The Gun Control Debate: Compromise is necessary

What do most of the mass killings in the U.S. have in common? There are a few things, actually.

• They were carried out in gun-free zones
• The weapons were purchased legally
• The weapons were not assault weapons
• The assailants had a history of mental issues

To me, the last seems to be the one that both sides are mentioning as a problem, but it seems that neither side is trying to find a solution. Why?

Because hardcore 2nd Amendment believers don't want to give up their rights. And I don't blame them at all, because I know that the hardcore anti-gun advocates are trying to get as much as they can in the wake of the tragedy.

By addressing this issue, I think we can satisfy both sides of the debate and make our country safer, while violating the rights of fewer Americans. I'm sacrificing a little of my personal beliefs, but not giving up the farm. I don't expect you to, either. But I expect you to give a little ground to help me feel at ease. So here is my opening salvo.

Prohibiting purchase
Anyone who is undergoing counseling for depression or any mental disorder must be registered in a database. The therapist should be required to report it. For those of you who argue that this violates doctor-patient privilege, I don't care. The anti-gun people say they want to limit access, so let's get serious about doing it. Name a better way to prohibit those with mental issues access to firearms.

Yes, this includes anyone on medication. Here's why: I think those medications dull perceptions and emotions. I've watched people on anti-depressants who couldn't grieve when there was a death in the family. For others, it could make smudge the line between right and wrong because they are not completely in tune with the fact that there are consequences. I think removing their ability to purchase weapons is a good idea. Would it have stopped the Virginia Tech shootings? Maybe. Maybe not.

Restricting access
Anyone who is undergoing treatment cannot live in a house with guns. If they live with parents, their parents must remove their firearms from their home. Have a relative store them so they can still be used. But there is no exception to this rule. Not even one for self-defense. If the child is in treatment, there are no guns in the house.

Furthermore, if they visit a house with firearms, all must be locked in a gun safe with trigger locks. (Seriously... this is a good idea anyway.) Could this have prevented Columbine and Sandy Hook? We'll never know. But I think it's a wise move.

Restoring rights
I would not say that those who have addressed their issues should be forever ineligible. Just as in other areas, rights can be restored. In order to buy a gun, they have to be cleared by their therapist and one other, along with their local police department.  I would also suggest instituting a six-month waiting period. Yes, it's a pain in the ass, but I think it's warranted.

Confiscating weapons
Anyone who has been convicted of a violent crime, including domestic violence, becomes ineligible to purchase a gun. At the time of arrest, it will be determined if they own firearms. They must be turned in. If they are not convicted, the firearms will be returned. If convicted, they will be sold through police auction and applied to their fines. Any sold will at auction will, of course, have background checks, which could has the added bonus of putting more firearms in the system. If they are not sold, they will be destroyed, which has the added bonus of taking more firearms out of the system.

Expanding what's in place
Criminals are already prohibited from buying firearms. Adding the names of people undergoing treatment expands on that. Because their names will be entered into the database, background checks will immediately flag them as ineligible in the future.

Debating the issue
I wrote this to open a serious debate. Don't play "what if" with me. I'm sure you can think of scenarios where something bad happens. So can I.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I also believe people need to feel and be safe. If you have a better solution, where both sides can be happy, where both give a little ground, let's hear it. Let's find a solution that doesn't violate the rights of 99.91% of the population. One that can take a step in the right direction toward helping to prevent these tragedies.