In the wake of the Orlando massacre, the country is still trying to figure out precisely what happened. Thankfully, the National Rifle Association, in an op-ed piece printed in USA Today, has provided the definitive answer, for which we are all eternally grateful.

According to the NRA analysis, as I understand it, at approximately 2:00 a.m., local time, on June 12, 2016, the killer stood up in the Pulse nightclub, and screamed “radical Islam” at least 102 separate times, which resulted in 49 dead, and 53 wounded. Plus the screamer.

Absurd? Of course.

The victims in Orlando were not killed by “radical Islam.” They were killed by a demented individual who came into possession of one of “the most popular firearms sold in America for sport-shooting, hunting and self-defense.”

As Orlando, Newtown, and San Bernardino attest, semi-automatic weapons are also very effective at killing and maiming lots of men, women – and children – in an appallingly short period of time.

It is time for the NRA to retire the mantra of “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” and admit to the obvious: people with guns kill people.

So how to at least slow down the carnage?

The answer is not banning the weapons. There are already several million in circulation. To assume gun owners will docilely turn in their assault-type weapons, or any firearm for that matter, is ludicrous – nor can, nor should, they be required to do so. First of all, there are Second Amendment protections as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and secondly, as the NRA correctly points out, the vast majority of responsible gun owners should not be penalized for the acts of a twisted few.

That some of the weapons already in circulation will be used in future atrocities is both likely and unavoidable, a price to be paid for past inaction.

But can we act to reduce the frequency of future attacks? The answer is yes, we can.

It is noticeable that in many instances, Newtown being the exception, the assault-type weapons used in these massacres are not family heirlooms passed lovingly from generation to generation. The more typical scenario involves an individual with inner demons who goes down to the local gun shop – or show, or web site – loads up on guns and ammo, and trots off to claim his, or her, place among the legions of the damned.

The NRA op-ed makes much of the fact that the Orlando killer had been investigated multiple times by the FBI, had a government-approved security guard license, and had co-workers who reported to law enforcement agencies violent and racist comments made by the killer. Despite all this, the killer came legally into possession of the guns he used at the Pulse. The NRA statement uses these facts to throw up its hands and whine that any attempt at monitoring the buying and selling of guns is a worthless exercise in futility.

Instead, what they have done is define and describe the problem, and once a problem is defined and described, work can begin to find a solution. Some suggestions:

One, there should be better coordination and information-sharing between law enforcement agencies. If you have been investigated by the FBI or other law enforcement agency, that fact, if not the details of the investigation, should be ascertainable by those selling guns. It would at least be a red flag calling for further investigation. In the case of the Orlando killer, the gun store owner – a retired New York City police officer – said flatly that if he had known about the prior FBI investigations he would not have sold the weapons used in the slaughter. And, while not a consideration in the Orlando case, there should be no question whether someone on a terrorist “no fly” watch list should be allowed to buy a weapon.

Civil libertarians can craft due process safeguards to allow for appeal of inclusion in the national database and provide procedures to allow for removal.

Two, there should be provision for a waiting period long enough to allow for a meaningful background check. In Florida, oddly enough, there is a state requirement for a three-day waiting period for a handgun, but there is no waiting period to purchase an assault rifle. Go figure. If the assault weapon truly is being purchased for “sport-shooting, hunting, and self-defense,” a few days for a background check is not an onerous burden.

And, three, Congress should close off the gun show and online purchase loopholes.

Some will circumvent these measures, but others will not, and because of that, people will live who otherwise would be dead.

The NRA, and its congressional enablers, will undoubtedly fight any attempt to monitor and track the sale of firearms. They will dress it up with Second Amendment rhetoric, but the more likely reason for their resistance has to do with their bottom line. As so ably pointed out a few days ago in this space by local columnist Rob Burgess, the NRA stands to lose major revenue in any environment other than the one currently existing – which also means less money for political contributions.

As Mr. Burgess suggests, follow the money.

The NRA statement says it’s time to “admit that radical Islam is a hate crime waiting to happen.” That is, however, no excuse to provide, without restriction, the firepower that allows the hate crime “waiting to happen” to become a flesh-and-blood reality whose time has come.