The NRA, Background Checks and Assault Rifles
Let me make it clear that I am not taking sides in the "we should" vs "we should NOT" allow non-military/non-law enforcement personnel to own assault rifles. That's another topic for another time.
I do have points to make when it comes to the subject of the ongoing debate over background checks and gun purchases. I have no problem with the requirement for anyone who wants to legally purchase a firearm to first undergo a criminal background check.
But I'm not sure I don't agree with the NRA's point that criminal background checks will only prevent people who are currently interested in following the law, who have a criminal past, from purchasing and owning firearms. For the most part, the people who engage in mass shootings have no criminal past. Here are a few examples:
Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, did not have a criminal record.
James Holmes, the Aurora theater shooter, did not have a criminal record.
Cho Seung-Hut, the Virginia Tech shooter, did not have a criminal record.
Kyle Aaron Huff, the Capitol Hill massacre shooter did have a criminal record but because his convictions were misdemeanors, a background check did not prevent him from buying guns legally.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine High shooters were arrested but got into a diversion program. They weren't old enough to legally buy weapons and an 18 year old friend bought them for the duo.
In every instance listed above, the shooters would not have been prevented from buying guns (except for two who weren't old enough). Background checks would not have prevented them from getting their hands on weapons.
The common theme among them is that all appear to have been diagnosed with, or should have been diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. That's where background checks might make a difference. If someone has a misdemeanor conviction and we're going to allow them to legally own a gun, background checks won't help with those people. Convicted felons should lose their right to own a weapon.
But how do we reconcile a person's right to privacy, especially in this day and age where we've passed federal laws creating very strict standards about how little health information can be released regarding an individual? The answer is simple. People who want to legally own a gun need to waive that privacy right and somehow be cleared by a mental health professional before they are allowed to purchase a gun. Maybe it's something as simple as having them complete something like the MMPI (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory for more on the MMPI) and then if additional screening is warranted, it must be completed before the gun purchase can be finalized.
As far as the law-abiding public goes, this shouldn't be an isue.
The other problem is that those who want to rob banks, commit rapes, mug people on darkened streets and so on don't give a rat's ass about following the laws they plan to violate. So they aren't going to pay any attention to getting guns legally. They will do whatever it takes to arm themselves and go out and commit far more serious crimes. It doesn't make a lot of sense to be punishing a criminal for violating gun ownership laws when he or she is being tried for 23 bank robberies.
So go ahead and push for background checks, but let's try to do checks that will make a real difference.
I do have points to make when it comes to the subject of the ongoing debate over background checks and gun purchases. I have no problem with the requirement for anyone who wants to legally purchase a firearm to first undergo a criminal background check.
But I'm not sure I don't agree with the NRA's point that criminal background checks will only prevent people who are currently interested in following the law, who have a criminal past, from purchasing and owning firearms. For the most part, the people who engage in mass shootings have no criminal past. Here are a few examples:
Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, did not have a criminal record.
James Holmes, the Aurora theater shooter, did not have a criminal record.
Cho Seung-Hut, the Virginia Tech shooter, did not have a criminal record.
Kyle Aaron Huff, the Capitol Hill massacre shooter did have a criminal record but because his convictions were misdemeanors, a background check did not prevent him from buying guns legally.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine High shooters were arrested but got into a diversion program. They weren't old enough to legally buy weapons and an 18 year old friend bought them for the duo.
In every instance listed above, the shooters would not have been prevented from buying guns (except for two who weren't old enough). Background checks would not have prevented them from getting their hands on weapons.
The common theme among them is that all appear to have been diagnosed with, or should have been diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. That's where background checks might make a difference. If someone has a misdemeanor conviction and we're going to allow them to legally own a gun, background checks won't help with those people. Convicted felons should lose their right to own a weapon.
But how do we reconcile a person's right to privacy, especially in this day and age where we've passed federal laws creating very strict standards about how little health information can be released regarding an individual? The answer is simple. People who want to legally own a gun need to waive that privacy right and somehow be cleared by a mental health professional before they are allowed to purchase a gun. Maybe it's something as simple as having them complete something like the MMPI (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory for more on the MMPI) and then if additional screening is warranted, it must be completed before the gun purchase can be finalized.
As far as the law-abiding public goes, this shouldn't be an isue.
The other problem is that those who want to rob banks, commit rapes, mug people on darkened streets and so on don't give a rat's ass about following the laws they plan to violate. So they aren't going to pay any attention to getting guns legally. They will do whatever it takes to arm themselves and go out and commit far more serious crimes. It doesn't make a lot of sense to be punishing a criminal for violating gun ownership laws when he or she is being tried for 23 bank robberies.
So go ahead and push for background checks, but let's try to do checks that will make a real difference.
posted by me at 9:43 PM
<< Home