Gullixson: What readers had to say about shooting solutions

Events of the past week have shown, once again, that America has attention deficit disorder. Last Sunday, the focus was on guns, terrorism and what was going to happen at the climate conference in Paris. This week it's Trump, Trump and candidates that rhyme with 'rump.'

America can't get enough of our modern day Il Duce ­— a man who not only looks like Benito Mussolini but, with his plans for Muslims, is starting to sound like him. (Roughly 100 years ago, Mussolini was known for trumpeting a movement that he said was 'against the backwardness of the right and the destructiveness of the left.' It was called fascism.)

Fortunately, you all have not lost touch with the things that matter. After the killings in San Bernardino, we asked you all to give us your ideas on what steps should be taken to stem or stop the rising tide of gun violence in America. ('What now? Tell us what you think needs to happen to stop mass murders,' Editorial, Dec. 4). We've received dozens of letters, emails, phone calls, etc. We've published a number in Let the Public Speak section while others have run on our opinion page.

Last week, I read through all the formal responses and tried to break them down into categories to make them easier to summarize. Of course, some people presented more than one idea and there was some overlap. But of the 115 responses (excluding sarcasm), the plurality (33), advocated for some form of increased regulation. This ranged from universal background checks to licensing of guns to buying back weapons to requiring trigger locks and GPS chips in guns.

Eight called for an all-out ban on private ownership of guns while three called for bans specifically on automatic weapons.

'Common sense dictates that such laws and regulations would strongly curtail the proliferation and misuse of weapons such as assault rifles — weapons that are not used for legal hunting.'

— Miguel Rostov, Santa Rosa

Thirteen said the primary problem was the Second Amendment, which either needed to be amended (three votes) or reinterpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to allow for greater controls (10). Eight cited the success of Australia in adopting strong gun controls and felt the U.S. should do the same.

'The only guns available in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights were muzzle-loaders with flint locks that took 30 to 90 seconds to fire, reload and fire again. It was 1860 before a gun could fire seven shots in 15 seconds and 1951 before the AK-47 was created . . . Applying the Second Amendment to today's weapons is wrong.'

— Don Scully, Sebastopol

Meanwhile, eight respondents said more gun regulation was not the answer while six said the solution was arming more people.

'If half of those 14 murdered (in San Bernardino) had been armed, probably not all would have died. But the terrorists know no one can carry a gun so they walk in knowing there will be no resistance to their murderous plans.'

— Robert A. Casper Sr, San Rafael

Still at least five made a point of noting that arming people with more guns was no solution.

'The idea that in the midst of a mass shooting a person can pull out a handgun and shoot the shooter while not shooting one of the other innocent bystanders is nonsense. .'

— Sue McNeill, Mendocino

Opponents argued that more regulations on gun ownership was not the answer (eight) while four advocated for heavier penalties for gun use.

'It's not right to go after people that legally own and respect firearms. When a person is found to be in possession of a stolen gun or uses a gun committing a crime, let's demand that our district attorneys and judges send them away for a very long time.'

— Raymond Cho, Petaluma

Still others believed the solution lay elsewhere such as in giving more attention to mental health issues (seven), heavily regulating ammunition (four) and encouraging the news media to stop publicizing the names of mass murderers (five.)

Finally, three said they believed there was nothing to be done, while one, quoting the Beatles said 'all you need is love' and another suggested all we needed was Trump — which brings us back to where we started. Sigh.

Yes, I believe more universal gun regulation is needed, particularly on assault weapons, which have no place outside of combat zones. That's the kind of thing that I hope will be discussed on Monday when Rep. Mike Thompson hosts a hearing in Sacramento on gun regulations. Many locals will be in attendance. Thompson, chairman of the House task force on preventing gun violence, is advocating for legislation that would prevent people on the federal government's terrorist watch list from buying firearms. That seems like an easy first stop on this journey.

But it's also clear there's something deeper going on. The question is why, in an age of so many modern conveniences that are supposed to bring joy and comfort and in a nation so prosperous, are people so enraged that they choose to resort to mayhem as their final act on earth? What are people lacking that they, as with the shooters in San Bernardino, find purpose in terrorist groups such as ISIS?

I don't know, but I'm not persuaded it's a problem that can be addressed by troops and tanks in war zones. It's something that needs to be addressed in communities, which are now in the line of fire.

Paul Gullixson is editorial director of The Press Democrat. Email him at paul.gullixson@pressdemocrat.com.