The quip from Madison’s satirical publication, “The Onion,” has gained national attention:  “’No way to prevent this,’ says the only nation where this regularly happens.”

It’s impossible to agree on reasonable solutions to gun violence when we can’t agree on its cause. Alleged causes include mental instability, violent videos and games, angry young men, and unlocked doors. Other nations have violent videos, people with mental illness, and angry young men. What other nations don’t have is civilian access to lethal weapons of war and ammunition designed to kill people with maximum speed and efficiency. 

Let’s be clear; the problem is not hunting rifles and shotguns, nor the sport of hunting that, properly legislated and enforced, has ecological benefits. The legitimate debate is about access to weapons of war, and regulation of handguns. This comes down to the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Like the Bible, and the Constitution itself, the 2nd amendment and the concept of freedom is a matter of interpretation. What does “freedom to bear arms” legitimately entail?

Even the most innocuous, common sense effort to reduce gun violence is interpreted by opponents as “an attack on the 2nd amendment,” and “taking away the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.” While thus far being effective in preventing meaningful reform, these are totally disingenuous and dangerous arguments against common sense reform.

There is absolutely no reason for the typical civilian to own and carry in public a military type assault rifle. It can’t be used for hunting, although one US Senator claimed it “necessary to kill varmints.” Really?

It is ineffective for practical self-defense. If one man intends to render harm upon another, there are more effective ways of doing it than attacking him while he just happens to have that weapon on him.

My own familiarity with assault weapons is limited to the now-obsolete M1 Garand with its eight-round clip, the standard infantry weapon of its day. During that age of relative innocence, none of us would have dreamed of brandishing that weapon in public, even had it been legal.

So why did that gang of goons show up on Michigan’s Capitol grounds armed with assault rifles? It was obviously to express their hatred of Michigan’s governor and her stay-at-home order regarding COVID-19. The only thing they showed was their idiocy, and that of the Michigan legislators that made such action legal.

Which brings us to our own Wisconsin legislators and Kyle Rittenhouse, the Illinois teenager who showed up with an assault rifle at a demonstration in Kenosha. The fact that he was legal would not have prevented the Kenosha police from advising him: “Hey kid, you may be legal, but there’s a lot of anger at this demonstration. Stow it before someone gets hurt.”

Rittenhouse probably would have ignored such advice. But had he heeded such common sense advice, had it been given, there are now-dead people who would be alive today, and Rittenhouse would have avoided the trauma of possibly being convicted of manslaughter or murder. He was lucky to be acquitted. But whether he has a conscience or not, his life will never be the same. And, what about the Kenosha cops who were asleep at the switch, and our Wisconsin legislators who made such idiocy legal?

As long as a total ban on civilians brandishing weapons of war is interpreted as an assault on the right of citizens to bear arms, a total ban is politically a bridge too far, out of reach. Even the baby step of raising the age for purchase of assault weapons is considered too radical by apologists.

Politicians posing as tough guys are fond of repeating, “It takes a good guy with a gun to counter a bad guy with a gun.” These dreamers have been watching too many movies where good guys invariably prevail. That’s not real life.  

Among the most ludicrous and impractical proposals is to arm teachers and staff personnel. People don’t go into teaching to double as gun fighters. Brief training in marksmanship is not the same as being ready and able to kill, especially with a handgun against an assault rifle in a panic-driven situation. 

Americans own a variety of handguns, many insisting them necessary for self-defense. State laws vary greatly. Texas allows open carry with no permit or training required. While less extreme, most states allow homeowners considerable freedom regarding handguns.

Strictly limiting access to assault weapons would still allow considerable latitude on handguns. If a homeowner feels safer with a loaded pistol by his bedside or under his pillow, that freedom would still exist. 

Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis had believed background checks unacceptable until she was “surprised” to receive so many letters from constituents urging her to “do something.” She believes it to be more a mental health than a gun issue, but now is “open to suggestions.” Senator McConnell has given permission to a few Republicans to work with Senator Murphy on reforms. Neither Senators Lummis nor McConnell are candidates for profile-in-courage awards for this.

As of this writing, Senator Murphy’s bi-partisan crew has agreed on a “framework” for legislation. This “framework” appears to contain only baby steps and half-measures. Even that is already opposed by most Republican senators. Half-measures are better than nothing. But the fact that these would be the first reform measures in decades, and hailed as “a monumental achievement,” clearly shows where we actually are.  

Many apologists insist that occasional shootings are an acceptable consequence of freely exercising the 2nd amendment. According to polls, forty percent of the members of one major political party agree with that sentiment. With freedom, goes responsibility. It’s time for sportsmen and responsible gun owners to step up. 

Meanwhile, we can expect the usual “thoughts and prayers,” miscellaneous reasons for the shootings, much talk about preventing future shootings, and maybe a few common sense half-measures. All while avoiding the real issue, access to guns, especially weapons of war and the ammunition and extended magazines that go with them. All under a warped interpretation of “freedom.” 

We have seen this dance before.

— John Waelti’ column appears monthly in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net