On January 18, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice released its 500-page report on the shootings in Uvalde, Texas, which occurred on May 24, 2022. Attorney General Merrick Garland said:
The law enforcement response at Robb Elementary on May 24th, 2022—and the response by officials in the hours and days after—was a failure. As a consequence of failed leadership, training, and policies, 33 students and three of their teachers—many of whom had been shot—were trapped in a room with an active shooter for over an hour as law enforcement officials remained outside.1
I am greatly saddened, even tearful, when I read about, think about, and recall those little children who were gunned down. What secular humanist does not feel enormous grief when contemplating this tragedy? But my sadness often turns to outrage when I consider not only the inadequate response of law enforcement in Uvalde and at other sites but also the intransigence of our government officials to do anything about gun violence in our country.
Frankly, I am also irritated with our secular humanist community, which has not done enough to search for solutions to gun violence. Who are the enablers of the murderers? Does not some of the blame lie even with us? I am disgusted with the complacency and laissez-faire attitude of the leaders and rank and file of our movement who rest on the idea that “It’s not our job to propose policy for solving social problems.” Oh really? I strongly disagree.
Our world is in trouble. Our nation is in trouble. The list of problems we face is disheartening: two wars, global warming, natural disasters, pandemics, the flaws in our democracy (the Electoral College, gerrymandering, the filibuster, voter suppression, etc.), severe income and wealth disparity, homelessness, poverty, unemployment, lack of accessible healthcare for all people, loss of abortion rights, proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, religious fundamentalism, crime, and gun violence, the last of which is the focus of this article. Probably more than any other group, we secular humanists have the abilities, skills, and talents to tackle these problems without being distracted by superstitions. Deities are not going to help us; either they don’t exist or they are hiding. It is our moral duty as secular humanists to lead the way!
The Center for Inquiry (CFI) is the preeminent organization of secular humanists in the nation, maybe in the world. And Free Inquiry (FI) is one of the essential voices of CFI, whose mission is “to foster a secular society based on reason, science, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values.” One of the most important humanist values is to make the world a better place by helping solve the real problems that beset society. I encourage all secular humanists, and especially the members and leaders of CFI, to devise and propose solutions to these serious problems we are facing. I intend to tackle one of the big problems. I am going to propose a comprehensive program for reducing gun violence in our country. Yes, this is mostly a “policy paper,” and I do not apologize for that. Please join me not only in seeking and proposing solutions to gun violence but for other problems as well. We can do better! We can do more! We must act now to make a difference!
The gun violence in Uvalde, Texas, started yet another cycle of grief, outrage, doing little or nothing, waiting, then more gun violence. “Thoughts and prayers” might help some people feel better for a little while, but they are impotent to alter the underlying pathology of our culture. We need real solutions, and we need them now.
The Second Amendment
I propose that we amend the federal Constitution to repeal and replace the Second Amendment. This amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The original purpose of the amendment is stated in the first part of it, and although less important now, this purpose is still somewhat valid today. The right established by the amendment, however, stands independently of its original purpose, which has been largely supplanted by a citizen need for self-defense against criminals. The meaning of this right has been embroiled in controversy, so in this context I will offer my own interpretation. The right means that the federal government shall protect gun ownership and use by citizens against either private or governmental entities that would attempt to harm citizens for no good reason. There is nothing in the right that forbids governmental control, regulation, or limitation of gun ownership and usage in service of the common good of the people. Such regulation has already occurred and has been accepted by most citizens.
Allowing dangerous kinds of people to own and use guns or allowing private citizens to own and use military-style guns works against the goals to “ensure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare,” which are urged in the preamble to our Constitution. It is the moral duty of all branches of government to curtail the improper ownership and use of firearms, which leads to unnecessary violence in our society. Cynical pundits and politicians who think otherwise just don’t understand either the Constitution or universal ethical principles. A good replacement for the Second Amendment might go something like this: “The people shall have a right to keep and bear arms, but this right shall be regulated, restricted, and limited by reasonable laws to protect the public.” Or perhaps it would resemble this: “Every U.S. citizen at least eighteen years of age shall have the default opportunity to use, possess, and own up to three firearms, but this opportunity may be suspended for reasons of public safety upon due process.”
As many other commentators have already done, I could list all the shocking shootings that have occurred in our country since one happened at my daughter’s middle school in 1995, harp on the suffering experienced, or dwell on the fact that there is so much political resistance to change. Instead, I am going to focus on what we can actually do to significantly reduce the violence. To say that we can’t totally prevent this violence is just a straw man argument. The goal is harm reduction—lowering the frequency and severity of gun violence. We can do that.
Evolution, Not Revolution
Although a revolution in culture, habits, policies, and laws might be desirable, given the magnitude of gun violence in our society, such dramatic change might provoke even more violence as people cling to their old ways and defy intrusion into their daily lives. Slower progressive or evolutionary change would probably have a greater chance of success. Therefore, I recommend that the government not only allow but require current gun owners to keep the guns they already own with only three exceptions: they may sell their guns to the government at any time; they must forfeit their guns if they are convicted of felonies involving aggression toward others or illegal possession of firearms; and, after their deaths, guns remaining in their estates must be surrendered by their executors to the government.
Furthermore, I suggest that current gun owners not be required to get new licenses to own the guns they presently have. However, the government should require new gun acquisitions to be both licensed and registered. The broad set of new policies and laws that I am recommending should begin on a specific Gun Regulation Implementation Date (GRID). Although the needed societal transition will occur slower under my proposal, it will occur more dependably and with less resistance than with a “change everything at once” strategy.
Implementation
I believe that laws and programs to attenuate gun violence must come from the federal government. A patchwork of different state laws and programs will not work in the long run. We already know that guns can be obtained in one state with liberal purchase laws and taken to other states with strict purchase laws and used in crimes. A comprehensive approach for the entire nation is sorely needed.
Until the program I am proposing here has the support of more than half the people of the nation and half our elected representatives, allowing it to be implemented through federal law, individual states can still proceed in whole or in part. Just as every state will have its own laws on abortion rights after the recent repeal of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court, so can every state have its own laws on gun regulation that may approximate what I suggest here.
The new system of firearm regulation should follow a few basic rules:
New acquisitions of guns by citizens must come only from licensed retailers and nobody else. All other transfers would be prohibited.
New acquisitions of guns would require that the prospective buyer have a federal license.
All transfers of gun ownership must be registered and counted.
No new acquisitions of guns would be permitted to citizens who already own three or more guns.
Licensing
Licensing would track people who become gun owners and users, while registration would track gun transfers. After the GRID, the federal government should require that, to own or use a firearm, a person, whom we shall call “the applicant,” must first get a federal license for this purpose. I have never understood why getting approval to operate a motor vehicle is harder than getting approval to own or use a firearm. As a society, we should not allow certain people to own, possess, control, and use firearms, and a comprehensive licensing system must begin to screen them out. But who should be disallowed? In my opinion, five groups of people should be screened out:
All children, i.e., persons under the age of eighteen;
Persons with convictions involving threat or actual physical harm to others, especially murder, assault, robbery, kidnapping, terrorism, rape, and domestic abuse;
Severely mentally ill or mentally handicapped individuals;
Persons prone to harm themselves or others within the next six months;
Persons who are not citizens of the United States.
There will be objections to one or more of these conditions, but they can all be fully justified as providing reasonable protections to the public.
This screening process would require five items:
A background check of age and citizenship status;
A criminal background check;
A psychological background check;
A psychological interview;
Psychological testing.
If any of the experts involved in this assessment process believes that an applicant should be denied a license, then they would present the case to a judge, who would make the final decision regarding the approval or disapproval of the license. Any denied applicant should be permitted to reapply after a year for up to three tries.
If an applicant is not eliminated by the screening, then they would move on to the next step. They would be required to attend a course and pass tests relevant to firearms, covering areas such as marksmanship, mechanics, maintenance, history, proper defense, law, and ethics. The course would take no fewer than sixteen hours spread over at least four days. Thus, a waiting period would be built into the process of acquiring a firearm. Only after passing the initial screenings, taking the course, and passing the tests would an applicant be issued a license to own and use a firearm and be entered into the government’s database.
After the GRID, citizens would be forbidden from acquiring an additional firearm in any manner unless they have a license issued by the federal government. Of course, such a licensing program would be expensive to implement, and some errors would be made, but the program would save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce trauma.
Numbers and Types of Firearms
I believe that after the GRID, the government should establish a limit on the number of new firearms owned by a private citizen, and that number should be three. Why three? The more guns in a society, the more violence in that society. A person could select one gun designed for protection, perhaps another designed for hunting, and then a third for protection, hunting, target practice, or sentimental collection. There’s no good reason to allow private citizens to have armories. At most, a person can only use two guns at the same time anyway. The limit on the number of guns should apply to new acquisitions, effective after the GRID. After this date, no private citizen should be able to own and use firearms designed for the military and law enforcement for the efficient killing of large numbers of people. The AR-15 is one example of this type of weapon. Later I will describe how manufacturers should redesign guns for sale to the general public. Of course, ghost guns or self-assembled guns should and would be banned after the GRID.
Registration
Registration is for tracking gun transfers, while licensing is for tracking people, i.e., the gun owners. The transfer of firearms—whether it be by sale, rental, or gift—should be restricted to one direction: from licensed manufacturer to licensed retailer to licensed private citizen to the government. Transfer from one private citizen to another, even from one family member to another, should be prohibited after the GRID. Those engaged in private transfers of guns should be arrested and prosecuted whenever law enforcement has good reason to suspect a violation. If there is a conviction, then terms of imprisonment should be imposed on both parties: the person making the transfer and the recipient.
After the GRID, every legal transfer of a gun should require approval and registration by the federal government. Every gun should of course have a serial number by which changing ownership is tracked from one party to another. Databases of licensing and registration should be efficiently maintained by the government so that relevant evidence can be used in the prosecution of crimes. Illegal ownership, transfer, and use of firearms should carry stiff penalties of imprisonment, suspension of license, and confiscation of firearms.
Before the transfer of ownership of a firearm is approved and registered for a private citizen, the new prospective owner should be required to demonstrate that they have a way to secure the firearm from theft and unauthorized use. In fact, new gun purchasers should be required to purchase safes or locks for their new guns, unless they can prove that they already have these devices and sufficient capacity to safely store the new gun. Gun owners should be required to immediately report any thefts of firearms to the government.
Neoguns
Gun manufacturers should be required to design new types of guns for sale to the general public. I shall call these guns “neoguns.” After the GRID policies, old guns should be phased out as neoguns are phased in. Within just three years after the GRID, the government should prohibit the transfer of guns that are not neoguns to private citizens. A neogun shall have the following features:
It fires at a rate no faster than one bullet per two seconds.
The magazine capacity is no greater than ten bullets.
The bullets are moderately sized, not too large, not too small. (An expert panel would make recommendations on this.) No bullets equal to or larger than the ones used in the current AR-15 shall be permitted. These bullets have a lot of gunpowder in them, travel at high speed, and do great damage to human bodies because of the high energy they convey.
The gun can be fired only by the licensed owner who became the owner through a properly registered transfer. Entry of a pass code would be required to use the gun.
Every shot is tracked through GPS and recorded in a database.
It has both a visible and embedded serial number.
All these features have already been developed and tested, and many are ready for incorporation into new models of guns at the manufacturing stage.
Robb Elementary School memorial in Uvalde, Texas, after the mass shooting. Credit: Jinitzail Hernandez | shutterstock.
Gradual Turnover of Guns
Private citizens should be able to sell any gun they own to the federal government at a price that reflects a 2 percent depreciation per year from the original acquisition date, assuming the gun is in good condition. So, at ten years, the gun would be worth 80 percent of its original value; at twenty-five years, 50 percent of its original value; and at fifty years, 0 percent of its original value. After the death of a gun owner, their remaining guns should be transferred to the federal government, not to the usual heirs, at the compensation price determined by depreciation. All guns purchased, confiscated, or turned in to the government should be disassembled, and the parts should be recycled to be used in other kinds of products. If all the provisions of this program were implemented, then gradually all guns currently in private circulation would be replaced by neoguns, with a limit of three per person. This complete turn-over in firearms would be accomplished in about sixty-five to seventy-five years. Gun violence would decline over the course of this replacement period.
Gun confiscation from private citizens by the government should be limited to occasions when at least one of the following occurs:
A gun has been used in any crime;
A gun has been possessed, used, or transferred without required licensure and/or registration;
A gun has not been voluntarily surrendered upon death of an owner;
A gun is lost through bankruptcy or other legal proceeding;
A red flag law is applied to a particular person.
Mental Health Assessment and Treatment
Improvements in mental healthcare throughout the nation are needed to facilitate reductions in violence of all kinds, but particularly gun violence. Authors Jillian Peterson, an associate professor of criminology at Hamline University, and James Densley, a professor of criminal justice at Metro State University, conducted an intensive study of mass shootings in the nation and published their findings in their book The Violence Project: How to Stop a Mass Shooting Epidemic.2 Peterson has said, “I don’t think most people realize that these are suicides, in addition to homicides. Mass shooters design these to be their final acts. When you realize this, it completely flips the idea that someone with a gun on the scene is going to deter this. If anything, that’s an incentive for these individuals. They are going in to be killed.”3
Reinforcing this idea, Densley said:
If we explain this problem as pure evil or other labels like terrorist attack or hate crime, we feel better because it makes it seem like we’ve found the motive and solved the puzzle. But we haven’t solved anything. We’ve just explained the problem away. … We have to recognize them as the troubled human being earlier if we want to intervene before they become the monster.4
In their book, the authors recommend that 500,000 psychologists be employed in schools throughout the country to help head off some of the suicidal and homicidal young people who might become mass shooters. I think this is an excellent idea.
We need to provide mental healthcare as an essential component of a public option for universal health care in our nation. A yearly mental health check-up for all family members at no out-of-pocket cost should be as common as a yearly physical check-up.
I’ve already mentioned how psychologists would be a part of the screening process for gun licensure, and later I will describe how they could participate in identifying early warnings for the implementation of red flag laws. Mental health assessment and treatment are essential components of a comprehensive program to reduce gun violence.
Nonlethal Weapons for Defense
The government should encourage the development of new nonlethal weapons for sale to and use by the public for defensive purposes. Monetary prizes could be offered to the inventors or developers of the best defensive weapons that impede but don’t typically kill or significantly injure their human targets.
Red Flag Laws
Red flag laws are necessary to protect the public from possible gun violence. They allow the police to apprehend and detain a person for some period of time, perhaps twenty-four to seventy-two hours, to follow up on a suspicion that a person is a danger to themselves or others and, if necessary, to suspend a gun license, confiscate guns to which the person already has access, and/or prohibit new purchases. This temporary suspension of liberty has a long history and has been upheld by the courts. Red flag evaluations should be conducted by behavioral specialists, such as licensed psychologists, psychiatrists, or social workers. This action should not be taken lightly or arbitrarily but only when there is substantial evidence, known as “red flags,” that a person is preparing to or is already acting violently, especially with a gun. In the hindsight assessment of most mass shootings, red flags were apparent, and if they had prompted quick and effective intervention, deaths and injuries would have been prevented. Often, the potentially violent person will send messages by text or social media to friends or the public or even make statements to teachers, mental health professionals, or family members announcing their intentions to commit violence. Of course, red flag programs will result in some false positives, but false negatives are much worse: the failure to detect and interrupt a probable violent actor in advance.
In Lewiston, Maine, on October 25, 2023, Robert B. Card shot thirty-one people, killing eighteen and wounding thirteen. Later, he killed himself. In the months prior to these shootings, there were many red-flag signs that he was a danger to himself and others.5 He even underwent a mental health evaluation. But the system and the law failed the people of that community. While Card was being held involuntarily for an evaluation, a psychologist should have recommended that a judge order that Card’s guns be confiscated, his license to own be suspended, and his acquisition of new guns be banned, all for a period of six months; Card undergo psychological treatment, to include counseling, medication, and/or both; and Card be reevaluated after six months. A judge should have ordered all three actions. The federal government and all state governments should have laws and systems to implement this kind of protective intervention.
There is good progress being made in setting up red flag detection systems and policies in schools. Although limited, early empirical studies have shown some benefits to programs such as the “the Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines” and the “Salem-Keizer threat-assessment method.”6 The federal government needs to invest more in research and development for these types of programs.
Protecting Schools
Although it is still rare for a school to be the site of a mass shooting, when it does happen it is particularly devastating. Arming teachers would be a big mistake. It is not their job to fight back against aggressors. It taints their relationships with students to assign that job to them, and it increases the overall potential for violence at the school. Instead, there are two alternative approaches that could be helpful: Select and train a small cadre of staff in each school, perhaps five staff who are not teachers, for the emergency use of firearms and give them access to appropriate guns that are kept locked in a safe, ready for rapid use in a school shooting situation. Or ensure that every school has two armed school resource officers, both law enforcement staff assigned and well trained by city or county government, to respond to attacks, among their other duties. All these first responders should have the training, tools, courage, creativity, and leadership to respond efficiently to an active shooter at the school.
In the case of the Uvalde debacle, the offender began shooting at 11:33 a.m. and was himself shot by law enforcement at 12:50 p.m. The police took exactly seventy-seven minutes to take down the attacker.7 Whenever two or more armed law enforcement or security officers encounter an active shooter, they should begin a counterattack, of course calling for backup but not waiting for it. This principle should be a part of the standing orders and training of law enforcement. Officers who do not have the courage to do this should find another line of work, and those who do not demonstrate the requisite courage in crisis situations should be fired.
Conclusion
In this essay, I have presented the outline for a comprehensive program to lower gun violence in our nation. It would certainly save lives, injuries, and emotional trauma. This program would be consistent with the Second Amendment. It does not prohibit gun ownership and use, but it regulates who may have guns, under what conditions, how many, and what type. It shows how mental health intervention is a key part of the package. The more components I have specified are implemented, the greater the benefit to the public would be. No right is absolute, and the right to bear arms must balance with the right to life and the pursuit of happiness All of us, and especially secular humanists, have a moral duty to devise, propose, and implement real solutions to the pervasive gun violence in our society.
Notes
1. U.S. Department of Justice, “Justice Department Releases Report on its Critical Incident Review of the Response to the Mass Shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas,” January 18, 2024. Available online at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases-report-its-critica l-incident-review-response-mass-shooting-robb.
2. Jillian Peterson and James Densley, The Violence Project: How to Stop a Mass Shooting Epidemic. New York, NY: Abrams Press, 2021.
3. Melanie Warner, “Two Professors Found What Creates a Mass Shooter. Will Politicians Pay Attention?” Politico, May 27, 2022. Available online at https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762.
4. Ibid.
5. Kevin Miller, “Amid numerous warning signs, why wasn’t Maine’s ‘yellow flag’ law used before mass shooting?” Maine Public, October 30, 2023. Available online at https://www.mainepublic.org/maine/2023-10-30/amid-numerous-warning-signs-why-wasnt-maines-yellow-flag-law-used-before-mass-shooting.
6. Matthew Hutson, “Can Researchers Show That Threat Assessment Stops Mass Shootings?” The New Yorker, June 7, 2022. Available online at https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/can-researchers-show-that-threat-assessment-stops-mass-shootings.
7. Virginia Langmaid, Christina Maxouris, and Melissa Gray. “A Timeline of How the Texas School Massacre—and the Police Response—Unfolded.” CNN, June 3, 2022. Available online at https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/27/us/uvalde-shooting-police-response-timeline/index.html.
On January 18, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice released its 500-page report on the shootings in Uvalde, Texas, which occurred on May 24, 2022. Attorney General Merrick Garland said: The law enforcement response at Robb Elementary on May 24th, 2022—and the response by officials in the hours and days after—was a failure. As a …