Taming the Monster: The Guns Among Us : The 200 million firearms already in circulation in America pose the biggest public-policy challenge ever

Every so often, the Los Angeles Police Department quietly delivers thousands of rifles, handguns and assault weapons to a plant that heats them into molten metal, the raw material for new machinery and hardware. In just 30 minutes, a gun that killed a toddler in a drive-by shooting, a gun that crippled a shopkeeper during a robbery, a gun that wounded a police officer making a traffic stop are melted into glowing liquid. Other law enforcement agencies dump seized guns into the ocean; still others grind up the weapons.

The continuous destruction of guns is part of a cycle fed endlessly by the relentless production and sale of new guns. And that cycle is accelerating: As guns are sold, more are likely to be used to commit crimes, then confiscated and ultimately destroyed. State officials report that last month 56,236 guns were sold in California; gun sales during the long Thanksgiving weekend hit a new high for a four-day period.

The gun furnaces here, and the ocean barges and metal grinders elsewhere, are stark reminders of the failure to control gun crime and the colossal toll that failure has cost us in time, money and, most important, pain and suffering.

TIME TO OVERHAUL OUR ATTITUDES ON GUN OWNERSHIP

We are at a crossroads in our long, ambivalent relationship with guns. We can continue our largely futile, and very costly, efforts to screen out “unfit” gun owners, increase the penalties for gun crime and step up security around a growing list of special facilities such as schools and government offices. Or we can dramatically alter the basis for private gun ownership. Rather than assuming, as we do, that all citizens are presumptively entitled to own a gun unless a government agency demonstrates otherwise (such as through a background check) we must, as a nation, move toward a very different model, one that presumptively bars private citizens from owning a firearm unless they can demonstrate a special need and ability to do so.

That’s why The Times supports a near-total ban on the manufacture and private ownership of handguns and assault weapons, leaving those guns almost exclusively in the hands of law enforcement officials. Under our plan, individuals could own sporting weapons only if they had submitted to a background check and passed a firearm safety course. Other special, closely monitored exceptions could be made, such as for serious collectors.

But with an estimated 200 million firearms already in private hands--one for almost every man, woman and child in this country--and with guns made, sold, traded and stolen every day, is it too late for comprehensive reform in our firearm laws? Can we realistically expect law-abiding citizens, let alone criminals bent on violence and harm, to relinquish their guns if private ownership becomes largely illegal?

THE ALTERNATIVE TO NOT ACTING IS UNTHINKABLE

The better question, we would argue, is whether we can afford not to find appropriate ways to collect and destroy guns. Without reducing the number of guns in circulation, no legislative reform, no matter how comprehensive, would produce a reduction in gun crime any time soon. Conversely, measures to reduce the existing supply of firearms would occur only--repeat, only--if these proposals were coupled with a near-total ban on private gun ownership. Effective policy requires both strict limits on the availability of new weapons and aggressive efforts to reduce the supply of existing weapons.

But if and when Congress does impose a near-total ban, how to implement it? Unfortunately, there are no magic solutions, no convenient constitutional loophole that would permit law enforcement authorities to seize privately held guns, no giant helicopter magnet capable of instantly extracting guns from people’s houses and dumping them into the deep blue sea.

The Fourth and Fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect individuals against unreasonable search and seizure by authorities and against the deprivation of property without due process of law. While many would argue that those amendments and the voluminous case law that has grown up around them have allowed criminals to illegally harbor all manner of weapons, few, including this newspaper, would be comfortable making an exception “just this once” to permit broad-based, warrantless searches of private homes to seize guns.

But there are some approaches--as well as some intriguing, untested proposals--that hold promise for actually reducing the guns in circulation. The best approach, we believe, would be to offer financial and other incentives for turning in firearms during a grace period; this would follow the enactment of a gun ban with provisions designed to eliminate illegal private possession after the grace period.

FOR STARTERS, LET’S TRY THE VOLUNTARY APPROACH.

What kind of incentives? A number of communities, including Los Angeles, have experimented with gun buy-back and voucher programs that encourage individuals to voluntarily turn in their guns in return for cash or merchandise--no threat of prosecution, no questions asked. When introduced along with limits on the manufacture and sale of new weapons and the immediate destruction of those weapons turned in, we believe, these programs would help reduce gun violence.

State, federal and local agencies should appropriate what funds they can as cash inducements for guns; budget constraints notwithstanding, reducing the number of guns may be the cheapest anti-crime strategy--and may also be an effective way to reduce health care costs, certainly those that occur in hospital emergency rooms.

Private firms are also undertaking innovative approaches. One California firm offers tickets to concerts in exchange for guns. Department stores could offer certificates for merchandise; car dealers could offer credit toward new automobiles. There are many possibilities. Of course gun control is not the responsibility of private business, but the active participation of business in this effort could prove critical to its success. In return, the success of such an effort would directly benefit every business and individual.

What about those who do not turn in their weapons? Even many decent citizens understandably would resist relinquishing their firearms, fearing that only criminals would remain armed. Two approaches are worth considering, each with strengths and weaknesses. Police officers could be authorized to seize on the spot any illegal gun they happened to find in private possession after the grace period. For example, if an officer who stopped a motorist for a traffic violation saw a gun, that gun could be removed, but the individual would not be subject to arrest just for illegal gun possession and police could destroy the weapon immediately. Alternatively, privately held guns not voluntarily relinquished would have to be registered, the fee would be substantial and failure to register would be a felony.

The first approach would not clog the courts with gun cases; the second approach might produce better compliance and new revenue from the registration fees--and enable authorities to better track existing guns. Under either scheme, the supply of guns would slowly decline. It’s almost certain that the rates of gun crime and accidental shootings would decline, too.

AMERICA IS READY FOR SERIOUS GUN CONTROL

Every day brings more gruesome carnage. That’s not surprising: How can any society with 200 million guns in circulation offer safety?

The answer is fewer guns, many fewer guns--and the sooner, the better. A new Times Mirror poll shows that by a 2-to-1 margin--61% to 28%--Americans back President Clinton in his promise to challenge the National Rifle Assn. and seek tighter gun control laws. The people of the United States are ready. But is the government? That’s the big question with 200 million frightening parts.