My confidence is high that wherever one stands on the issue of guns, almost everyone would agree this country has an ongoing crisis when it comes to mass shootings. I am still confident, but less so, we can agree something must be done to address the problem of mass shootings.

I am also confident we agree that not much has been done over several decades to capably address mass shootings. On one side, the solution championed would be to keep guns away from criminals and the mentally impaired. On another side, there is advocacy for extensive background checks prior to purchasing guns and a ban on “assault rifles.”

With little to no give on either side, legislative losses and body counts pile up. This is not in dispute.

On Tuesday, FiveThirtyEight.com published “Where Democrats and Republicans Differ on Gun Control.” The content of the story examines polling data on specific solutions repeatedly proposed in the gun control debate. It is within these numbers I believe enough common ground exists to take some corrective action at a problem we all should agree exists.

It should come as no surprise that on solutions of arming teachers and banning assault style weapons, the two sides are too far apart thus making both solutions non-starters for federal legislation.

When it comes to background checks, stopping the mentally ill from buying guns and also family members seeking court orders to temporarily take firearms away from those who appear to pose a threat to themselves and others (red flag laws) we do find some common ground that’s worth exploring.

First, an almost equally agreed upon solution for both parties is banning mentally ill people from buying guns. It has the support of 85% Republicans and 90% Democrats (to be clear, citizens, not politicians). This looks like a slam dunk piece of legislation that lawmakers can piece together into a bill. However, I have questions on this “common sense” solution.

How do you want to define mental illness? Would someone with various levels of depression or anxiety qualify as mentally ill? What if they’re being treated for the illness, does that change the game? Is defining someone as mentally ill coming from a doctor or a judge? If the country is sorely lacking in mental health support, and it is, who provides the expert opinion and how long of a court case backlog does it create to finally arrive at a judge’s order? Also, what level of law enforcement is responsible for confiscating firearms?

Again, these are all the questions that arise in my mind on a solution an overwhelming majority of people from both parties can agree on. However, that does not mean the effort should not be made.

The next common ground, though less popular than barring the mentally ill from buying firearms, are background checks for buying a gun. Only 14 points separate Republicans (77% support) and Democrats (91%) on the issue and both with strong majorities of approval. It is odd then that this seems to be the loudest solution in terms of passage in Congress.

Background checks for guns existed before and exist for other common practices such as air travel. Through the Department of Homeland Security, if a citizen wants to speed through the long and laborious security check at the airport to board a plane, you can apply for a TSA PreCheck. This requires you to be interviewed as part of a background check to make sure you are eligible to have a less intrusive security check when trying to make a flight.

I do not recall nor am I aware of any controversy in regards to a background check for this benefit (which I highly recommend if you travel by air!) though I admit a benefit is not the same as a Constitutional right. As a frequent user of the TSA PreCheck, I’ve never met a fellow PreChecker who was offended by having to have a background check performed.

I have nothing to hide, a clean record, and if it means I enjoy (and I do!) a government approved benefit, background check away! I am not a patient man, but for this, I got time.

Our final data point on common ground for gun legislation exists for red flag laws. Again, this is where a family member petitions the court for temporary confiscation of a citizen’s guns based on the concern that person may presently be a threat to themselves or others. Support among Republicans stands at 70% and 85% for Democrats. Again, healthy margins of support on both sides.

However, many of my same questions pop up here as they do with the mental health firearm bans. Primarily, on what basis and drawing upon what bit of expertise does a family member have to make such a judgement?

If a mother were uncomfortable with her child (even an adult child) playing role-play active shooter video games, would that qualify as someone who may be a threat for a mass shooting? There are thousands of mass shooting game plays a day by teens and adults slaughtering characters in all types of game settings. Do not think this is a small matter. There are scores of lawmakers (Republicans and Democrats) who believe video games play a major role in our heightened violent society … and I am sure there are a number of judges who believe it, too.

As I have hopefully demonstrated, there is common ground with healthy majorities of citizen support for measures to be taken to help reduce the alarming number of mass shootings in the U.S. Namely, there are large majorities of support for barring mentally ill people from buying firearms, having background checks before buying a gun and red flag laws.

No one should expect perfect laws to be passed. Perfect laws don’t exist and if you don’t believe me go ask a lawyer! We need our lawmakers to take heed of “We the people” and take meaningful action.

The inaction strategy is not working as shown by children lying dead in their bloodied classrooms. On that, I can only hope we have a common ground of agreement.

MICHAEL D. MESSERLY is the publisher of The Daily Iberian and Acadiana Lifestyle. He can be reached at mmesserly@daily-iberian.com