Editor’s note: This commentary is by Barbara Felitti, of Huntington, who has worked since 1993 on international development projects, 15 years with the Institute for Sustainable Communities based in Montpelier.
Last year when Gov. Phil Scott vetoed legislation requiring a waiting period on gun purchases he said more data was needed. The Senate recently provided research data documenting that gun purchase waiting periods reduce homicides by 17% and suicides by up to 11%. Despite this, the governor says he will veto a waiting period and focus on “root causes” of gun violence.
Identifying “the primary root causes of behavior that leads to violence against others in schools and communities” was the objective of the governor’s task force which issued its report last year – the Community Violence Prevention Task Force Report. The report’s analysis of root causes states there is insufficient data and no consensus about individual risk factors leading to gun violence. However, the report does state that “undeniable evidence links homicide and suicide rates to the overall number of guns in the population” and that there is an “ironclad link between firearms and violence.” In light of this, the lack of support for proven measures to reduce gun deaths, such as waiting periods, is indefensible.
The task force report has 38 recommendations, 14 address prevention measures (e.g., mental health funding, social media monitoring) and 22 recommendations address improvements in responsiveness (e.g., active shooter drills, response plans, bleed kits). Only two recommendations would keep guns out of the hands of an individual seeking to harm themselves or others — judicial authority to remove firearms and safe storage laws.
Improving responsiveness while necessary will not address “root causes” – the stated goal of the task force report — yet these recommendations form the bulk of the report. A focus on responsiveness is tantamount to closing the barn door after the cows have gone. Is it needed? Yes. But let us be clear, the incident has already occurred.
The responsiveness recommendations include a long list for teachers and school administrators which include: 911 compliance, safety drill plans, work with state mental health agencies, Vermont school safety best practices, behavioral warning signs and suicide prevention training, digital media consumption programs, emergency operations plans, Incident Command Systems, law enforcement partnerships, and parent notification protocols. This laundry list of recommendations will do little to help Vermont’s many small schools identify where to start to address gun violence.
Also of concern is the sometimes militaristic language in the report, e.g., “tactical emergency medicine to the front lines” and equipping for a “close quarters battle situation.” Four recommendations would require active shooter drills or the run/hide/fight approach. Active shooter drills. Are we listening to ourselves? The perceived need for these drills should send alarm bells ringing that more needs to be done to limit access to guns (again, a proven measure that works) rather than relying on active shooter drills (an unproven measure) that may scare and cause anxiety in children.
Increasing judicial authority to remove guns from those who pose a risk to themselves or others and gun storage laws will decrease access to guns. These task force recommendations should be supported and are included in Senate bill, S.268, introduced by Sen. Ruth Hardy. S.268 would create a 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases, mandate safe storage of firearms, strengthen the extreme risk protection order/red flag law, close a loophole allowing gun dealers to sell guns without a background check if the FBI does not complete the check within three days, and close a loophole for gun manufacturers allowing them to modify guns to have a magazine size above the 10-round limit.
However, I believe that S.268 does not go far enough in using data to set policy. Specifically, requiring a permit before purchasing a gun is documented to reduce gun-related homicides. In 1995, Connecticut passed a permit-to-purchase law, and over the next 10 years there was a 40% drop in firearm homicides. Conversely, when Missouri repealed its permit-to-purchase law in 2007, there was a 14%-25% increase in the firearm homicide rate per year during the years through 2012 following the repeal. Vermont currently does not require a license to carry firearms openly or concealed, nor does it require a permit to purchase firearms and ammunition.
Too often we hear “this won’t happen in Vermont.” But it is happening – our gun-related suicides are higher than the national average. Vermonters are under the same stress and pressures as people in the other 49 states. Thinking a shooting incident cannot happen here is idealistic at best.
As the Vermont Task Force report notes “the evidence that easy access to firearms leads to the use of firearms in violent acts is irrefutable.”
We owe it to the children of Vermont to do more.
