Counterpoint | Our elected officials owe it to us to look honestly at the evidence around gun control

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In his Aug. 30 commentary, Rob Doar suggested what will and will not work to prevent mass shootings like the one at Annunciation Church, where a shooter killed two children, injured 21 and traumatized an entire community. As the senior vice president of Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, his conclusions came as no surprise: Absolutely nothing should be done on the gun control front, and we should only consider solutions unrelated to gun control. He is wrong.

First, when dismissing the effectiveness of assault weapons bans, Doar misled us by cherry-picking a quote from a 2004 National Institute of Justice report: “We cannot clearly credit the [1994 Federal Assault Weapons] Ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.” He conveniently left out the next two sentences: “However, the ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban AWs [assault weapons] and LCMs [large capacity magazines] ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers.”

Second, he didn’t mention reputable studies, such as the RAND Corporation’s more recent analysis that found: “Among the three studies with higher methodological quality, one found that state assault weapon bans significantly reduced school shooting casualties, and one found that high-capacity magazine bans significantly reduced mass public shootings.”

Clearly there is evidence that assault weapon bans could save lives, particularly if we look honestly at the data on what did and did not work with the previous ban.

Third, Doar argued that an assault weapons ban wouldn’t have stopped the Annunciation shooter because the shooter carried a shotgun and pistol along with an AR-15-style assault rifle. Doar ignored the fact that the assault rifle was the primary weapon. Police reported that they recovered 116 rifle shells but only three shotgun shells. They also found one live round in a pistol that had malfunctioned.

Fourth, Doar dismissed enhanced background checks by noting that the Annunciation shooter passed one. But, while background checks did not stop this tragedy, it doesn’t follow that they have not and will not stop others. While it is hard to get reliable data on how effective background checks are, there is a well-documented correlation between states implementing stricter background checks and statistically significant decreases in firearms homicides and suicides.

Finally, after dismissing any kind of gun control, Doar suggests what would work: Mental health care improvements, hardening soft targets and limiting media publicity that gives shooters the attention they crave. Most people on both sides of the gun control debate support these three suggestions. However, the U.S. has the highest level of gun violence in the world, by far, compared to other wealthy countries. These same countries have soft target schools and places of worship. They have media who report on crime. Some even have similar problems with mental health care disparities. None have the gun violence problem the U.S. does. Why? Massive differences in access to guns.

Our elected officials and those against gun control owe it to the rest of us and their own communities to look honestly at the actual evidence rather than cherry-picked snippets that support unrestricted access to all guns of any kind. They need to be open to the possibility that some gun restrictions might actually help address the mass shooting epidemic in this country. If we can save even one child’s life, wouldn’t it be worth it?