Make an Example Out of the Maryland Shooter's Dad

Last week a boy shot a girl in the head at a high school in Maryland. She died two days later, when her parents took her off life support. Another boy was shot in the thigh (he survived). A school resource officer exchanged gunfire with the shooter and killed him.

The incident, occurring less than a month after 17 people were killed in a mass shooting in Florida, illustrates perfectly why the NRA's mantra of more and more guns can't work.

The situation in Maryland was set up exactly as the NRA said it should be: a good guy with a gun was right there, johnny on the spot. This was the best possible outcome with the NRA policy, yet two kids are dead, and another was shot.

With the NRA's "solution" of doing absolutely nothing to prevent people from obtaining firearms and reactively killing people who start shooting up schools, there will be bloodshed 100% of the time. There will be at least one death basically 100% of the time (the shooter), with the shooter being able to unload a full magazine at a minimum (six to 100 rounds) on his targets every time, likely killing anywhere from 1 to 20 other people depending on shooter accuracy, magazine capacity, and security response times.

The NRA policy is like turning on the stoplights at an intersection only after there has been a car crash.

Gun advocates insist that measures to prevent gun violence won't stop every shooting. Yep, that's true. But the NRA policy of doing nothing stops zero shootings: by allowing shooters to get guns in the first place, they are guaranteed to be able unload a full one magazine of ammo every time.

Just because a law won't stop every shooting doesn't make the law useless. Stoplights at intersections don't stop every car crash, but they allow traffic to flow smoothly and prevent millions of crashes every day.

Each of the following laws will stop some percentage of deaths -- including murders and suicides:

• Take guns away from domestic abusers. 
• Raise the age requirement to purchase firearms.
• Impose longer waiting periods for firearms purchases.
• Strip firearms licenses from gun dealers whose weapons are consistently used in crimes.
• Strict firearms storage requirements and trigger locks, especially in homes with children.
• Strict background checks on all sales, including gun shows and private sales.
• Ban bump stocks, assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.  
• Severe penalties for individuals who supply or allow firearms to illegally fall into the hands of shooters.

None of these laws impose any hardship on legitimate hunters, sharpshooters or gun collectors.

If each law stopped, say, 2 to 10% of would-be shooters from getting hold of weapons, we're talking about reducing the firearms death rate from murder and suicide by as much as 50%. Which means saving 10,000 to 20,000 lives a year.

These types of laws really do work: states that have adopted them have lowered their murder rates, and states that repealed them have increased their murder rates (as was illustrated in Connecticut and Missouri).

Gun laws won't stop all murders because criminals break laws. Duh. But such laws will reduce the number of would-be shooters who get guns, especially people who act impulsively out of mental illness or emotional duress. And stricter laws definitely make it harder for criminals to get guns.

It's tempting to call the shooting in Maryland a tragedy. The kid doesn't seem to have been a mass shooter, but was in some sort of argument with his girlfriend. He appears to have focused solely on shooting her.

But this wasn't a tragedy. This wasn't a terrible accident: it was a completely preventable disaster that was the logical outcome of the NRA's despicable lie that "guns protect you." The shooter's father swallowed that lie and now his kid is dead.

If this kid's dad had kept his gun locked away, two people would still be alive, and the officer who killed him wouldn't have a death on his conscience.

This has to be the dad's worst nightmare: his kid is dead and dozens of other lives are shattered because he foolishly thought a gun would "protect" him.

Maryland law forbids possession of firearms by teenagers, and it's not clear whether the shooter's father will face any charges for letting his kid get hold of the murder weapon. Some people might argue that he's suffered enough.

But if his family had been Muslim you can be damn sure that all those law-and-order Republicans would be demanding the father's head on a platter. An example must be made! they would scream.

The father shouldn't have his life destroyed, or have trumped-up accessory to murder charges thrown at him. But he should be quite publicly charged with illegally providing a weapon to a minor, improper storage of firearms, and whatever other laws he broke.

Making a very public example out of him could save countless lives if other parents secure their firearms properly, or even better, get rid of them altogether.

Because kids and guns don't mix.