Fort Hood military base, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Orlando nightclub, Las Vegas concert shooting and now Parkland High School. After each of these tragic events, the conversation inevitably finds itself on the subject of firearms, gun rights and the relevance of the Second Amendment.
Unfortunately, as with all topics of discussion in this country today, the ensuing conversation devolves not into conducive discourse of civil propositions, but rather accusations of bigotry complemented by the usual media ignorance and fear-mongering.
Ultimately, regardless of what any politician or cable network host may say, the left-of-center notion of all guns and gun owners being bad and the right-of-center notion of having more guns and expanding access to them will solve all problems are both equally fallacious. There is a sane and rational middle ground to be found.
The Parkland Florida high school shooting was the most recent mass shooting in America to garner national attention, and reignite calls for gun control in the country. These calls were largely pushed by many of the surviving students themselves. The students have called for increased background checks, assault weapons bans and for public outrage against the National Rifle Association. Sadly, although a discussion began through this activism, it has not resulted in civil debate.
Many on the right-leaning activists attempted to rebuff the student’s calls for gun control and were demonized for “attacking victims,” even though civil discourse requires any and all who offer up their voice in public forum to be equally open to criticism.
Reliance on pathos as opposed to rational conclusions has ultimately resulted in a gun control conversation tainted by a notion of taking a differing opinion is equivocal to minimizing the horror faced by survivors of the tragedy.
As harsh as it may be to say, surviving a mass shooting does not make anyone an expert on firearms, crime statistics or public policy. Emotional experiences should inspire, while facts should inform. What are these facts, and how can legislators effectively serve their constituents? The answers are not clear.
The first issue requires a glimpse at the statistics given by the media regarding guns in America. Extremely high numbers are broadcasted as the thousands of gun homicides every year, but what never is accurately addressed is that as Pew Research found in 2010, nearly two-thirds of all gun deaths are suicides, not homicides.
Another inconsistency in the gun control debate is the number of guns in America has increased by roughly 5 million per year as shown by Cleveland State University. In fact, the violent crime rate has continued to plummet. No proportional increases in gun violence has been recorded to coincide with increased firearm ownership.
As a start to consensus building, even firearm usage in suicides could be addressed in a multi-faceted approach. Mandatory waiting periods for all gun purchases could help weed out those looking to make hasty decisions, and place more burdens on firearm sellers to require psych-evaluations would also lessen the likelihood of those who are suicidal obtaining firearms.
As a segway into a broader solution, states such as Connecticut and now recently Florida have passed laws allowing people to petition courts to temporarily confiscate weapons from those who have threatened others or themselves. These confiscations are not initially permanent, and due process is allowed for the individual in question to make the case for the returning of the weapons. Other states would do well to take note of these policies, as they effectively address both public safety and constitutionality. 
One of the most common calls from gun control advocates is to have universal background checks on all purchases. The goal behind this idea is to better fill holes in laws from state to state, and to make federal and state systems more in-line with one another.
States often have different classifications for people eligible for weapons purchases, thus it is inconsistent to say across the country which individuals can buy guns. Proposals similar to universal background checks have generally seen their support percentages across the population hover in the upper 90s. According to Daniel Webster, the director of the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, this solution would be ineffective. The implementation, however, could be difficult as many of the mass shooters of late have passed background checks. However, this phenomenon represents a failure of government in its duty to effectively enforce law, as opposed to a failure of law itself.
Another common gun control suggestion is to reinstitute the bans of so-called “assault style” weapons, like the AR-15 rifle. From 1993-2004 a federal ban was in place on these styles of weapons, but statistics regarding its effectiveness are difficult to interpret. The left claims it has not been in place long enough for verifiable results, and the right claims its absence of verifiable results disproves the concept as a whole.
Unfortunately, there is immense confusion around this issue, as no actual definition of an “assault weapon” exists. The AR-15 is often classified as such due to its cosmetic appearance even as its function differs significantly from its militarized cousins, which are already illegal for civilian use.
Aside from their magazines, AR-15 style rifles are merely “scarier” looking hunting rifles when using base caliber rounds. Perhaps bans on certain ammunition types and barrel suppressors would be a step in the right direction, and New York and Colorado have had mixed results in their bans on high capacity magazines. A key point to consider is the vast majority of gun crime in the U.S. is perpetrated by handguns rather than “assault style” weapons. Banning such firearms may sound effective and appealing in theory, however, it would not make a recognizable dent in the day-to-day gun violence of America.
An odd aspect of debate on gun control relatively new to this round of conversation post-Parkland has been the fury and rage directed toward the National Rifle Association. Many of this rage is in fact perhaps warranted, as the NRA’s stance on weapon restrictions was actually fairly moderate up until the 1970s. However, there is hypocrisy in singling them out for the evils of buying legislators. Why is it no one cares when labor unions buy politicians, or when pharmaceutical companies do the same?
Before concluding with a brief discourse on reasonable policy options regarding guns in America, there are a few reasons why a citizen should be skeptical of calls for gun control and reform by our leaders. The first is because private American citizens are not the largest perpetrators of violence via weaponry in this country, but rather the State itself is. One must be at least dubious when a government which has droned children for a decade is now suddenly concerned about the dignity of young life.
It is difficult to not be at least suspicious when politicians call on the citizens of one’s country to lay down their arms for safety while they are simultaneously selling advanced weapons systems to terror groups in foreign civil wars.
Lastly, with law enforcement in America continuing to kill with impunity, private gun ownership may serve a vital role in targeted communities. Even as violent crime between individuals has plummeted, since 2016 police have managed to shoot three times as many citizens as the amount of those who have been killed in mass shootings in the last four decades, according The Free Thought Project. Perhaps the blue-uniformed enforcers of unjust laws and legally absolved murderers should be the ones targeted for gun control, not private citizens.
All in all, as murky and divisive as the gun control debate has become, there are many reasonable policies appealing to those on either side of the aisle. As previously said, mandatory waiting periods would help diminish rash decisions made with guns, and universal background checks with standardized prohibiting factors would also help to divert weapons out of the wrong hands.
A ban on bump stocks would also be a reasonable move, as any modification that alters a weapons function to more closely resemble illegal firearms should be banned. Another possible remedy would be the Project Exile program used by the state of Virginia, which increased penalties for gun crimes. However, once again, its effectiveness is not clear.
One proposal has not been made recently, but is one that I find rather compelling is the possibility of holding weapon sellers liable for crimes committed with their weapons. Just as corporations must pay fines for externalities related to pollution, gun sellers would be taken to civil court for any damages inflicted with weapons originating from them.
A new legal duty-of-care would be created in which a gun seller would have to prove it took all precautions to ensure only healthy and qualified individuals were sold firearms. This would shift the responsibility of background checks, psych-evaluations, waiting periods, safety training and secure storage requirements to those who have the most to lose in a lawsuit: the sellers themselves. The FBI has proven itself to be incapable of effectively handling such things, and it may be unwise to ask more of agencies already failing in their public mandates.
Ultimately, by coming together in a mutually respectful disagreement, policies can be implemented in the wake of the Parkland tragedy. However, doing so must also force some soul searching of its own.
We must ask ourselves an uncomfortable question: What is it about this country that seems to be driving people to commit heinous acts of evil, and for how long has it been lurking beneath the ever-fracturing surface of red, white and blue gilded glory?