It’s been a little over a month since the Sandy Hook shooting. 27 dead in one day – the majority of them were six-year old children.
And since Sandy Hook, we’ve seen more than 1200 other shooting deaths around the country.
The details of Sandy Hook still seem somewhat sketchy, which is leading a lot of people to claim it’s a conspiracy and others to drive a solid line in the sand on one side or the other in the gun control debate.
Since the shooting, President Obama has issued his plan, based on Vice President Biden’s advice but they never asked me for my advice. I’m sure you’re all super surprised.
Oh well – I’ll share it with you and anyone who will listen.
First off as a disclaimer: I want to see all guns banned.
- Require all US gun owners to obtain a federal (and/or state) license. We already require a licence for things like fishing, hunting, driving a car, working with food, etc. etc. Let’s require all gun owners to obtain a license to own a gun. No guns or ammunition may be purchased without the license. I’d prefer to see this license renewed yearly, but would accept a 3-year renewal process if needed. I understand the UK has a 5-year renewal requirement and they also have one of the lowest rates for gun deaths in the world. Licensing fees will be dedicated to education I’ll mention in a bit. If you want the right to own a gun, prove you’re responsible enough to do so.
- In addition to background checks as part of the licensing process, card applicants must take a 10 hour course from a certified instructor before their license is approved. The course will cover things similar to a CHL license in Texas: use of force, non violent dispute resolution, gun use, marksmanship and safe and proper storage of guns and ammunition. Additional classroom hours will be required before licenses may be renewed. This might be a good chance for the NRA to re-focus on their original mission of gun education instead of a political action committee.
- All existing guns must be registered to a licensed gun owner. Any gun found not registered, regardless of the circumstance will be confiscated immediately.
- Increase funding for the study of antidepressants and other SSRIs and psychiatric drugs and their effect on violent behavior. Numerous reports have linked these drugs to countless murders and suicides around the country – not just mass shootings. While serotonin can be a bad thing if our bodies aren’t producing enough, the effects can be just as harmful if we’re getting too much.
Place an immediate ban on media reporting the names and photos of suspects in mass shootings. Yes, this tramples on 1st Amendment rights and yes, I would hate to have my voice censored when I was a reporter but we restrict the media in other ways and I think we should restrict the media in this way as well.UPDATE: 3/13/14 – Request the media to limit reporting on the names and photos of suspects in mass shootings. I’ve rethought this and I really don’t think we should restrict the reporting of details but I think we as a society should limit anything that sensationalizes mass shootings, although I don’t have a solid answer to how we do so other than simply turning my conversations away from the shooter and towards the victims. Twenty years from now we should be remembering the names of Caroline Previdi, James Mattioli, Daniel Barden and their classmates as well as their teachers, Rachel D’Avino, Anne Marie Murphy and Victoria Soto — not the names of a cowardly gunman.- Use the funds from the licensing fees to increase non-violent conflict resolution training in our schools – from Kindergarten to college. I would like to see the funds raised from each state stay within their state. If more people own guns in a state, there should be more conflict resolution training in the schools. Simple as that.
- Rather than arm teachers or pay for armed guards at every school in America, I would rather see school campuses (especially Kindergarten through High School) invest in better unmanned security around their campus. There is no reason schools can’t lock-down their buildings with minimal entrances that require ID cards or office verification before anyone can even enter the school. There’s also no reason campuses can’t have better security cameras to alert faculty and staff in the chance someone does get by the initial security clearance. If an intruder is spotted, use fire-safety technology to automatically close and lock all doors across the campus.
- UPDATED: 3/13/14 – Automatically increase punishment for crimes committed with a firearm, whether it’s used or not. According to Freakonomics author Steve Levitt, this is one of the proven ways that have deterred gun violence when used in the past.
So for instance, laws that say if you commit a crime and you have a gun with you, regardless of whether the gun was used, then without any sort of other consideration, we add five years, or 10 years, or 20 years, or 50 years to the sentence that you get. Those kinds of laws, I guarantee you, will work. If the incentives are strong and tell you don’t use guns, then I guarantee you we will see the number of gun homicides fall and the number of knife homicides rise, but not one for one. People will substitute away for using guns to kill people to using knives to kill people. But it won’t be one for one because knives just aren’t as good of a tool for killing people as guns are. That will work. I have no doubt that will work. It’s worked in California in the past when California put mandatory sentence enhancements on for felonies that were committed with guns. But I think the policy has to be one of that nature, where you’re not tying it to the gun itself, you’re tying it to the use of guns that you don’t want.
That’s my plan… It’s far from perfect, but it’s what I have to offer to the conversation today.
What do you think?
Could you live with these “restrictions.”
Could these changes pass Congress with or without the NRA’s involvement?
What would you add?
I can live with this(sorry bad pun). I don’t know if I’d trust the government to use the money for the intended purpose but there’s always a first time.ðŸ˜I would add the decriminalization of marijuana as an added measure since although I am not a partaker yet, I’ve known very few participants in the substance to have the aggression required to commit such violent acts. Regardless lets quit the shrieking and name calling and try to discuss the issue rationally( which would also be a first). So, let the name calling begin, JD can use the publicity. 😉
I have no objection personally to legalizing the marijuana either.
Its hard to determine whether the whole SSRI and antidepressant drugs are leading the cause in things or is more of the underlying reason for taking those drugs? Or both? I do believe the US doesn’t do enough for mental health in this country. But you also can’t lock everyone up who shows a mental instability either. But, I do agree with most of these opinions, especially registering them.
I agree – there’s not a definitive link yet between the drugs and the issues we’re seeing. Although it seems like the majority of these mass shooters were on some type of medication. That’s why I’d like to see more studies related to the two.
Based on the saying “that the pen is mightier than the sword” should we require that journalist be trained in responsible journalism with a license that must be renewed every 2 to 5 years?
We need more and better mental health — but who will pay for it?
If journalists were going around killing people I’d have no problem saying they need to be licensed. As it is, many journalists get additional training at conferences and such if they’re paper is supportive of it. However, with the continued decrease in revenue for journalism, training is getting slashed along with staff.
And yes, I think we need better mental health care in the country. It should be easier to get mental health care than a gun. But until it’s a priority across the country it won’t get the funding it needs.
I would argue that journalists are responsible for more deaths than mass shooters.
I’d be curious to know your rational, but it sounds like saying they’re “responsible” for more deaths would be akin to saying gun manufacturers are “responsible” for all gun deaths and cigarette manufacturers are “responsible” for all lung cancer deaths and all car manufacturers are “responsible” for car related deaths.
I personally don’t hold any of those groups responsible for what people do with their products.
By “responsible†I mean journalist who write articles that instigate violence. Not the paper, website or magazine that publishes the articles.
I assume that our goal is the same—to reduce violence. What I am suggesting is that what you are recommending is treating a symptom. We should make a careful study of all violence–looking at what would reduce violence the most while “infringing†on our Bill of Rights the least.
I am also suggesting that your proposal would reduce gun “accidents†but do dreadfully little to reduce true violence.
My goal is for no mother or father to go to bed knowing they’ve lost a son or daughter. My goal is for no brother or sister to miss a sibling standing next to them on their wedding day. My goal is to change a culture from regarding violence as an answer to seeking peace and Shalom above all other options.
No law is going to do all that. It takes changing the hearts of men which can only be done by powers beyond me. But I believe I (we) have been called to be reconcilers of men – both to one another and to God.
And if my suggestions only stop accidental deaths, then that’s a long way from what we have now.
well im a red blooded American and i love my guns i dont think we need new laws, we already have more than we need. what we should do is educate our citizens how these weapons work when and when not to use them Just like Sweden they teach their citizens all about guns so they aren’t afraid of them like a lot of Americans. Thats what i think we should do but i want to thank you for respecting the second amendment and my point of view and i respect your views as well. that is what makes America great.
Thanks Trevor!
While I oppose guns for multiple reasons I’d be much more in favor if the US had mandatory training as Sweden does. As you likely know, Sweden has the training requirement so that every man will be ready to fight when called upon as Sweden does not have a standing army. My understanding of the 2nd amendment is that for “a well regulated militia” we have the right to bear arms – which sounds a lot more like Sweden than we might want to admit. 😉 The problem I see in the US is the cowboy mentality where it’s everyone for himself rather than what’s best for the common good.