Yes, we can agree on guns. Two liberals, two conservatives, and a pancake house … | Opinion

Editor’s note: The following was written over a long period of regular meetings in a local pancake house.

For our democracy to function effectively, Americans with different points of view must be able to talk to each other respectfully and work through their different perspectives in order to reach agreement on public policies.

Concerned about the widespread divisiveness and conflict in our country today, and the many stalemates we face on important public issues, two of us with left-of-center views (Richard and Roger) invited fellow citizens with right-of-center views (Rick and John) to join us in conversations on critical issues.

Our hope was that if we could succeed in reaching agreement on thorny issues, others might be encouraged to join our group and we could begin to serve as a model in our area for the type of change needed in our political system at all levels.

We opted at the start to examine gun-associated deaths, particularly homicides and suicides because they account for the largest number of such deaths.

We agreed that all four of us, including our two gun owners, must agree on every gun-related policy idea or we would not include it in this document.

We read widely about deaths associated with guns to better understand the nature of the problem.

We learned from research what works to reduce the number of deaths, and we sought solutions that could have general public and political support from both parties.

We began with a guiding premise that laws or regulations that limit certain individual behaviors are unquestionably necessary, can be very reasonable, and can be easily embraced by most citizens.

Examples include requirements to drive a car, to practice as a doctor or beautician, to be searched at airports, and to sell liquor or cigarettes.

Restrictions on guns could fall into the same category of publicly-supported limits because we readily understand and accept them as serving our common good.

Our investigation on guns revealed that background checks alone are unlikely to reduce gun-associated deaths because our current system of conducting checks is riddled with loopholes, non-connectivity of data bases and inconsistent reporting of crime convictions.

Evidence shows that when background checks are combined with a requirement for gun buyers to obtain a permit or license, gun-related homicides and suicides are reduced. That’s because these measures give officials more time to look at all record sources.

We support this combined background checks plus licensing approach.

Second, persons who have a documented history of physical violence against women or others or have made threatening or inflammatory public commentary should be part of any “red flag” database with information coming from the judiciary, police, or social media platforms. This would not restrict gun ownership among those who can qualify to purchase the guns, and is a proven way to help reduce gun-associated deaths.

Third, we agreed not to restrict the purchase of semi-automatic guns but make it illegal to sell or possess high-capacity pistol and rifle magazines that are designed to hold more than 10 rounds. These magazines are designed to inflict mass carnage — not for recreation or protection.

Our philosophy has been to identify policies that are reasonable and respectful of the individual rights of all Americans and can be endorsed by people with different political views.

The next topic to be tackled is still under consideration and we would like to recruit new members to the dialogue group.

If you can have an open mind, are willing to learn regardless of your political views or party, and would like to join or learn more about our group, please contact Roger Bernier at rogbernier@gmail.com.

John Agar, Rick Dean and Richard Hammes are from Hilton Head Island and Roger Bernier is from Okatie/Bluffton.

This story was originally published November 21, 2019 at 9:19 AM.