Sunday School 6/5/22

Ready for your Sunday School lesson?

Let's start with Jake Tapper, host of CNN's State of the Union. He described our state being "angry at the lack of leadership." 

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), one of the folks involved in the Senate negotiations in response to the school shooting in Uvalde), talked with Tapper. 

He says he's "never been part of negotiations as serious as these," noting there are more Rs "at the table talking about changing our gun laws and investing in mental health than at any time since Sandy Hook." And, he admitted, he's seen a lot of failed negotiations, so he's "...sober-minded" that they can get something done.

He said red flag laws, background check changes, and "a handful of other items that will make a difference" are on the table. And while he's not sure they'll be able to meet the 'end of the week' deadline from Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), they're "trying to put a package together,

because I think Republicans realize how scared parents and kids are across this country. I think they realize that the answer this time cannot be nothing, that it's frankly a test of democracy, it's a test of the federal government as to whether we can deliver at a moment of just fierce anxiety amongst the American public. So we're closer than ever before. Let's see if we land it.

Tapper wondered about raising the age for purchasing semi-automatic guns, something supported by a couple hundred or so Texas conservatives in a full-page ad in Sunday's Dallas Morning News, but not mentioned as "being on the table."

What we're talking about is trying to make sure that dangerous or potentially dangerous individuals don't have their hands on weapons. Sen. Cornyn has also talked about his interest in taking a look at how we access juvenile records for these young men who tend to be 18 to 21, committing these mass murders, to make sure that they can't get their hands on a weapon if they have had problems with the law in the past...

He also said what Cornyn's saying is "consistent" with their negotiations. 

Listen, we're not going to do everything I want. We're not going to put a piece of legislation the table that's going to ban assault weapons, or we're not going to pass comprehensive background checks. But, right now, people in this country want us to make progress. They just don't want the status quo to continue for another 30 years.

Murphy said they're trying to get to something that will pass, and said "that's why the red flag law is probably the most important" piece. 

It's actually about helping states implement red flag laws... not just providing incentives for states to pass new laws, but helping fund existing red flag laws, so that more individuals who are contemplating suicides can have their weapons temporarily taken from them to save their lives.

And what about Tapper's suggestion, that they just take all the laws passed in red-state Florida after the Parkland shooting, and use that as the template? It's a great question. for sure, and Murphy had a good answer, too. Then-Gov. Rick Scott passed the law

because it was the right thing to do, but also because Republican saw it as good politics. And we have to make the case for Republicans that, right now, this is good politics, that, if they want to get reelected, then they cannot stand in the way of the commonsense changes that we're talking about right now.

And, it made sense, Murphy said. It had mental health, school safety, and "some modest but impactful changes in gun laws." That's what he thinks the Senate can pass. And, while he's "more confident than ever" they can get it done this time, he's also "more anxious about failure this time around." 

He said when he was home last week, 

I have never seen the look on parents' faces that I did. There's just a deep, deep fear for our children right now, and also a fear that government is so fundamentally broken that it can't put politics aside to guarantee the one thing that matters most to adults in this country, the physical safety of their children. And so, I think the possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.

In Case You Missed it (v92)

Last week was a busy one here at veritable pastiche. Here's a recap of our seven posts, ICYMI. 

Things kicked off with the Part 1 of my series Yes, We Can Do Something, which I introduced at the end of the week before last. The series is about the things we can do, if we wanted to, about gun safety and gun control.  

Part 1 deals with the first half of the 2nd Amendment, and ways to create the well-regulated militia our founders mentioned. I don't propose banning guns, but I do recommend enhanced background checks, waiting periods, licensing requirements, new excise taxes, and training. 

• Mandatory education and training must be provided before every gun purchase or transfer is completed. The training must be specific to the gun, and include all aspects of gun ownership (carrying, transporting, using, and storing the gun and ammunition, etc.). The training must also include reports of gun owners hurting themselves or others, such as when kids and parents accidentally kill children, and accidental shootings in the leg, in the head, in the head, in the testicles, in the testicles, in the testicles, in the penis, in the foot, taking a selfie, defending a Muslim-free gun store, trying out his new holster, in the girlfriend, in the girlfriend, in the girlfriend, etc. It must also include video impact statements from survivors and from families of victims of mass shootings. Proof of successful completion of the training must be documented as part of the sale or transfer transaction. 

I know it sounds silly, but if we don't teach them the dangers of their toys, they could end up like the people they're going to learn about. 

Next up? Your regular visit to the Sunday School classrooms, where my attention was on the politicians who represent Uvalde, including Valde County Commissioner Ronald Garza; he was with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation. 

He talked about the stuff making the news - the timeline(s), and the confusion on why folks didn't go in. He talked about the families and about the school building itself, where his dad was a teacher. And, there was this part, too.

Garza knows the family of the shooter, and said he has "no indication" as to any motive. He described the family as one that "value(s) church, they value hard work, known them for many years- great grandparents, grandparents, uncles, aunts." He also said what happened shouldn't be a reflection on the family.

You know, we raise our children, and we try to raise them in the right way. But - but sometimes our children have different thoughts, have different attitudes, personalities, but we do the best we can.

His pain was palpable, as should be ours. 

Part 2 of the Yes, We Can Do Something series came next; this part deals with gun crimes and punishment. I included some changes not directly related to school shootings, because Republicans, like Texans Gov. Greg Abbott and Sen. Ted Cruz, like to talk about strict gun laws in Chicago whenever there's a mass shooting in their state. 

In addition to requiring mandatory minimum penalties for using a gun in a crime, which must be served - in full - before the sentence for the overarching crime is service, I proposed the following: 

• Require mandatory prosecution for holding or hiding a gun in order to protect another person from being charged with a gun crime. 

• Require mandatory prosecution when guns are found improperly secured or transported, such as during TSA checks, law enforcement stops, etc.

• Categorize all crimes in which a gun was used as 'non-bailable' federal offenses, and carve gun legislation out of the filibuster.

That last part would be fun, right? Treating gun crimes with the same level of importance as they do SCOTUS justices? 

Moving on to your Sunday School Extra Credit, we caught up with Rep. Dan Crenshaw. He doesn't represent Uvalde in Congress, but he's a Texan, so he got front-and-center treatment in the State of the Union classroom.

They talked about things we can do, such as universal background checks, which he opposes, and closing the gun show loophole, which he denies exists, and opposes, and red flag laws, which he opposes. On a national law 

You know, it's funny... You would think, from the trolls on the Internet, that I'm the number one advocate for red flag laws. That's a bit of a myth perpetuated by my own side. Now, truthfully, I think there's a lot of problems with red flag laws, especially at a national level.

He mentioned that "criminal law" should be decided at the local and state level, but "you have to look at these and wonder what the actual purpose is." 

And what about a red flag law in Texas? Um, that's also a 'no.'

and here's why, because what we are essentially trying to do with a red flag law is enforce the law before the law has been broken. And that's a really difficult thing to do. It's difficult to assess whether somebody is a threat. Now, if they're such a threat they're threatening somebody with a weapon already, well, then they have already broken the law, so why do you need this other law? That's the question that I think critics rightfully ask about these things.

More on Crenshaw in a minute.

In my Wondering on Wednesday musings, I focused on a post that popped up in my social media memories, one in which I compared my gardening to the gardening that Republicans have been doing, for years. 

Look at all the time they've spent - years, when you think about it - sowing seeds. Seeds of doubt. Seeds of hate. Seeds of fear. Seeds of anger. Seeds of rage. Seeds of control. Seeds of division. Seeds of conspiracy...

They're gardeners, carefully tending their crops, nurturing their harvest, and reaping the rewards.

 They're gardeners. Just like me.

Well, not just like me; I tend different crops, as I describe in the post. 

My wondering? Why has so little changed, with me or with them. I'm frustrated, still, and they're entrenched, still, 

And I wonder, is there a master gardener with the skills to guide us out of this mess, and help us achieve a more suitable design? Or, worse - are we stuck here?

Who is that gardener? It's easy to tell who it's not, that's for sure.

Remember Crenshaw and his lead-in to the red flag law conversation? I invited you to belly on up to the Sidebar for a deeper dive into that. Here's what he told Dana Bash.

You would think, from the trolls on the Internet, that I'm the number one advocate for red flag laws. That's a bit of a myth perpetuated by my own side. Now, truthfully, I think there's a lot of problems with red flag laws, especially at a national level.

What's up with his comment about Internet trolls? What would make them think he favors red flag laws? If I had to hazard a guess, it'd be because they found the found the tweets he sent in 2019, after the mass shooting in Dayton, OH, which was just a day after the mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart. Take a look.

"I supported them before I was against them," or something like that.  I also explored the TAPS Act in the post.

And finally, it was TGIF time - and after a lot of heavy lifting during the week, I chose to do an all 'good week' post. Here's one item that made the cut.

Keeping both oars in the water, there's a non-profit that's turning mining pollution into pigments that are used in paint. Rural Action, based in Ohio, works "to create environmental change in rural Appalachian communities." Contaminated water is collected, then a base and oxygen are added, creating pigments that are being used to make paint. You can see some of the artwork created with the paints here. This isn't 'new' news, but it's new to me and it's pretty cool.

I'll be back tomorrow with your Sunday School - we've got some pretty cool stuff of our own to do today. I'll have more for you in the Yes, We Can Do Something series this week, too. 

Sunday School 5/29/22: Extra Credit

In your Sunday School lesson, I focused on a couple of local Texas officials, who spoke of their pain and anguish, their frustration and anger, and their hopes in the wake of the horrific shooting at Robb Elementary in Uvalde. 

For your Extra Credit, we'll spend time with another Texan - Rep. Dan Crenshaw - who talked with Dana Bash in the State of the Union classroom.

He was asked what "accountability looks like," considering the reports about law enforcement delays. He said he wasn't going to judge "the person who's walking through the breach and is in that moment in the arena," but he said it seems clear protocols weren't followed.

We have very clear training doctrine on this... I mean, the training clearly states, you might get shot, but the guy behind you might be able to get in and save innocent people.

He said someone's likely to get fired for these "very, very bad calls," adding that the Border Patrol coming in and doing the job is "pretty embarrassing for a lot of the local police officers.

Bash asked whether Crenshaw would vote yes on a national red flag law, noting that's one option in the bipartisan discussions in the Senate; fellow Texan Sen. John Cornyn is leading the Rs on that group.

Um, that's a 'no' on a national red flag law. 

No, I wouldn't. You know, it's funny... You would think, from the trolls on the Internet, that I'm the number one advocate for red flag laws. That's a bit of a myth perpetuated by my own side. Now, truthfully, I think there's a lot of problems with red flag laws, especially at a national level.

He mentioned that "criminal law" should be decided at the local and state level, but "you have to look at these and wonder what the actual purpose is." 

And what about a red flag law in Texas? Um, that's also a 'no.'

and here's why, because what we are essentially trying to do with a red flag law is enforce the law before the law has been broken. And that's a really difficult thing to do. It's difficult to assess whether somebody is a threat. Now, if they're such a threat they're threatening somebody with a weapon already, well, then they have already broken the law, so why do you need this other law? That's the question that I think critics rightfully ask about these things

He's concerned about due process (even though these aren't criminal proceedings), and "ultimately how they even solve the problem, because these things have to be reported for them to actually matter." Of course, if you had a red flag law, things could be reported to the appropriate people, and reported to the background check system, too. That's kind of the purpose - to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

And, in this case, look, you have a troubled teenager who did some very strange things, shooting at people with BB guns, cutting himself, saying crazy things. Does this reach the level where you involuntarily -- involuntarily commit him or take his property? Because the thing is, is -- those things that this teenager was doing could be applied to quite a few teenagers.

Crenshaw said "maybe the solution they could agree on is improving our background check system," since "it doesn't seem clear that" a red flag law would have worked here. 

The problem is that the background check didn't capture the full story of this person. So, look, Republicans are the ones that proposed and passed the Fix NICS Act. Republicans have proposed the 21st century Fix NICS Act, which further improves the system...

OK - how about a universal background check? Um, that's also a 'no.'

So, people have to understand what universal background checks mean. That means that I can no longer sell a gun to my friend. If my neighbor, let's say her husband is gone for the week and she wants to borrow my gun, that would make us both felons. That's the problem with universal background checks. And the people who are least likely to adhere to universal background check are the criminals who intend harm. 

And the gun show loophole? Um, that's also a 'no.' 

When people say the gun show loophole, they're talking about private transfers, which gets back to the universal background check debate...There's nothing specific in law about a gun show that allows people to do more things than they would otherwise be able to do. 

This article gives an example of the loophole, describing how a guy wanders around a gun show wearing a "handwritten menu" advertising specific guns for sale, and that there's no background check.

Another often-suggested change? Raising the age. Bash noted that the Uvalde, Buffalo, Parkland, and Sandy Hook shooters were all 20 or younger, and she asked, should the age be 21? 

Well, I think the question we have to ask ourselves is, should 21 be the age that you're an adult? As a society, we do have to decide when you're technically an adult... And, right now, we technically say 18.

But, he said, he's "not very impressed by our current swathe of 18-year-olds and their maturity level," so maybe we can talk about this... Until, we start to talk about it. Then, That's also a 'no.'

When we see a 22-year-old commit an atrocity, are we going to raise it again and are we going to raise it again? And, at a certain point, we have to ask ourselves what our limiting principle is as far as that age limit, because, truthfully, the vast majority of these horrible shootings have been caused by an older person.

(The median age for people committing school shootings is 16; 2/3 of them are committed by people under 18. The age for other "horrible shootings" is in the 30s.)

Bash noted people are going to think he doesn't really want to do anything, since he said no to everything they've discussed; she asked, in a nutshell, what he'd say yes to. Here's that list: "actual security at a school." 

And why can't you do both - 'harden' schools, and some of the other stuff, she asked? Because of the 2nd Amendment? That's exactly the problem, he said. Gun control policies,

they do two things. One, they infringe on the rights of million and millions of gun owners. And, two, they probably wouldn't have the outcome that you're hoping for. So, if you're not going to get the benefit you want, but you're going to -- it's going to come at great cost, that generally means it's not a very good policy. Again, that's why I go back to hardening schools.

He doesn't see a problem that there are tens of millions more guns than people here; he thinks that fine. He also mentioned a CDC study showing "there's hundreds of thousands of cases a year where somebody used a gun to protect themselves or protect others." Actually, the study is inconclusive, except on the fact that more study is needed on the public health implications of on guns.

Bash asked him "Do you really think the founding fathers, when they wrote well-regulated militia, intended for enough guns, weapons of war that you are so...  highly trained in using, should be used to massacre children?"

Crenshaw talked about the "two different ideas in the 2nd Amendment" but he didn't say a thing about the founders. He also doesn't like the term 'weapons of war" because in the military, they use "much, much bigger" weapons than an AR-15.

At the end, Crenshaw wanted to add one more thing about rifles: "they actually make good self-defense weapons."

And, I'd add, they make very good offensive weapons, too. 

See you around campus. 

Yes, We Can Do Something (Part 2)

Continuing the conversation on things we could do about mass shootings, regardless of where they occur, based on years of discussion with friends and family, and information we've shared from our research on the topic. 

As a reminder, a couple of over-arching principles.

We need to change how we talk about the goal. It is not to prevent mass shootings from happening. The goal is to make it harder for someone to commit mass carnage, and to reduce the number of deaths should such an event occur. 

And, gun safety legislation must stand alone, with no unrelated amendments or attachments. Any attempts to attach anything that is not directly related to gun safety shall be considered a bribe. 

Part 1 addressed gun and ammunition purchases, background checks and data reporting. It also includes the definition of 'gun' we're using for this series.

Here are recommendations related to penalties for crimes involving guns and background checks. 

• Ensure a speedy trial - and sentencing - for mass shooting defendants. The person who was convicted of the Colorado movie theater shooting was sentenced just over three years after killing twelve and injuring dozens more. This is an absurdly - and unacceptable - delay in justice being served.

• Require mandatory prosecution for using a gun in the commission of a crime. Anyone convicted of using a gun in a crime will face a mandatory minimum sentence. 

• Require mandatory prosecution for attempting to purchase a gun when a failed background check is certain. Anyone who knows they will fail a background check for a legal gun purchase, but attempts to do so anyway, will face a mandatory minimum sentence upon conviction. Credit is not given for trying to do the right thing.

• Require mandatory prosecution for attempting to bypass a background check, in any manner, with a mandatory minimum sentence upon conviction.

• Require mandatory prosecution for providing false or incomplete information during the background check process. A mandatory minimum sentence will be served upon conviction.

• Require mandatory prosecution for holding or hiding a gun in order to protect another person from being charged with a gun crime. A mandatory minimum sentence will be served upon conviction.

• Require mandatory prosecution when guns are found improperly secured or transported, such as during TSA checks, law enforcement stops, etc., with a mandatory minimum sentence to be served upon conviction.

• Categorize all crimes in which a gun was used as 'non-bailable' federal offenses, and carve gun legislation out of the filibuster. These charges cannot be plea-bargained; and sentences upon conviction must be served consecutively with any other sentences, and must be served in full.

I can picture someone looking at these recommendations and wondering what's the tie-in to making it harder for someone to commit a mass shooting, and I get that - but remember, we are trying to pull together, in an 'all of the above' type of response, to get something accomplished.

One of the many arguments from the 'we don't need to do anything about guns' crowd is that we already have plenty of gun laws on the books, and they need to be enforced. They're right, at least about having them on the books; I don't know about the enforcement part, but I'll accept at face value that the folks who draw this line in the sand know what they're talking about.

Elevating gun crimes from a state-level felony to a federal-level felony will add some teeth (at least in theory) and (again, at least in theory) limit the possibility that some gang leader, organized crime guy, gun runner, a drug dealer or other criminal mastermind will be able to buy themselves some cops, prosecutors and/or judges who can make things disappear. 

It also put the onus on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to get more involved, and stay more involved, in helping trace, track and interdict illegal guns, gun runners and the like. 

And, using federal funds for this effort makes sense, as it's hard for states and municipalities to focus on this at the same time they're focusing on identifying and mitigating the social, economic, medical, psychological, cultural, and educational issues that play so heavily into gun crimes, whether we're talking about mass shootings or, as the politicians like to say, "just another weekend in Chicago."

And, the final benefit of pushing this all up to the federal level? US Senators and members of the House can no longer push responsibility to someone else. The policy-making, the regulations, the funding -- it all sits squarely in their laps.

And, in my eyes, that's the only way many of them will do anything other than offer up thoughts and prayers.

Yes, We Can Do Something (Part 1)

As I mentioned in the Introduction, some friends and I have had running conversations about mass shootings and gun safety legislation since the Sandy Hook tragedy. Honestly, that's way too long for us to be working on this.

Before we dive into our recommendations, there's some ground to cover, including these overarching principles:

We need to change how we talk about the goal. It is not to prevent mass shootings from happening; the goal is to make it harder for someone to commit mass carnage, and to reduce the number of deaths should such an event occur. 

And, gun safety legislation must stand alone, with no unrelated amendments or attachments. Any attempts to attach anything that is not directly related to gun safety shall be considered a bribe.. 

That second one may seem extreme, but one of the problems we have is that literally anything can be attached to a bill, no matter how far removed from the topic at hand. The only way to make sure that doesn't happen is to be absurdly strict.  

For these discussions, the term 'guns' excludes air guns, nail guns, starter pistols, bubble guns, staple guns, Nerf guns, water pistols, etc., and includes handguns, rifles, sidearms, firearms, so-called 'assault weapons,' semi-automatic weapons, 'military-style' weapons', 'weapons of war' and other terms of disgust or endearment. We all know what we're talking about here, and pretending otherwise is merely a deflection. 

What else? These changes would impact all gun sales, not just sales of the type of weapon used in mass shootings, and would standardize processes at the federal level.  States could opt to add additional regs if desired.  I'm aware some progress may have been made in some areas in the years since we first started these conversations. And finally, we tried to take an 'all of the above' approach, to this, addressing key themes from both sides of the argument, in the interest of allowing everyone a victory or two. 

So: here are some recommendations related to legal purchases of guns:

• Raise the legal age for purchasing guns. If it's not safe for kids to purchase alcohol until they are 21, they should not be allowed to purchase a gun until they're 21. If that means the age for voting and being drafted, should the need arise, must be raised to 21, so be it. 

• Require registration of all guns on a federal gun license, regardless of the gun type, and regardless of how bought, sold, or otherwise transferred to a different owner. Everyone who owns a gun must have a license to do so. 

• Mandatory education and training must be provided before every gun purchase or transfer is completed. The training must be specific to the gun, and include all aspects of gun ownership (carrying, transporting, using, and storing the gun and ammunition, etc.). The training must also include reports of gun owners hurting themselves or others, such as when kids and parents accidentally kill children, and accidental shootings in the leg, in the head, in the head, in the testicles, in the testicles, in the testicles, in the penis, in the foot, taking a selfie, defending a Muslim-free gun store, trying out his new holster, in the girlfriend, in the girlfriend, in the girlfriend, etc. It must also include video impact statements from survivors and from families of victims of mass shootings. Proof of successful completion of the training must be documented as part of the sale or transfer transaction. 

• Require mandatory videotaping of all gun sales and require a 'green light' result on a background check, rather than just the absence of a 'red light.' These ideas are good ones, and came from Walmart, after the mass shooting at their El Paso store left 23 people dead. 

• Require yearly renewal of the federal gun license, to include proficiency testing for all guns on the license. Testing should also include an assessment of a person's decision-making ability, such as when to fire vs. when to de-escalate. This training is critical to support the 'good guy with a gun' argument.

• Enhance the federal background check process, to include a check of criminal records, mental health records, and social media posts to identify potentially risky gun owners, and to give them a chance to respond to the findings. The background check must be applied to all gun sales and transfers.

• Implement mandatory reporting into the federal background check system. (a) All law enforcement organizations and security companies must provide timely reporting on all incidents involving all types of guns. (b) All branches of the United States Military must provide timely reporting of relevant data, including all discharge statuses. (c) All social media companies, 'discussion boards,' gaming platforms, etc. must proactively monitor for and report threats of violence, or actual violence, to a designated agency. (d) Requirements will be developed to ensure sufficient but only minimally necessary data is reported. (e) Additionally, all medical facilities and practitioners must provide timely reporting of anonymized data on gunshot victims to the CDC to allow for research, policy development, educational, and legislative purposes. (f) Failure to comply with the reporting requirements will result in an escalated financial and/or criminal penalty process.

• Eliminate state background check systems upon implementation of the enhanced federal system. Historical data from the separate state systems must be incorporated into the federal system before they are shut down.

• Implement a minimum 10-day waiting period on all gun purchases and transfers. One year after implementation of the new background check system, an assessment of the average time to complete a background check will be reviewed, and adjustments to the 10-day waiting period may be considered at that time.

• Attach a federal excise tax to the purchases of guns as we do cigarettes, fuel, airline tickets and alcohol. Taxes collected will be placed in a dedicated fund, used solely in support of gun safety efforts. The fund will be audited annually to ensure the tax is being collected, allocated, and distributed as intended. 

These recommendations pertain to ammunition sales and purchases.

• Require mandatory reporting on large ammunition sales, like the reporting in place today for deposits under federal banking regulations. The definition of 'large' sales will be data-based, and determined by federal regulators. 

• Attach a federal excise tax to ammunition, as outlined above.

• Limit the sale of high-capacity magazines. The definition of 'high-capacity' will be data-based, and determined by federal regulators. 

Coming up, I'll look at things we can do to ensure bad guys with guns are dealt with appropriately; red flag laws; mental health, and more.

We Don't Need to Take People's Guns Away

If you saw last week's debate, or yesterday's interview with Beto O'Rourke on Meet the Press, you know that he's on record with a mandatory buyback of AR-15s and AK-47s and other 'weapons of war.'

Don't get me wrong -- I think these guns are unnecessary, and have no purpose other than inflicting a great deal of harm in a very short period of time. But the mandatory buyback - confiscation with pay, if you will - is wrong. And I don't think most Democrats, or most Americans, believe it's right, or constitutional, even though O'Rourke says it can be done using the Commerce Clause without stepping on the Second Amendment.

This is exactly the kind of position that will make it much harder to get Donald Trump out of office next year. Besides, there are too many other things the majority of us do agree on, such as background checks for all gun sales; red flag laws, given courts the ability to have someone's guns temporarily removed; allowing medical professionals to collect and study data on gunshot victims; and so on. That's where the current Congress should be focused, regardless of what O'Rourke and the other candidates think.
Back in 2013, a friend and I had a very long conversation about guns, which culminated in my post The One in which We Agree.... The post outlined what we, after days of discussion and negotiation via email and chat, were comfortable with to try and shift the dial on gun safety and enhance the principles of responsible gun ownership. Here's what we agreed was reasonable, not overly burdensome on current and prospective gun owners, and which might be achievable (if only...):

1. People choosing to exercise their right to bear arms need criminal and mental health clearance. Yes, this is background checks, and yes, it's intrusive to a certain degree, but it doesn't feel unreasonable to me. 
2. Registration of all gun purchases on a federal gun license. I'm okay with a federal license; I appreciate states having different tolerances for gun legislation and ownership, but certainly in the case of concealed carry permits, we need one law, not many.
3. Mandatory safety training for each type of firearm purchased. This is so simplistic it's ridiculous, and I'm not sure whether it's already the law of the land, but if not it certainly should be.
4. Yearly renewal of the federal gun license, including proficiency testing. Again, not rocket science. He suggested not only proficiency, but also moral simulation, to gauge a person's decision-making ability, such as when to fire vs. when to de-escalate, which I think is a fascinating approach. 
5. Reducing the price of ammunition, thereby making it more readily available so people can practice with their weapons. I had a hard time with this one, but coupled with all of the other things we'd change, and a couple of qualifiers, I decided I could live with it. My qualifiers? Eliminating Internet ammunition purchasing and adding mandatory reporting of large volume ammo purchases, similar to how banks are required to report large cash deposits.
6. We agreed we need to eliminate black market gun sales, but neither of us offered anything here. I'm not sure how to do it, other than good old fashioned police work, finding out who's selling guns illegally and stopping them. It'll take quite a bit of effort, but coupled with other changes, it may be possible to make a dent.

Yes - these would impact law-abiding gun owners more than they impact criminals. But here's the thing: when it comes to mass shootings, most of the perpetrators were law-abiding citizens right up until the point they started killing innocent people. With the right rules in place, it's certainly possible that we might have been able to prevent one or more mass shooting. 

Some, All, or None of the Above

Pretend, for the sake of argument that this was the school shooting that is the one that changes everything. Columbine didn't, and Sandy Hook didn't. So pretend this is the one.

Pretend, for the sake of argument,  that we actually are inspired and want to make changes, across a wide spectrum, to try and make a difference.

Pretend, for the sake of argument, that your elected representatives at the school, local, state and national level are motivated to listen to you and do whatever it is you suggest to keep your children safe.

Pretend, for the sake of argument, that you are in control. I know, I know - that's a huge bit of pretending, I get it -- but just pretend.

Here's your list of options, based on what I've seen on various news and social media platforms. Know that none of these will work, because if a person really wants to commit mayhem, they'll find a way - that's what we're told, anyway, when some suggests changing gun laws. 

Know that  individually,  these might have no impact, but that collectively, they might make a difference --and choose as many as you think we should try.

1. Ban large-capacity magazines, clips, etc. so that a person would have to load their gun more often, making it take longer for them to commit mass mayhem and giving people more time to, hopefully, escape.

2. Ban new sales of the 'mass-shooting' rifle -- the AR-15 and similar weapons, and implement a buy-back program to get as many of them off the street as possible.

3. Ban sales of bump-stocks and similar items that make it easier to kill more people in a short period of time.

4. Ban sales of guns to anyone who is not old enough to purchase alcohol.

5. Ensure that the military is reporting all less-than-honorable discharges to the national background check system, and do not allow them to purchase any kind of gun, and that this reporting is timely - as in, immediately upon discharge. And fire anyone in the military hierarchy who failed to ensure this reporting occurred as required.

6. Close the 'boyfriend' loophole, which allows a person who commits violence against a partner to whom they are not married to purchase a gun, and treat these people the same as those who abuse their spouse.

7. Establish a ten-day waiting period on the purchase of all guns - handguns, medium guns, long guns, whatever - to bring consistency to the process, and to allow sufficient time for the background check process to occur.

8. Pay gun manufacturers not to make guns, just like we pay farmers not to grow crops.

9. Tax packages of ammunition the same way we tax packages of cigarettes. Add a user fee on the sale of every gun. Use this money as startup cash to pay for whatever needs to be paid for (see #11 and #12, for starters).

10. Close all background check loopholes. Private sales, gun shows - whatever the gaps, close them.

11. Secure our school buildings: locks on external doors, cameras, badge readers, metal detectors, security offices and security officers - real ones, not the kind you see at many offices - at entry doors, double door entries, limited number of doors with external handles, etc.

12. Secure the classrooms: bullet-proof glass in the windows and doors; panic buttons for teachers to warn the office and local police of a threat; doors that truly lock from inside and cannot be forced open.

13. Arm teachers, if they are willing, provided that the weapons they're assigned can be secured in their classrooms so that they don't fall into the wrong hands, and that they're carefully screen and can prove proficiency with their weapons (something that is not required for purchasing one, by the way).

14. Go back to saying the Pledge of Allegiance in schools every day.

15. Re-institute school prayer.

16. Ban violent video games, television shows, lyrics, movies, poetry, fiction and non-fiction writing, and any other art forms which can project violence.

17. Enter mental health records into the background check system, regardless of the patient age, and never allow anyone who has had any mental health issues to legally purchase guns or ammunition.

18. Stop prescribing medications that can have mental health related side effects (depressions, thoughts of suicide, hyperactivity, manic behaviors and so on).

19. Ban contributions to politicians from any gun rights groups.

20. Wring our hands, offer thoughts and prayers, and as Paul Ryan said, count our blessings, whatever that means.

Have at it -- some, all, or none of the above?