For a number of years CRE (Center for Regulatory Effectiveness) has been asked its views on the regulation of firearms. This is a reasonable request because CRE’s expertise, developed over a half-century, is in analyzing proposals for additional regulation and examining the attendant range of alternatives.
We have avoided taking a public position on this topic because our primary interest is the process for conducting centralized regulatory review of regulations in the White House Office of Management and Budget independent of the substance of a particular regulation.
However as a result of the Texas shooting today, and at the request of a number of our colleagues who live in the State of Texas, we will present our views for the first time; however they are not based exclusively on the tragedy in Texas but on the totality of student massacres.
In a nutshell, is there a need for additional regulation of firearms, yes–with a focus on assault weapons and governance issues associated with the use of a firearm but not on the right to own a firearm.
CRE’s primary point of interest is to emphasize the politically incorrect strategy of placing primary emphasis on holding parents responsible for the actions of their children when they commit these horrendous crimes. In particular involved parties should not confuse activity with accomplishment by placing the sole emphasis on regulatory actions in lieu of having an immediate impact by placing the spotlight on the often lack of parental supervision. Why? Because there are many more parents than there are cops!
Should a civil action taken by family survivors directed toward the family of the perpetrators occur, the political debate on in-school violence could change dramatically.
What is the next step in Texas?
The Governor/Lt. Governor of Texas should establish a panel to identify preventive actions parents should take to prevent their children from participating in a school shooting and then analyze the current tragedy in Texas to determine the degree to which such criteria were fulfilled. The resultant report should be required reading for all parents who enroll their children in a Texas high school and should also explain any possible legal liabilities which might confront parents who fail to comply with the said remedies. Such an action could place Texas on the forefront of a meaningful and effective program to reduce in-school shootings.
The US Department of Education, as so advised by CRE, as well as law enforcement agencies, could publicize the Texas Report through their ongoing interaction with schools throughout the United States.
Actions Taken to Vent the Issue of Parental Accountability
Wall Street Journal publishes Lives Lost in Three Decades of In-School Shootings
05/25/2018 The initial CRE post, reprinted above, is one of the most popular posts on our website as reported by our site monitors but as of this date we have not received a single comment nor have we seen any news articles on it. Why? Who knows; possibly because many of our readers are parents and conclude: “But for the Grace of God, There Go I ” or in the alternative they are governed by the biblical inspired: “Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself ” and instead seek solace through a Supreme Being. Whatever the reason, the CRE proposal appears to have no support but rest assured that lacking a forceful intervention of some kind, the massacre will continue and inaction by responsible parties will become even more apparent given the audience this post has received.
05/30/2018 CRE sends the above suggestion to the official website of the Department of Education requesting suggestions to address school safety at Safety@ed.gov.
05/30/2018 “Active Shooter’ video game simulating school shootings developed by ‘a troll,’ pulled from platform” Had not this sick product been pulled by its publisher, who best to prevent students from viewing it? Law Enforcement? Teachers? Parents?
06/03/2018 Profile of a School Shooter WSJ
08/01/2018 Washington Post publishes a landmark article on accountability of parents.
Jim Tozzi founded the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness and served as a senior regulatory official in five US Presidential Administrations, beginning with the Johnson Administration and ending with the Reagan Administration.