Editor’s note: This commentary is by Skyler Bailey, of Burlington, who works in medical administration.
[I] want to applaud the kids who went to the marches, without qualification, for their concern for the public good and for their involvement in politics at such a young age. Learning the value of political participation is among the most essential lessons that Americans can learn, especially in a state like Vermont where we have the distinct ability to really get our hands on our government. These are important issues. Lives are at stake, and let’s make no mistake that even those with whom we disagree on the best means are on the same side we are. This was not reflected in many of the statements of the speakers or in the posters being waved, nor in many of the online responses to the march, but it is true nevertheless.
If there were a means of keeping guns out of the hands of every person who would use them to break the law, while at the same time leaving the rest of the population to enjoy all of their constitutional rights in peace, I am sure that we would stand right next to each other and insist that such a means be implemented. The problem is deeper than most realize, and gun laws are not the simple and easy solution that some of us might, with the very best of intentions, hope they are.
There is no evidence that universal background check laws cause any positive outcome when it comes to violence. According to the FBI, the CDC and Everytown for Gun Safety data, states with universal background checks have higher murder rates (4.95 vs 4.59 per 100,000 in 2016), higher gun murder rates (3.52 vs 3.16 per 100,000 in 2016), and a higher percentage of murders committed with guns than in states without them (67.13 percent vs 60.22 percent in 2016). According to The Trace, between 1991-2015 the decrease in gun murder rates in states which enacted universal background check laws was 15 percent less than in states that did not. Of the 10 deadliest school shootings since Columbine, six happened in states that had universal background check laws in force at the time of the shooting. Only three of these were committed by a person under the age of 21, two of whom stole the weapons they used from family members. Of the 20 deadliest school shootings in U.S. history, 14 (including the two deadliest) did not involve any semi-automatic rifle with a magazine capacity larger than 10 rounds.
The very fact that we can compile such grim statistics is a sign that we needed to find solutions to this problem decades ago. But the result of 25 years of experimentation with gun laws at the state and federal level suggests that universal background checks simply do not stop these tragedies from occurring, and with a frequency that is disproportionately high in precisely those states that have enacted these restrictions.
Aside from the ineffectiveness of universal background checks, a major problem with them is that they are both too broad, and not broad enough. Universal background check laws are broad enough to impose a real burden on hundreds of thousands of people who follow the law, in the form of time, trouble, money, and public and personal safety. All of this while being unenforceable, and providing enough exemptions, and leaving unaddressed enough ways around the check system that those who want to break the law are not appreciably impeded in doing so. Theft, illegal borrowing and selling, prior ownership and straw purchases (which ATF figures say alone account for nearly half of trafficked guns) mean that these checks will only impose burdens on those whom we need not worry about in the first place.
Universal background checks criminalize the wrong behaviors. Many of these laws make it a felony to lend a weapon to a friend. There are many very good reasons for doing this; If a friend has a problem with a wild animal, owns no guns, and cannot afford; if a friend feels in danger because of her former significant other and cannot afford same or only wants the presence of a gun temporarily; or if someone is going on vacation out of state for a couple of weeks and does not want a criminal to have access to their guns should their home be burgled while they are away. These sorts of transactions happen frequently in Vermont.
The way the laws are currently written, there are many gun owners who justifiably believe that any attempt to seek mental health care will cause one of their constitutional rights to be stripped away from them forever. I personally know of several gun owners, some of them veterans, who have elected not to seek help during life crises for this reason, and who have gritted their teeth and borne the pain in the belief that they were not that far gone and could get through it on their own. Some of them did not make it through alive — either by the use of their gun or by other means. Some of them saw themselves headed to a dark place, and for their own safety gave their guns to a friend to hold onto until they had weathered the storm. This type of transaction is not uncommon, it literally saves lives, and it would be a criminal act under the background check bill currently in the Legislature.
Suicide is an issue that hits very close to home for me indeed, and I sincerely hope that none of this seems like waving the problem away. Our state is in the midst of a mental health care shortage bordering on crisis. I see it every day in my work; people who search for months for a psychiatrist who can take them. Last year there was a gentleman from Burlington who tried to get psychiatric help that was not available, and he went home and murdered his wife and attacked his mother-in-law with a meat cleaver before armed bystanders detained him. Gun control would not have saved this woman but expanded mental health care and social service resources might have. The state Legislature should spend half of the amount of time addressing these shortages that it has spent discussing gun control over the past half-decade, and we might see more positive results.
It is those who support gun control laws who are arguing for a change in state law and a restriction of a constitutional right. The burden of proof rests upon those who propose new legislation to accurately describe a problem requiring gun control as a solutions, lay out a set of concrete goals their proposals are meant to accomplish, compellingly show how their proposals will accomplish the stated goals, demonstrate that the proposed limitation of a constitutional right is a reasonable price to pay for that result, and that limiting a constitutional right is the only (or the best) practicable means of achieving that result.
Rather than expend so much time and effort passing the kinds of gun legislation which have already been shown to be wholly ineffective in addressing the problems of mass shootings and of gun crime in general, we ought to be reinforcing and solidifying what has already worked for us here in Vermont so that we can continue to prevent these kinds of tragedies from being perpetrated on the youth of our state. Ineffective, unconstitutional and unenforceable laws are not only not the answer, they’re not even an answer.
