The mass shootings are starting to overlap. That was the case over the weekend. They're coming so fast and furious, emphasis on furious, that Donald Trump and Joe Biden can't seem to get the cities straight. For the record, the latest shootings (as of this writing, alas) came in El Paso and Dayton.
And now the finger-pointing begins.
In certain precincts, the blame is cast at the shooter(s). And a society in which discipline at home and school seem lacking. And a breakdown of the family. And a general disrespect for life. And violence tolerated in all forms of entertainment.
In other precincts, the NRA is to blame. And Republican politicians, or maybe just those who vote for Republican politicians. Or maybe rural folk in general, such as those who--as a man once famously said--bitterly cling to their religion and guns.
Both sides have one thing in common, though: They have few, if any, workable ideas.
In fairness, if this was an easy problem to fix, it would have been. Long ago. Violence, especially gun violence, is a Top 3 Major Problem in the United States today. And, as much as this hurts to say, it probably won't be solved anytime soon. Not that it cannot be, but it won't be.
To our friends on the right, how are you going to "fix" society? Require fathers to stay with mothers? Maybe require a good old-fashioned whoopin' on frequent occasion when Junior messes up? How would that law be worded? Or maybe we should outlaw Quentin Tarantino movies. His latest would be a good start.
(The current occupant of the White House has proposed taking another look at how we handle the mentally ill in this country, and that would be a wonderful development. Such examinations can't come fast enough. It's past time.)
To our friends on he left, where to start? We saw one--what's it called? a meme?--on social media earlier this week that said we should blame "toxic masculinity, white supremacy & easy access to guns" for these mass shootings. Fine. Blame them. But how long is it going to take for toxic masculinity to wash out of the American psyche? Another 500 years? And how many shootings are we going to have in the meantime?
How long before the racists die out? They've been around a while. And what other law can be put on the books to restrict "easy access" to guns?
Should we just get rid of the Second Amendment? (You could trade with conservatives who want to get rid of the First.) But to do that, you need to get such a proposal on the ballot. Then the states have to vote on it. And three-quarters of the states would have to ratify it. It matters not how many people vote to abandon the Second Amendment, mind you, but how many states. In other words, if every voter in California voted to excise the Second Amendment, if Arkansas can get 51 percent to say otherwise, Arkansas cancels out California. And Louisiana cancels out New York state. And Mississippi cancels out Illinois. And on it goes. Or would if it ever got that far.
But if the Second Amendment somehow disappeared--somebody said the language in it only means what five particular justices say it means--how many people would voluntarily give up their pieces--10 percent? 20 percent? 50 percent? Which would leave millions of guns on the streets. (And, again, for the record, nobody in government is calling for anything like such massive confiscation. The year 2019 is no time for Big Ideas. Giants do not walk the land these days.)
Somebody suggested getting rid of large-capacity magazines for guns. Good idea. And such an idea would take hundreds of years to complete. There are more guns in this country than people in it, and they say there are at least three times as many clips for those guns. How long will it take for them to rust away, become lost or be turned in after grandpa dies?
And how many more shootings must we endure while we lurch, one death at a time, toward Never-Never Land?
On Monday, the governor of Ohio, a Republican, attended a vigil for the shooting in his state, and the crowd began shouting, "Do something!" The Washington Post said it morphed into "a deafening chant." But what does Do Something mean? Bumper-sticker slogans lead to bumper-sticker thought.
The point is: The right doesn't have a clue about what to do about mass shootings in this country. But neither does the left.
So, are there any wins available to Americans when it comes to guns and mass shootings? Yes, and some of them won't take two or three generations to work.
First, more states need so-called "red flag" laws, which allow police, families and/or co-workers to petition courts to remove guns from certain people. Every one of these laws has due processes in place; nobody's losing his deer rifle because his neighbor is mad at him.
A judge in good standing would have to rule in favor of the petitioners. There would be hearings and re-hearings and appeals--while the man's guns (and it's always a man) are cooling off behind locked doors. We haven't heard one good argument against red-flag laws. Not yet.
There are still too many loopholes that allow criminals and disturbed people to get around background checks. Even the NRA believes background checks are good things, especially if they're instant. So why not make them mandatory, even between private dealers? This won't stop all mass shootings any more than red-flag laws, but it might prevent some. Why does the law mandate background checks to buy a gun at a pawn shop, but not when somebody pays $10 for a ticket at the fairgrounds?
We're interested to hear more on the president's very good idea to study mental health facilities and practices, and how We the People handle them in our country. But that's a long-term answer, too.
Also, there's not one good argument against "hardening" soft targets like schools, churches and malls.
We can talk about theoretical recourses, such as changing the Constitution or the federal courts. But while we waste time on that, we are in a race to beat the next shooter to the next massacre.
First things first. Let's do what we can do now.
Editorial on 08/07/2019