With the memory of both the El Paso and Dayton mass murders still fresh, the conversation about how to deal with escalating violence in American society continues.
Whether or not there will be any real progress, of course, remains to be seen. Right now we are in the post-mass shooting cycle. The first to express outrage and sympathy and to offer the ubiquitous “thoughts and prayers.”
The second phase is when state and national leaders dither about taking additional legislative steps. Various elected officials will offer ideas, some of which have been offered before, and test the political waters to see if there is support for them.
Generally, there isn’t enough outrage to change the direction of status quo politics, though. So the dithering eventually goes away and the issue goes from a raging boil to a barely noticeable simmer until the next incident happens.
The cycle then repeats.
The latest turn of events is the waffling of the president about whether or not there should be universal background checks. He has made statements to indicate he might support it; then The Atlantic published a story he told the head of the NRA he wasn’t considering such a stance; and then the White House said background checks were still being considered.
The president has also expressed concerns about how the issue might affect his re-election plans.
Katie Lannan of the Statehouse News Service wrote a piece this week about a new national survey about “red flags laws,” which would enable authorities to remove guns from people who have been evaluated as a threat.
Lannan wrote: “Speaking from the White House on Aug. 5, Trump said he has called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders, because “we must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process.”
“In a new poll conducted from July 16 to 21, about two weeks before the recent shootings, a total of 77 percent of respondents said they either strongly or somewhat support allowing a family member to seek a court order that would temporarily take away guns from an owner they feel might harm themselves or others. Seventy percent expressed some level of support for allowing the police to seek the same type of order.
“The survey of 1,009 adults across the country was conducted by the APM Research Lab with the public radio reporting collaboration Guns in America and with Call to Mind, an American Public Media initiative focused around mental health.”
Lannan also reported, “The red flag law in Massachusetts, passed in the wake of the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, allows relatives and household members to ask a judge to suspend someone’s gun license. If the order is granted, authorities could remove guns from a home.
“The policy became law over the objections of the Gun Owners Action League, the local affiliate of the NRA, which called it ‘a gun confiscation bill with no provisions for mental health evaluations and services for those deemed extreme risks by the courts.’
The bill cleared both branches of the Legislature with bipartisan support and was signed into law by Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, who at the time said it ‘creates a responsible way to help prevent gun deaths and suicides while protecting individuals’ second amendment rights.'”
There are millions of responsible gun owners who obey state and federal laws. These folks, like the rest of us, do not want to see the hideous crimes this country has seen for years.
Real action is required on the federal level to reduce the number of illegal guns, prevent those with mental illness issues from buying guns and looking at both the size of magazine and the type of weapon that is available for purchase.
In the meantime, the most progress towards a solution may be seen at the state level.
