by Mike Smith The Washington Post recently conducted an analysis to fact-check a statement by SenatorMarco Rubio when he said that “none of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.”The Post developed a list of 12 mass shootings, starting with the horrific Newtown, CT, shootings that killed 26 people, mostly children, at an elementary school in 2012, and ending with the recent shooting in San Bernardino, CA, that occurred just weeks ago and left 14 people dead and many more injured.The conclusion: Rubio’s comments stand up to the Post’s scrutiny. His statement is correct.
So why are politicians rushing to institute gun control laws that may have little effect on reducing this type of violence? Because in politics, when you can’t really do anything, you must look like you’re doing something.
Politicians will talk about plans as though they’re advancing policies that will solve the problem. Their plans, which include banning “assault weapons” or closing “loopholes,” are often pieced together without even the most rudimentary knowledge of the mechanics of a firearm, or explaining how a new process could work, or contemplating the expanded black market new prohibitions inevitably create.
I used to carry an assault rifle for a living. At one time in my life, I could say I fired almost every type of assault rifle in the world. It’s true that these weapons are highly lethal. If these were the weapons we were talking about then, I would wholeheartedly support a ban on assault rifles. But automatic weapons for civilian use are already banned in the United States.
So the “assault weapons” politicians are talking about banning are rifles that are manufactured to look like their military counterparts but operate exactly the same way as semiautomatic hunting rifles or pistols. In fact, these rifles that are designed to look like assault rifles were banned for 10 years. Studies indicate that the ban had no appreciable impact on reducing gun violence, although critics claim that 10 years is not enough time to draw such conclusions.
The most recent call for the ban of these rifles — including from our own Sen. Bernie Sanders — was after the shootings in California. That state has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and yet the people who wanted to commit these acts of violence found a way to carry out their planned slaughter. In fact, the same horrendous result could have occurred with any semiautomatic hunting rifle or target-shooting pistol.
Let’s not forget violence — including horrific acts of terrorism — happens frequently in the absence of guns. Knives, airplanes, fertilizer, crockpots, bare hands — sadly, this list is endless. We could extend the “if it saves just one life” argument to all of them — but we ban none of them.
So what impact would another ban of one class of gun have on gun violence? Not a whole lot.
But what about the measure gun control advocates call “universal background checks?” Although expanded background checks are perhaps more amenable to many than a ban on certain types of rifles, these expanded checks are fraught with logistical problems and would not have prevented much of the violence that has shaken us.
Currently, gun retailers are required to be federally licensed and to perform a background check before they sell a gun to a buyer. But these rules don’t apply to private sales, or trades, at gun shows or between friends, family or acquaintances.
There is a call from some Vermont politicians for this background check to be extended to private transactions. This raises some interesting questions. Does this mean that family members would have to undergo a background check before they could exchange guns? My father gave me his .22-caliber rifle for deer hunting when I was 10 years old.
This type of transaction is not unusual in Vermont. Will a similar exchange in the future be subject to background checks? And if Vermont families don’t submit to background checks, are they then criminals? Unfortunately, “universal background checks” — meaning background checks for all legal gun transactions — would not have prevented the tragedy this summer that occurred in Barre and Berlin.
So how do we address the problem of violence committed by guns?
We need to focus our attention on what is causing the violence. Reducing violence requires that we tackle issues like intergenerational poverty, the lack of educational and economic opportunities, physical and emotional abuse, domestic violence, alcohol and drug addiction, mental illness, declining family cohesiveness, prejudice and radicalization of religions. This kind of work is complex, and it takes time. It’s a lot harder to communicate these solutions, especially in a speech. What’s easier is to throw out a new restriction like the ones discussed above that will not solve our challenges but are politically expedient.
People fear what they don’t understand — like guns, other religions and incomprehensible violence. What makes a person willing to reject the rule of law and harm others is a larger, more complex problem to tackle than loopholes or bans can address.
In the end, using fear to advance a gun control agenda solves nothing and may even prevent meaningful solutions from being implemented because we pretend that quick fixes are enough when in fact they are not. For politicians, however, this is not the language that fits neatly into a sound bite.
Mike Smith was secretary of administration and secretary of human services under former Gov. Jim Douglas. He is the host of the radio program “Open Mike with Mike Smith” on WDEV 550 AM and 96.1, 96.5 and 101.9 FM. He is also a political analyst for WCAX-TV and WVMT radio and is a regular contributor to the Times Argus,Rutland Herald and Vermont Business Magazine.