Assessing the likely life-saving implications of a ban on the sales of new assault weapons is even more problematic. According to that same congressional report, “Existing data do not show whether the number of people shot and killed with semiautomatic assault weapons declined during the 10-year period (1994-2004) that those firearms were banned from further proliferation in the United States.” In similar fashion, a 2004 academic study for the National Institute of Justice concluded, “The ban’s success in reducing criminal use of banned guns and magazines has been mixed.” There are, to be sure, some indications that making assault weapons more difficult to obtain did alter criminal behavior. As The New York Times argued in a late January editorial, “After the ban expired, 37 percent of police departments reported noticeable increases in criminals’ use of assault weapons, according to a 2010 report by the Police Executive Research Forum.”
With gun control likely to remain in the headlines for much of 2013, readers deserve to know what are the known knowns and the known unknowns about gun violence. Just because the available data does not fit into a neat ideological cubbyhole is not an excuse for neglecting to discuss it. It is quite likely that smart academics—both those in the midst of the political battles and those on the sidelines—have their own interpretations of existing statistics and their own theories about the real-world implications of passage of reform legislation. But while reporters are fond of balancing their stories with fire-breathing rhetoric from both the NRA and gun control advocates, quieter figures who have studied the issue remain almost invisible in the daily journalism from Capitol Hill and beyond.
The problem for reporters covering the torturous path of gun legislation through Congress is that no one on either side of the issue is apt to be honest about what can be achieved. Gun-control groups along with the Obama White House are so anxious for a victory that they would hail almost anything as a bold step towards halting gun violence. In contrast, the NRA and its conservative allies go to ludicrous extremes by conjuring the specter of totalitarian government in response to even the most limited attempts at gun legislation.
The roots of the problem of gun violence are, of course, the roughly 300 million firearms that are in private hands and are mostly legally owned. This existing arsenal combined with the Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the Second Amendment means that any politically plausible gun-control legislation is apt to only work at the margins. Still, some lives undoubtedly would be saved. That is why reporters should work harder to give Americans a sense of which proposals are apt to be effective and which ones are likely to prove toothless. It is important to add a sense of realism to the coverage of efforts to reduce gun violence, since it seems unlikely that any reform will bring enough results to match the passion and the rhetoric of the reformers, including the president.
The wrenching tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School should not be an excuse to abandon journalistic inquiry and skepticism. Needed are more conversations with outside experts on gun violence—and fewer political set pieces about grieving survivors and hyperbolic NRA supporters. A renewed sense of seriousness about presenting the gun issue in all its complexity is what the children and the nation deserve after Newtown.