GUNS’N’CROSSES – I have written about guns a few times before, including in “9 Points about the Americans and their guns”; one of my pet peeves is the thoughtless use of overseas examples (such as the Australian gun laws) in an attempt to shame the United States into action on gun control, despite the fact that no overseas experiences and circumstances are remotely comparable, and therefore useful, to the American realities (Australia, for example, has no constitutional right to bear arms, no significant gun culture, and only a quarter as many firearms per person as the US).

Amongst the latest crop of the 2nd Amendment commentary, I recommend “National Review”‘s David French making a case for Gun Violence Restraining Orders as a policy that both sides of the debate could get behind. As David writes,

Advocates for GVROs have been mostly clustered on the left, but there is nothing inherently leftist about the concept. After all, the GVRO is consistent with and recognizes both the inherent right of self-defense and the inherent right of due process. It is not collective punishment. It is precisely targeted.

As I wrote the night of the Parkland shooting, a vigilant citizenry is a far better defense against a mass shooting than the sweeping, allegedly “common sense” gun-control measures debated after every massacre. But when individual citizens are vigilant and individual government officials are not, then it’s time to consider different measures. It’s time to consider rearranging the balance of power.

I don’t pretend that a GVRO is the solution to mass killings. There is no “solution.” It’s a tool, one among many. In 2016 California courts granted 86 restraining orders. Most of them applied for a mere 21 days. In ten instances those orders were extended for a year. Until I’m persuaded otherwise (and I look forward to the conversation), I’ll believe that a restraining order can give a family the power federal incompetence has taken away — the power to save lives.

As they say, read the whole thing.