What Can We Do After Nashville?

Policy Prescriptions Seem to Leave Us With Few Options

Like many, I watched the news of yet another school shooting yesterday—this time, in Nashville—in horror and disbelief and wondered what could’ve been done to prevent it. Of course, law enforcement has theories about the motive behind the shooting and, reportedly, the shooter left a manifesto behind. Is there something that could’ve been done?

I can’t imagine what the victims’ families are going through. The tragic and senseless loss of life at the hands of someone who wanted to die and take others with them just leaves all of us asking why. I was a senior at Eagle’s Landing High School in McDonough, Georgia, when Columbine happened in April 1999. A month later, a student at Heritage High School in Conyers, Georgia, shot six people. Conyers is about 15 miles from McDonough.

I knew a few people from church who went to high school there. Later that day, a friend invited me to play softball not far from the high school where the shooting happened. As we approached the school on Highway 138, I saw that the parking lot and football field were covered in news vans. I was in awe of the sight. I can’t say we lived in fear or anything like that, but the images from Columbine were seared in all of our minds.

The reactions to the tragedy in Nashville have been about what was expected. Democrats are calling for stricter restrictions on firearms, including a ban on assault weapons. Conservatives are quick to point out that the shooter was transgender. This fact concerns me because of the likelihood that this fact will contribute to the already taxing culture wars that are raging in the United States.

I’ve seen some discussion about mental health. I have a hard time taking that discussion seriously because conservatives in Congress, particularly those on the far right, don’t really want to fund mental and behavioral health treatment. Those objections come from a philosophical concern about the role of the federal government and federal spending. I’m not suggesting that they don’t care about the issue.

The shooter bought seven firearms from five stores, meaning that the shooter went through a background check from a federal firearms licensed (FFL) dealer. So, the firearms were purchased legally. Expanded or universal background checks, in this instance, wouldn’t have made a difference.

Nashville Police Chief John Drake told reporters that law enforcement could’ve taken the guns if the shooter was suicidal or planned to hurt someone. Although the shooter was under the care of a doctor for an unspecified emotional disorder, there doesn’t seem to be any indication that this person was on anyone’s radar. If that’s the case, a red flag law wouldn’t have stopped the shooting, and there’s not much evidence to suggest that these laws are having an impact.

The federal assault weapons ban was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, usually known as the 1994 crime bill. However, the ban was effective for only ten years. It expired in September 2004 and hasn’t been renewed. There have been attempts to renew the ban, but those attempts have failed.

A ban on assault weapons may have prevented the shooter from purchasing an assault weapon, but the effectiveness of bans on these firearms has been questioned. First, the National Institute for Justice noted back in 2013 that “assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence.”

Second, the RAND Corporation reviewed five studies and concluded, “[W]e find inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.” Granted, three of the studies analyzed found that bans did reduce mass shooting-related deaths and/or injuries while two were uncertain of reduced effects. The studies also found limited evidence of the effectiveness of bans on high-capacity magazines.

Perhaps counterintuitively, the National Crime Victimization Survey published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that firearm victimizations have been trending down since 1993. Considering that many states have liberalized gun laws, the decline is notable. However, the number of mass shootings has dramatically climbed.

I’ve never hidden the fact that I’m a gun owner, but I’m not immersed in gun culture. I believe the Second Amendment secures an individual right to gun ownership. I also know that an AR-15 isn’t exactly the best type of weapon for home defense. If one wants to protect his or her home, a shotgun loaded with buckshot is the best weapon to have. Just point and shoot in the general direction to incapacitate an intruder.

There’s no single public policy prescription to address mass gun violence. People who want to commit horrible and unthinkable acts are likely going to do so no matter what laws are in place. Regardless, we’ve got to have a serious discussion about our approach to firearms. I think there’s some merit in a debate over universal background checks, red flag laws (as long as due process exists in these laws), and limits on high-capacity magazines. That said, I’m not convinced these policies will significantly reduce the number of mass shootings.