Mass shootings seem a very recently conceived activity, but if you do a little research, you can find one "starting date" is Sept. 6, 1949, with Howard Unruh's "Walk of Death" in Camden, New Jersey. He used a Luger, which has a semi-automatic action that fired every time he pulled the trigger. Nearly 20 years later, on Aug. 1, 1966, Charles Whitman climbed the tower at the University of Texas, Austin, packing an arsenal with which he efficiently shot dozens of people. So what's new with these now near-monthly massacres?

It's the kids. Never before have the kids walked. If the protests don't come and go as a passing fad, their walk may well be the harbinger of a new element in our social history. Within about seven years, the youngest of these high school students will vote, and then America may take a hard turn and we will go yelling and screaming into a new era – one without the Second Amendment. There may be no legal right to own firearms. There is nothing graceful about social discourse in this country. A large sector of the American people do not want to see this kind of violence happen, myself being one of them. None of us want to see a person bleeding out his or her last breath on the pavement. Nevertheless, there are millions who don't want to lose their guns nor the food the guns supply.

A month or two ago, I wrote to the National Rifle Association, asking them to pose the question to their membership as to how to both protect the public from slaughter and protect the Second Amendment. A think tank of thousands of members who are intently interested is better than mine alone. The NRA has a machine at its main office that when it receives an email, it electronically responds by thanking you for your inquiry and saying they'll get back to you shortly. I suspect that the program is fully automatic, not semi-automatic. But I haven't heard from them. If for no other reason than by random chance, an NRA member who comes up with a good solution, then what a red, white, and blue date that will be! As the weeks turn into months and one day into a year, I don't hold out much hope of hearing from them.

People live in groups, and a smooth-bore musket ball or even a thrown rock can be lethal when aimed at a crowd. But firepower — the number of shots fired in a given time — makes as much difference as does the well-placed shot. And to my way of thinking, it's the firepower that can be altered and is the important element in these bloodbaths.

Beginning in the last half of the 19th century, repeating rifles came into being. Along with harvesting buffalo and self defense, both require a well-placed shot. Judging from Hollywood's Rambo-inspired ballets, it's the spray of bullets and the noise that now become paramount. There are millions of hunters in this country who can tell you that shooting well far outweighs powder burning. The target shooter or even the plinker who, with a semi-automatic, can roll a tin can down a deserted road, will tell you it's the aim that's important, not the number of shots per minute.

So while my suggestion will not cure the insanity of mass murder, it will reduce its effects. All semi-automatic weapons, whether they are military wannabes or double-action pistols, should be banned. Instead of a government buyback, a tax payer might be offered a tax credit for turning in fast-shooting guns. I can hear the growl and groan even before the ink dries on this suggestion. Neither the kids who walk in protest nor the gun owners will be happy with idea. It could be that compromise is the best we can hope for. At least until I hear from the main office of the NRA.