Some limits on firearms make sense

The national shock over the December killings in Newtown, Conn., has given way to a determination for action on gun control not seen in any of the other recent mass shootings occurring since President Barack Obama entered the White House.

The distinction, of course, is that most of these victims were small children attending Sandy Hook Elementary School. Any senseless killing should produce resolve for action, but at the visceral, emotional level, this was different.

People can argue from dawn till dusk over the causes and prevention of gun violence: those making the case that more arms fuel more crime, versus those arguing that an armed populace deters crime. Each side will roll out its statistics.

But when this kind of episode happens, numbers mean little. America has a problem, undeniably, and now the debate will rage over the right way to go.

What’s needed is sensible regulation, including many ideas the president put forward last week, with the requirement for universal background checks at the top of the list. Several of his other proposals have merit, including some requiring congressional action and some actions he pledges to take on his own.

For example, we applaud Obama’s executive order directing the Centers for Disease Control to pursue research on gun violence from a public health standpoint. The CDC had long felt constrained from doing studies that might be construed as gun-control advocacy, a barrier put in place at the urging of the gun lobby. But as the National Rifle Association itself has argued, the psychosocial effects of pop-culture violence are a concern. So tying the hands of the very agency that could find answers makes no sense at all.

Also, Congress should confirm Obama’s nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The NRA is right that there are many laws on the books that could be better enforced, so let’s equip the agency, bereft of a director for six years, to enforce them.

Congress would face its highest hurdle in the bill to re-enact the "assault weapons" ban, which expired in 2004. And in Hawaii, where gun laws are already relatively strict, Senate Bill 219 has been introduced to crack down on these powerful weapons.

The difficulty in such regulations lies in the definition of these guns. Some advocates say rifle models on the proposed ban lists have a more responsive trigger mechanism enabling more rapid firing. But these guns still require a trigger pull for each round fired, say those making the counterargument, and so they bear more cosmetic than actual resemblance to true military assault weapons.

Nonetheless, these guns come too close for comfort to assault weapons, whatever they’re called, and require some restrictions. However, most sober political analysts say there’s little chance of passing another ban. We don’t want the entire initiative to go down in flames because of this one component, when the passage of other elements would offer a marked improvement.

Above all, this nation needs Congress to require universal background checks for the sale of firearms, whether at licensed gun dealerships or at gun shows or other private contexts. The federal government should be able to tap its connected databases to raise the bar against those with criminal records or with a diagnosis of mental illness from acquiring guns. The ease at which firearms are sold over the Internet will present a key challenge in monitoring and enforcing background checks.

But even given the practical limitations of such a law, it’s important to put such a screening mechanism in place. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the individual right to own a gun, but it hasn’t precluded government from sensible regulations. Indeed, in a largely urbanized society, government has a duty to make its citizens its best effort at keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

Further, the restriction on ammunition magazines carrying more than 10 rounds should be enacted. As a matter of national policy, this is a reasonable limit to set, even if it’s acknowledged that an enormous inventory of these items floods the market already. Smaller magazines mean frequent reloading, and that’s what allowed bystanders in the 2011 Tucson massacre to overpower the shooter.

A corollary crackdown on ammunition is being proposed in Hawaii, where lawmakers seek a requirement that ammo buyers prove ownership of a registered gun. However, for this to work an alternate means of proof would be needed for many owners; before 1994, long guns were exempt from registration.

However, the necessary emphasis of current gun-control efforts is at the federal level. For a country with such a long-established history with guns — a society that places a high value on being armed — striking a better balance between the rights and responsibilities of gun ownership is going to be a long-term project.

Still, Obama is right that there’s an imperative to act now, while there’s still momentum from the tragedy of Sandy Hook.