1. Colorado embodies national divide over gun control
2. Obama’s move on guns may have little effect on violence
3. Obama thrusts gun control debate into forefront of 2016 presidential election

The most natural human reaction to a tragedy is “someone oughta do something.” A better reaction, in every circumstance, is “someone oughta do something effective.”

Following the tragic killing of two television journalists in Virginia, as well as other shootings, lawmakers have responded with bills to increase gun control. The problem is that none of these measures would have prevented those tragedies, or future ones.

“Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) is looking to crack down on gun dealers that sell firearms to criminals,” reports The Hill, a Washington newspaper. “The Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act introduced Tuesday would hold gun dealers liable for sales made to people who are prohibited from owning guns. It is the latest gun bill introduced by Democrats that is unlikely to pass through a Republican-controlled Congress.”

Kaine told The Hill, “As recent tragedies in Virginia and across the country have shown, the gun laws in our country have done little to stem senseless gun violence. These numbing incidents in urban, rural and suburban communities are made worse by the lack of accountability in those instances where the tragedy might have been prevented.”

Kaine’s heart goes out to the families of those slain, as do all of ours. But let’s use our heads as well. Kaine shows he’s feeling, not thinking, in that statement.

First, we have stemmed “senseless gun violence” in America, in a significant way. Violent crime, including crime involving guns.

“Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49 percent lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew,” the Pew Research Center reports. “The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm – assaults, robberies and sex crimes – was 75 percent lower in 2011 than in 1993.”

Even recent upticks are relatively minor, compared to past levels of gun crimes.

Next, Kaine misses the fact that the Virginia shooter passed the background check. He had no criminal history to keep him from legally purchasing his Glock 19. For that matter, so did the shooter at Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho, who bought his own Glock 19 and Walther P22 legally.

The point here is that Kaine’s bill contends that somehow, holding gun dealers accountable for selling to people who are prohibited from owning them would have prevented these tragedies. That’s simply false. Kaine is adding teeth to a law that’s irrelevant in these cases – because the shooters weren’t prohibited from owning guns.

What’s missing, of course, is the mental health aspect. Both of these murderers had long histories of mental problems. That’s true of so many other shooters, including Jared Lee Loughner, James Holmes and Adam Lanza.

Who knew about their mental illnesses? Their families, of course, but liberal policies such as patient privacy have kept the information a secret.

Kaine’s bill is an example of what happens when people respond to a tragedy with the typical knee-jerk reaction – government intervention.

But his bill would do nothing to prevent future tragedies, despite his heartfelt rhetoric on the issue.