Editor’s note: This commentary is by Bill Agnew, of Charlotte, an arborist works with all manner of trees.
[I]t seems that articles in news media about guns and the need to do something about them are proliferating. Last week I read about a panel of experts examining waiting periods as a way to reduce Vermont’s suicide rate. Today an editorial about the need to treat firearms as a public health hazard in order to reduce “gun violence.” And it was hard to miss the very first use of Vermont’s “high capacity magazine” law — but not on someone threatening gun violence. Rather, this obnoxious individual was exercising his First Amendment rights in hurtful ways and there was seemingly nothing else the state’s attorney could charge him with.
While no expert, I can Google as well as anyone. Vermont was ranked the second safest state in the U.S. in 2016, the most recent year FBI statistics are available. So, I rate the claim that Vermont is suffering from an “epidemic” of gun violence as false, meaning, it is not backed up by empirical fact. Empirical data shows that roughly three-quarters of Vermont’s deaths by guns are suicides. Whether we want to include suicide under the rubric of “gun violence” is debatable. One way of deciding might be if doing so resulted in outcomes that decreased the suicide rate, up approximately 4 percentage points from the national average (Vermont is ranked 18th among states). But, another quick Google search revealed the U.S. ranks 27th in the world in per capita suicide rates. It is well known that the U.S. has one of the highest civilian firearms ownership rates. These two data points should give pause to any thoughtful person searching for a quick solution (read: pass another gun law) to the universal social problem of suicide. There is no causality and correlation isn’t as linear as we might wish for (or not, depending on our bias). There is clearly association, and that is where the work lies. Focusing intently on the trees (i.e. means), we risk losing sight of the forest.
The irrationality of recent firearms legislation is problematic. Despite the fact that Vermont has had no school shootings, and that last year’s unprecedented attempt was foiled under existing statute, the Legislature restricted firearms purchases by adults under 21. In fact, the Vermont Supreme Court later ruled the “crime” to be speech, protected under the First Amendment. The Legislature also banned future purchase of “high capacity” magazines. While lacking data, I’d hypothesize Vermonters shot with rifles with high capacity magazines have overwhelmingly been suspects shot by police. Law enforcement is exempt from the magazine capacity statute. In the worst multiple victim shooting here in recent memory, the perpetrator used a bolt action hunting rifle that lacked a detachable magazine. Bump-stocks were also banned, despite there being no recorded case of criminal misuse in Vermont. Overall, the disconnect between empirical data and legislative response is nothing short of breathtaking. It points to a tendency of legislation through mass hysteria, the opposite of due diligence and wisdom.
If we agree that Vermont does not have an empirically observable “gun violence” epidemic, that school shootings in our state are statistically rarer than the chance of, say, getting struck by lightning in the schoolyard, and that our suicide rate is unacceptably high, then a reasonable conversation can ensue. But the question is, among whom? The previously mentioned article included a photo of the discussion panel: a group of (mostly) middle-aged white women. My first response was, how many of them own a firearm? I do not doubt for a moment they are acting with the very sincerest of intentions. I do question their methodology — advocating for a waiting period on purchases. Roughly one-third of Vermonters (almost 200,000 residents) already own firearms, a subset that would not be impacted by waiting periods. Further, the at-risk groups mentioned in the article presumably have elevated rates of gun ownership, thus accounting for a disproportionate share of the suicide rate. I personally ticked off all five of the risk categories, and my gun safe is full. So why aren’t I on board with this group’s genuine efforts to make a difference?
In my own limited experience, I found that trying to impose treatment on people typically doesn’t lead to good outcomes. On the other hand, getting buy-in from stakeholders was critical to their success at long-term risk reduction. It’s hard for me to envision how a non-representative panel imposing its ideas on an at-risk population represents a meaningful solution. It does, however, move the needle if the unstated agenda is to change historical patterns of firearms ownership and use in Vermont. Personally, one of my ongoing frustrations is the lack of recognition by many advocates that legitimate constitutional concerns are at play, both on our state and at the national level. This is often ignored by those favoring the public health model. We all agree that great strides in automobile and cigarette mortality reductions have been achieved, however, neither smoking nor driving are constitutionally protected behaviors. Firearms ownership is. I believe any realistic approach to reducing suicide in Vermont must include gun owners (that means NRA, GOV, etc. members) as equal participants. This is already being tried elsewhere (see Block, M. NPR 11-21-18 Gunshops Work with Doctors to Prevent Suicide by Firearm) and, if we are serious about outcomes over agendas, it is time for Vermonters to join that effort.
