None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.”

— Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). interview on CBS’s This Morning, Dec. 4, 2015

A colleague pointed out this statement by Marco Rubio as a possible fact check, suggesting that it was almost certainly incorrect. It posed an interesting challenge, given the reams of data to examine.

The Fact Checker obviously takes no position on proposed gun-control laws. But given the attention of recent mass public shootings, is Rubio correct that none of the major shootings in recent years would have been prevented by new gun laws?

Rubio was not specific in his time frame — and a spokesman declined to elaborate — but for the purposes of this fact check we will go back as far as the Newtown shooting in 2012, which touched off the current gun debate.

The Facts

First of all, we should note that there is an unbridgeable gap in opinion about efficacy of various gun proposals, particularly regarding assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

“The common thread that binds most mass shootings is semiautomatic firearms with the ability to accept a high-capacity detachable ammunition magazine,” said Avery Palmer, communications director at the Violence Policy Center, which supports restrictions on guns. “These can range from assault rifles, pistols, and shotguns, to compact, high-capacity pistols marketed for concealed carry. Today’s gun industry has embraced increased lethality as its marketing lodestar, and one key element in reducing the occurrence and severity of mass shootings lies in ratcheting down the firepower in civilian hands.”

By contrast, gun-rights supporters argue that bans on certain weapons and large-capacity magazines would accomplish little. There are already more than 5 million AR-type rifles in circulation in the United States, ownership of which would have been grandfathered under proposed bans.

A previous nationwide assault-weapons ban, which lasted 10 years and lapsed in 2004, was easily circumvented by gun manufacturers, in part because of various loopholes. The evidence is mixed on how effective that ban was, with both sides often cherry-picking from the most comprehensive report on that law, written in 2004 by Christopher Koper of George Mason University. “The ban did not appear to affect gun crime during the time it was in effect, but some evidence suggests it may have modestly reduced gunshot victimizations had it remained in place for a longer period,” Koper wrote in 2013.

John R. Lott Jr., at the pro-gun Crime Prevention Research Center, notes that such bans would target .223-caliber weapons but would not affect more powerful semiautomatic rifles using .30-06 caliber, which are used for hunting deer. (This video demonstrates the difference.)

Meanwhile, an experienced shooter, as shown in this video, can change a magazine in just two to four seconds. That calls into question whether such a ban would significantly reduce the death toll.

Read the article “Marco Rubio’s Claim That No Recent Mass Shootings Would Have Been Prevented by Gun Laws” on washingtonpost.com.