etc.. nothing much will change. Tragedy has to strike at the heart of those in power for anything of consequence to happen.
Hopefully, I’m wrong on that point.
You’re absolutely correct, Angela. In fact, the “slippery slope” argument is one I have heard all too often, and not just on this topic. It is used any time people opposed to change have little else to offer in terms of a counter argument, and pull this trusty old phrase out as a last resort. Calling solutions to problems a “slippery slope” is basically saying we cannot do anything at all because as soon as we do, we’re now in that proverbial slippery slope which could lead to disaster on the other side. It’s too convenient an argument, in my opinion.
I try to look on both sides of the issue… and believe there are those who do not help at all by being extremists from the other end. As soon as one characterizes a weapon incorrectly, exaggerating its killing potential, it plays directly into the hands of the pro-gun side, by providing fodder for their counter-arguments. Which is why it is going to take some very objective, brilliant, and realistic minds to get together and seek solutions to this unsustainable crisis.
Thank you for your insightful comments as usual, Angela.