Staff Member
Diamond Supporter
Platinum Supporter
Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 12,538
- Reactions
- 18,008
In the wake of mass shootings, like the one at a Texas church last Sunday, the debates over how to prevent such horrific acts of carnage invariably turn on who should be allowed to buy guns or what kinds of guns should be banned from the market. But the fundamental question is who should be allowed to have access to guns of any kind.
You would think that putting the question in this fashion would be the worst way to ease into the debate over gun control with gun owners. But a strong majority of gun owners and non-gun owners alike support the idea that our judicial system should provide a mechanism to remove guns from those deemed a danger to themselves or others.
Washington state voters enacted such a mechanism last year, with 69 percent approving Initiative 1491. The Oregon legislature followed suit with the passage of Senate Bill 719 spearheaded by Sens. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, and Brian Boquist, R-Dallas. Such "gun removal laws," carefully tailored to address situations of "extreme risk," are now on the books in close to a dozen states. And it appears that these are the kinds of laws that could have improved the chances of averting the Texas shooting - if only the Air Force hadn't failed to provide information on the shooter's domestic violence conviction to civil authorities.
Continue Reading: Tim Nesbitt: "Extreme risk" laws earn support on both sides of gun control debate
