On 15 December 2012 in the small community of Sandy Hook Connecticut, a horrible event played out at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. In a community of about 27,000,  this rural, quiet, bucolic place was rocked by evil as twenty-six people were gunned down by a twenty year old for reasons we  may never know.Six of the victims were adults. The remainder were children – yes, children, ranging in age from six to ten years of age.I suspect it will a long long time before this community, a short distance East on Highway 6 from Danbury, regains its composure. I doubt if it will ever completely heal. One has to ask many questions after an event like this. As the several religious leaders of the area spoke at a service at the High School, there are many to remain unanswered. One asks the simple and yet complex question “why”.However, there is at least one question that can be answered and measures can be taken to, if not remedy the concern, at least make serious progress toward it.I sense that the reader already has a fair idea where this one is headed so let’s get to it. The weapons carried by the shooter were three – a Glock pistol, a Sig-Sauer pistol – both 9mm semi-automatics and a Bushmaster AR-15 Assault rifle in .223 caliber with thirty round magazine. For the record, they were all weapons owned by his mother – another victim of  the shooter.I bring this up because it begs the question of  the why and wherefore for these weapons.

Now before readers jump all over me, allow me this personal note. I own a gun. Indeed, I own several. I also have a Concealed Weapons Carry permit – one that is reciprocal in no less than nine other states including those in which I sometimes travel. I fully understand the legitimate use and utility of a good pistol and that of a good rifle. If you find yourself in the far out lying areas of the desert or  in the mountains here in the Southwest, it is most advisable to have one or the other with you, preferably both.  I  simply do not understand the  utility or use for a military style weapon with a thirty round banana  for civilians. I do not accept the often posed argument that enforcing a ban on these assault weapons somehow curtails one’s ability to hunt effectively. If you didn’t get it with the first two rounds, believe me, that game is long gone ! Believe me, a round from a reliable bolt action is sufficient for most varmints and game.

The Second Amendment states ” A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed . “The lawyers, scholars and so called patriots ( I use that term very guardedly ) have argued the actual meaning of this for decades. Considering none of them was around at the time of the actual writing of this amendment, all is more academic discussion than anything. I have  even argued it all from a strict grammar point of view, noting the curious use of the comma in 18^th Century writing.  The language is based on English Common Law written in 1689 during which time it was seen prudent to allow citizens to be armed against a hostile King. I don’t figure this applies to the U S in 2012, the assertions of Tea Party politicians notwithstanding. Neither does the whole “militia” element as the National Guard  is more part of the regular Army than ever before and is not under the sole governance of the states. All that being said, there is still the constitutional protection for citizens to own, keep and bear arms. The problem comes when you have to discuss what arms, what limits on arms and armaments, and should there be limitations based on the needs for the proverbial greater  good.   I leave this forever ongoing discussion to the legal eagles and academics. I generally hold no credence in the rants of those so called patriots. My posture in all of this, especially in light of Sandy Hook Elementary School, as well as other shootings of recent times, is what can be done, what should be done and what are we, the people, willing to do. It has been reported on most every news outlet that 74 % of NRA members favor a stricter system of background checks for the purchase of weapons. 87% of non NRA  members feel similarly. If the NRA membership is saying we, as a nation, need background checks for all purchases – including at gun shows, then why does the NRA persist in fighting these rules. I cannot understand why so many are against background checks. It seems logical and prudent and would go a long way toward lessening catastrophes such as we have seen recently. It indeed might have made a huge difference in a Tucson shopping center when a borderline deranged shooter killed several and severely wounded several more, including  Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Again, the arguments will persist for years and sadly, no matter what Congress and or the states decide to do, there will be many who will rant and rave about their “rights”. I choose to ignore most of that as being irrelevant. There will also be long and hard discussions about the meaning of the word “infringed” and the scope of that meaning. I, on the other hand, as  a long time gun owner and for a  while, competitor, strongly hold that  in this case,  measures need to be enacted that focus more on the common good and the protection of our communities. This is not infringement in the broader sense. These measures do not bar ownership, etc. They do bring  rational policy to an ever changing society and responds to modern concerns.

And what, you ask, are these measures ? In my opinion, I would like to offer some specifics which I consider to be essential. I will not attempt to forecast where Washington will take this. Nor will I try to predict the reactions and responses of the individual states. However, after arguing, discussing, researching and writing about this matter for years, allow me to propose what I hold are rational, meaningful strategies for addressing what is clearly a national crisis. First and foremost, pending clear and specific definition, it is paramount that the Assault Weapons Ban of the Clinton era be reauthorized. There is no need or utility for military style weapons and there is no need for enhanced ammunition capacities. Secondly, the must be, as a federal mandate, background checks on the purchase of all firearms. With the available technology of today, this can and should include Gun Shows. Additionally, as is the case in many states, a waiting period for hand guns should be mandatory. Really, it’s not a big deal and many have been doing it for years. All multiple unit purchases should be reported to ATF. OK,  for more reasons than I will reveal, I am as against Big Government intruding in everyday stuff as anyone, but this is quite different, especially in border states. Also, ALL weapons confiscated at crime scenes shall be destroyed, not sold out the back door as has been the case with several police departments.

There is another element here which is a bit more delicate in nature, that of the element of mental health. Many of those who perpetrate these horrible crimes are or recently have been receiving services in the mental health system. I hold that all persons who are under  extended care of a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist should be reported to ATF so that they are barred from purchasing firearms for the duration of treatment.  Sadly, there are many who should be but are not receiving mental health services and that is a concern to be addressed as well.I do not propose this will end such mindless shootings  as in the past week. I don’t expect the untold number of random, drive by style shootings to diminish substantially in the beginning. BUT, perhaps as we move forward, the mindset will change and we will come to realize that it time for a rational discussion on policy which focuses heavily on the safety of our communities. To quote Harvey Wasserman writing in the Huffington Post, “… We are the ones with the real Seond Amendment remedy — the clear Constitutional demand for a “regulated” gun ownership that serves rather than destroys the “security of a free state”.