The gun control debate has two clear-cut sides with no room for compromise. The NRA-back, largely Republican side wants to give all Americans the freedom to open carry firearms (not hidden under a coat) nationwide, and it wants to arm every public servant as a deterrent. The pro-gun group’s goals are clear and understandable.

The anti-gun groups have a slogan: “Enough.” It resurfaces bi-monthly after the latest U.S. slaughter in an elementary school, college classroom or theater. A Facebook post eloquently read: “I do not want to hear one more politician say that their ‘thoughts and prayers’ are with the victims and their families. For the love of God, do something.”

The key question for the gun control advocates: Do what?

Disclosure is important here: I believe something should be done. For some reason, the latest shooting in an Oregon college hit me harder than the others, including the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. It’s not that this one was worse; it’s that my mind reached a magical point where I expect it to happen again. And again.

To get from here to there, however, we need conversations. We have to admit – we all have to admit – that there’s a problem. While our suggested solutions may be polar opposites, we need to focus on the following:

1. What can we do? Gun-control advocates fall woefully short on this one. “Enough” and “do something” have no teeth. A solid, sensible plan can be discussed, tweaked and broken down. A speaker who says “Do something” expects someone else to suggest a solution.

2. Forget the U.S. Constitution. That doesn’t mean change the Constitution, stop relying on it in a court of law or nix the Second Amendment. It means our current gun problem bears little resemblance to a document signed when it took a minute to reload single-bullet muskets. The discussion needs to acknowledge today’s weapons.

3. Remember why we own guns. Before the American Revolution, the British army had guns; most U.S. not-yet-citizens didn’t. Since gun-wielding armies have a decided edge over citizens with brooms and pots, the “right to bear arms” plays a key role in democracy, whether for a state militia or individuals. If U.S. citizens have enough firepower to take on the U.S. Army, that deterrence remains important, even if we take it for granted after 240 years. An armed population balances an armed government.

4. Forget the “We need to keep guns from the mentally ill” argument. It can’t work. (See earlier article: Ban guns to the mentally ill? That’s crazy)

5. Agree that we already ban some weapons. It’s silly to discuss whether average Joes should be allowed to own nuclear warheads. There are a whole lot of edgy people out there. A slipup with a nuclear bomb doesn’t fry your neighbor’s garden gnome – it wipes out Detroit.

6. Agree that some weapons are okay. Slingshots can do real damage, including “ shoot your eye out,” but no one suggests a ban. However, in the right hands, a slingshot, whip or bow-and-arrow can kill. Still, few argue that they should be banned.

7. Agree that there’s no clear middle ground between nuclear warheads and slingshots. This is the baseline for discussion. We can’t reach a consensus if we don’t admit the difficulty. There are answers, but there are no good answers.

8. Forget the romance of “the wild West.” To get past an emotional gun argument – one that includes prying cold, dead fingers – it helps to back the word “gun” out and simply consider them weapons. If we lump gun control into a more generic grenades-knives-bows-slingshots discussion, it gains perspective.

9. Create laws that make sense. Piecemeal bills created background checks in retail stores but not at gun shows. That has to seem stupid to both sides of the gun control debate. Do background checks everywhere or nowhere. Make sure U.S. and state laws work in unison.

10. Prepare for failure. For every 100 residents, the U.S. has 88 guns. They’re not going away, and no one suggests – nor probably will suggest – taking legal firearms from Americans’ hands, cold, dead or otherwise. A good policy may not be found, only a better policy.

The level of U.S. mass killings has reached crisis level. Something must be done, and gun control of some sort is an obvious conclusion. Arming more and more people created the problem. It defies common sense to suggest that arming even more will solve it.

But what does “gun control” mean? I have no answers, just the audacity to suggest that someone else should. Until we do – until viable, workable suggestions come forward – the killings will continue.

© 2015 SmithTakes.com