BANG BANG NOTHING CHANGED

And the policy solution is so evident

Yes, there is an effective policy for eliminating nearly all of the senseless mass shooting events while preserving Second Amendment rights. It’s a matter of political will. It’s the only policy I know that when back tested against mass shooting events can be proven to work.

The problem is keeping lethal weapons out of the hands of people who should not have them. It is a microscopic percentage of people who would wreak evil combined with a microscopic percentage of firearms that are abused for that evil intent. Supporting freedoms for most people and achieving responsible use and storage of deadly weapons is not incompatible with keeping the evil fringe from obtaining the means to kill.

The faults of most broad policies to reduce violent mass casualty events begin with after-the-fact reaction to a mentally dangerous person or react to a situation already in progress or preemptively crush the rights of responsible, law-abiding citizens by lumping them in with the tiny fringe who would abuse firearms. By way of example, so-called “Red Flag Laws” are common sense, i.e., alert law enforcement prior to a tragedy occurring. But the mentally unstable person already has the weapon(s) and has already demonstrated mental unfitness. Hardening target sites and assigning School Resource Officers makes sense as well, but the incident is already underway. Broad bans of firearms punish conscientious citizens who safely keep and store arms.

Staring us in the face is the policy solution that would fit with American practices. It would severely impair a mentally ill person from obtaining a firearm and do it all without punishing those who responsibly use and store guns.

Consider these. Which make sense? Which are legal and/or current practice in America:

• A 16-year-old high school student completes driver education. Obtains first license. Same teen is given keys to 40-ton semi-truck and allowed to drive it.

• A 24-year-old medical student completes their residency. They are introduced as the doctor who will lead your brain surgery this afternoon.

• A 40-year-old person learns to fly airplanes. Upon completing the classroom work and some test flying, they are invited to take the controls of a 757 Airliner.

• A person reaches their 18th birthday. Within days, they legally obtain the most lethal rifles or pistols, along with body armor and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

We all live in a society with the comfort that reasonable regulations are going to prevent three of these four scenarios. No one is telling the youthful driver that they cannot someday drive a big rig. No one is telling the new doctor they cannot someday lead a complex brain surgery. No one is telling the new pilot that they cannot someday be in command of a larger, faster, more complex airplane. In every single circumstance, society makes this assertion, “Demonstrate that you know how to safely operate, that you have proficiency, that you will not cause damage to the public by misuse, that you are mentally stable. And acknowledge you will be subject to periodic review.”

In three of the four circumstances, there are steps requiring education, testing, demonstration of proficiency, medical and psychological screening, and review by qualified testers. The steps are achieved over time. Thus, the public has the reasonable expectation that the trucks on the highway, the care in the hospital and the airplanes in the sky are being operated by those who have proven ability to operate them safely and current review of capacity to direct otherwise deadly machines without threat.

Now for the fourth scenario, the 18-year-old enters the store or accesses an online dealer and takes legal possession from a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder. There is no test, no requirement of proficiency, no medical or psychological screening. The thin regulatory line is the background check. However, suppose, like the killer in Parkland, the lengthy record of psychological distress and anti-social behavior is locked away in juvenile records? The background check comes back clean.

How about the Red Flag Law? Suppose carefully crafted legislation to remove firearms from those who sink to a level of posing a threat, was in place. That would be a good thing. However, even if such a law was in force, someone would have had to take time off from their life to report the claim, law enforcement would need to investigate, a court would need to adjudicate, and do it again before the ban expired. The Red Flag would not likely stop the killer.

Thus, in our society today, potentially evil persons can legally be among us with the power to devastate lives, families, communities, and our national sense of safety.

This bears repeating. Today a person can legally obtain all the tools and supplies they need to kill dozens of innocents and our laws do not protect us. If you’re still uncertain this is the case, please re-read the four scenarios above.

What would be a better way? Suppose that same 18-year-old looked to purchase firearm(s), ammunition and accessories. Instead of the thin, ineffective regulations in place today, the process was like so many other things we regulate in our country? The exact licensing is subject to much more evaluation than this column, but the objective of keeping means of mayhem from the unknown is worth it. One framework of many might be:

• Level One. Requires gun safety and storage class, pass written test on gun safety and storage. With trained instructor, learn and demonstrate safe firing at gun range. License for revolver under 7 rounds, maximum .38/.357 caliber, shotgun with maximum 5 cartridge capacity, hunting rifle with 3 round capacity to be used under supervision of responsible adult.

• Level Two. Requires at least one year of incident-free Level One licensing. Additional classroom/video gun safety, usage, and storage instruction. Pass written test. Demonstrate proficiency with range instructor. Medical evaluation like pilots. License for semiautomatic handgun up to 10 round magazines, any pistol, shotgun without limitations, rifles with 6 round capacity.

• Level Three. Requires at least one year of incident-free Level Two licensing. Additional classroom/video gun safety, usage, and storage instruction. Pass written test. Demonstrate proficiency with range instructor. Medical evaluation or certification from doctor or health provider. Licensed for all legal firearms. License is good for 10 years.

Licenses could be revoked for breach of use, storage, or safety protocols. Red Flag laws might be a tool to keep watch on those who already own weapons.

At minimum, the rapid access to lethal force capable of killing dozens would be slowed and examined. Had Graduated Licensing been law, Parkland would not have happened. King Soopers in Boulder would not have happened. Uvalde, Texas would not have happened. And many others.

Objections of course would be about costs. This would be an excellent time for the NRA to offer scholarships to lower income individuals who want to learn gun safety. Gun shops could become purveyors of training, testing, and certification versus being primarily merchants – sell safety instead of the next biggest weapon.

Other objections would be the burden on responsible gun owners who today possess, use, and store firearms. These people are not the problem, so there should be a way to elevate them to Level Three with simple affirmation about experience with guns, knowledge of storage requirements, and how to keep their guns from being used by someone without the proper licensing. The policy is intended to make new gun owners as responsible as the vast majority of these responsible citizens.

Objections, of course, include the idiotic limitations of our dysfunctional political environment.  Beltway experts haughtily tell the populace what is and isn’t politically feasible. It’s time we all demand the problem be solved so that future disasters are avoided.

Is the idea of Graduated Licensing so radical that it would remake American society? Today fireworks and associated explosives are regulated in a similar manner. There is no Second Amendment constitutional challenge because the people would have the right to keep and bear arms to defend against tyranny.

To my dear friends on the far left. Suppose a dream of banning personal ownership of guns becomes law. Reality would not mirror the law. Millions of Americans would instantly become criminals. Weapon ownership would be driven so far underground we’d never get it out. Civil war the next likely step.

To my dear friends on the far right. Suppose a dream of no restrictions or limitations on the sale, possession, and storage of powerful weapons and abundant ammunition becomes law. Reality would be more mentally unstable persons committing worse and worse carnage until a broad gun ban appears to be the only remedy. See the paragraph above for that ultimate outcome.

Alternatively, we can back down from the extremes. And then enjoy our lives with less worry. Do we worry about whether that enormous truck ahead of us has a competent driver, whether or not the doctor performing delicate surgery is up to the task, whether or not the airplane is going to fall out of the sky? Why not? Do we worry about whether or not some crazed person is going to kill innocents at our school, grocery store, shopping mall, or out on the street? Why?