Strict military gun control should be our model: Column

The tragic and all too common event that just tore apart Orlando should reinforce a national determination to do something about it. The motivations for this outrage are clearly complex, may never be fully known and are resistant to any comprehensive public policy solution. But there are steps we can and must take, regardless of the entrenched opposition to them.

I spent four decades of my professional life in a subset of American society that very tightly controlled access to guns. Certainly, there were many guns and other weapons around, and at times they were quite visible. But within this society, there was also a comprehensive understanding that guns were dangerous and could be the central component of unfortunate — even fatal — circumstances, especially when combined with alcohol, drugs, heightened emotions or misplaced loyalties.

Because of this recognition, in this society where I was privileged to live and work, we controlled guns. Anyone who touched one had to be trained and, in effect, licensed. Guns had to be registered with a federal authority. Ammunition was tightly controlled and without exception fully accounted for. Should anyone show signs of mental or emotional distress, his weapons were typically withheld and only returned when there was high confidence that any troublesome problems had been controlled or cured.

What was this society that exercised a high degree of gun control? Well, it was the U.S. Army.

There is an image held by many that in the military, all servicemen and servicewomen have a weapon mounted on a rack above their bunk, ready for them instantly to reach up and grab when the alert siren sounds. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, when I was in the Army, all military weapons not in use for official duties were locked in a rack, which was chained to the floor, which was in a room secured by double doors, which were bolted shut with high-security locks. In addition, the room was monitored with alarm systems and checked hourly to ensure all security measures were in place and functioning.

Glenn Reynolds: An untraditional war

Given that the military is a drug-free society, is made up of individuals who have education levels above the national norm, is closely supervised by a hierarchical and observant chain of command and is governed by its own specialized legal system capable of dealing with breaches of behavior quickly, why does the military go to such lengths to keep weapons from soldiers? Essentially, the answer is simple: Guns are dangerous. Moreover, military weapons, particularly assault rifles, are even more dangerous. They are designed to do one thing — kill a large number of human beings quickly — as we just witnessed in Orlando.

The Founding Fathers seemingly wrote the Second Amendment, with its infrequently quoted preamble, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” with the idea that those having arms would possess and use them with a degree of military-like responsibility and when serving as a militia. Because this is clearly not how circumstances have evolved, three “military-like” steps need to be taken.

First, there must be a renewal of the ban on assault weapons. Second, related to this ban should be a ban on large-volume ammunition magazines. Unless in an active combat zone, the military stores its large ammunition magazines separately from weapons.

Society should also. Magazines available to the public should be limited to something like eight rounds for pistols and five rounds for rifles. That would at least give those victimized by gun violence a chance to attack the gunmen, as some chiefs of police advocate, by forcing an attacker to stop to reload.

Hate doesn't have to be terror to kill: James Alan Fox

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

Third, there need to be thorough background checks. The military does this when citizens enlist and closely monitors soldiers during their service. There will be those who still slip through, such as Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter in 2009, and Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, who left his post to murder 16 Afghan civilians in 2012. But a reasonably comprehensive effort is better than an unreasonably lax one.

Finally, as some have suggested, if weapons are hard to restrict because of political realities, let us levy a heavy tax on arms and ammunition, particularly the latter. As an enduring economic adage states, “What the government taxes, the government discourages.” Discouraging the purchase of arms and ammunition serves a clear public good. And the revenue generated could and should be used to enhance the national background check system and hire more agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The trail of blood stretching from Sandy Hook to Aurora, from Charleston to San Bernardino and now to Orlando is more than enough evidence to point the way forward. Regardless of opposition by the National Rifle Association and other groups, our society must demand — and our government must take — serious steps to make the controls on weapons look more like those of the Army and less like those of the Wild West.

M. Thomas Davis, a retired Army officer, commanded an artillery unit during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns, go to the Opinion front page, follow us on Twitter @USATOpinion and sign up for our daily Opinion newsletter.