Surely background checks aren’t this limited. I notice that illegal alien is right in there as a reason to prohibit guns sales. However, having your microwave tell you to kill people is not.
Although not stated in the Stewart segment, I also head that the Rhode island police called Navy and apprised them of Alexis’s mental illness issues. That message is still probably sitting on someone’s desk. Meanwhile, 2 people are dead.
The background checks apparently aren’t adequate. The gun laws apparently aren’t adequate if this shooter bought a gun legally in Virginia.
Part of me thinks something this tragic shouldn’t be in a comedian skit. The other part of me thinks the background check must all be a huge joke so why not.
We should change the state seal from a staff to a rifle. Oh, and cover the breast please. Since we don’t check who is a tyrant and who isn’t that motto has to go.
snicker….good one Lyssa.
Background checks from the NICS system only check to see if you’ve been convicted of a felony or adjudicated to be a danger due to mental illness. Since law enforcement did not charge and convict him of those firearm crimes nor the VA send him for a pysch eval…..there is no record nor was due process done to restrict his rights.
AND, remember,…… he already had a supposedly indepth background check for his SECRET clearance. How he got that….I’ll never know. If I had any of those things in my background, I wouldn’t have gotten my clearances.
Attempts to weaken HiPAA have been defeated, not by the NRA, but the ACLU, including a law in Connecticut, that would have allowed Mrs. Lanza to put her son into a hospital more easily. As it was, he had to demonstrate that he was a danger, ie, have the police called, before he could be brought before a judge and declared a danger.
The concerns about mental health are a big discussion online. A) how do we protect patients’ rights b) will making it easier to restrict rights merely because people seek mental health care backfire and prevent people from even seeking said care c) if the doctors aren’t stepping up now to declare people a danger…..why would they do that if the law is changed?
If we go around each assigning blame to the other then no change will occur.
Obviously change needs to happen. Surely you don’t think the current laws are adequate?
I have no say in the security clearance. That will have to be handled internally. If he got clearance, I don’t see why you wouldn’t have gotten clearance.
However, I do have a limited say in restrictions for being able to buy a gun, as a voter. There need to be a whole lot of other restrictions on the do not sell to list.
adding to Cargo’s comments is that on most applications (whether it be Federal, State, Local Government forms or even private businesses), many things are “self-declaration” to include Behavioral (health, conduct such as drinking or drug use, etc), Veteran status and even if you have a disability. Of course, most of those forms have the clause that after you sign it, what you submit will be checked.
However, as pointed out by Cargo, if you have never crossed the court system, things will most likely never show up. If you are receiving disability either from Social Security or Veteran Administration, unless there is a requirement to provide a copy of your tax return, unless you declare disability or Veteran status, your employer does not have to consider either. Big issue in the disability world about workplace accodamation and in the court cases, the companies are winning WHEN the person never raises the disability from the point of employment, or after the disability is acquired while employed (i.e. you had an auto accident and acquired some form of a disability).
As for Security Clearances…yeah, if a person lies on the form and nothing is found, well, you get one. Knew that all too well from my days as my section Security Officer duties.
Is it just me or do people who shouldn’t be allowed to buy a gun generally have a greater propensity for lying?
I don’t like the honor system.
I don’t even like the honor system about whether your car is insured or not. Where is the verification on some of these things?
Cargo and Ray have hit the nail on the head: If an individual’s mental state is not judged to be a danger to themselves or others, then it doesn’t get reported into the system. Today we learn that this guy flipped out on a family in and airport, whilst on his way to Rhode Island. He was detained, questioned by security, and released. Whilst in Rhode Island, he had another interaction with Law Enforcement where he claimed that the people from his earlier encounter at the Virginia airport were following him. He also sought help from the Veterans Administration. So what do we know:
This guy had a long history of interactions with authorities, to include two gun-related incidents, one of which was clearly and act of violence, and if either one of these incidents had been prosecuted, he would have failed the FBI and Virginia State background checks.
This guy was awarded a secret security clearance, based in part on passing a background check, which should have included these previous incidents
This guy had a spotty military service record, but not bad enough to preclude his getting a clearance.
This guy had multiple interactions with Law Enforcement and the mental health system, prior to the shooting, and if any one of these authorities had acted, the shooting could have been prevented.
The media incorrectly attributed the killing to an AR-15, when this gun wasn’t involved. He used a legally purchased, background checked pump shotgun to initiate the shooting, and continued with handguns taken from a victim….
“universal background checks” and banning classes of guns or magazine capacities would have had ZERO impact on this event
The shooting happened in a “secure” facility, where armed security was present, and is a declared “gun free zone” for civillians and DoD personnel not in a role to provide security.
The issue isn’t guns….it’s mental health, the reporting system, Law Enforcement not doing their jobs, the VA not doing its job, and finding the balance between an (implied) 4th amendment right to privacy, and an (expressed) 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
@Moon-howler
“There need to be a whole lot of other restrictions on the do not sell to list.”
Um…like who? The “prohibited persons” list is pretty specific:
-Felons
-Illegal drug users
-Persons subject to a protective order
-Illegal Aliens and those who’ve renounced their citizenship
-Mentally Ill persons ajudicated as such by a court
-Persons under a certain age
So had this guy been charged and convicted of a felony during either of his previous gun-related incidents in Seattle and Ft. Worth, he would have been prohibited.
Had the VA, Rhode Island law enforcement or the US Navy said “this guy is hearing voices and thinks he’s being microwaved, let’s get him in for observation and get him in front of a judge to see if he needs civil commitment, he would have been prohibited.
Things will change when we quit blaming the guns, and start blaming the failed mental health system and legal system. Columbine. VA Tech. Aurora. Giffords. Newton. Navy Yard. All tragedies where the shooters were known to be mentally disturbed, and no one wanted to take responsibility of dealing with the mentally ill. Easier to blame the guns, gun owners, and the NRA.
Steve, mental health didn’t kill anyone, a gun did. Try as you might, you can’t take the tool used to kill out of the equation, any more than you can take the automobile out of a car wreck.
I don’t want to ban pump shot guns or service pistols. I want the loose ends tied up.
In each of these mass killings there is nearly always a whole host of things cropping up that indicate if things had been done differently, these people wouldn’t have lost their lives.
I have read from several sources that the RI police called the Navy and reported having one of theirs who was crazier than a bucket of bat sh**. Where is that report? It sounds like the RI police did the right thing. Maybe if the Navy had acted on that tip. Who knows.
I amnot sure what differentiates a universal background check from a simple backround check. I think there should be one national data bank that can b used by the states.
At some point, the America people are going to tire of these mass killings and are going to pull the plug on a lot of things.
At that point, common sense restrictions are going to be applied to the 2nd amendment sort of like they are applied to other issues that need some regulation, for the good of us all.
Its just a matter of time and at that point, the NRA can howl, sue, and grasp in cold dead hands, and it won’t matter.
Drunk Driving is still a problem, and yet drunk driving fatalities are decreasing, down 52% in 20 years:
http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics
How did we do this? By banning “High Capacity” vehicles like buses, vans and SUVs? By banning “High Power” V8 engines, because these are “suited for the racetrack and should only be used by authorities”? By implementing “universal” DUI checkpoints on every street and highway in America? By passing laws that you can only drink in a bar, and not in your homes? Did we do it by suing General Motors or Anhiser-Bush? Did celebrities, the News Media, and the Mayor of NYC form “People against cars and trucks because drunks drive them and kill people”? Did we do this by restricting the rights of the vast majority of responsible drivers access to our public roads and highways?
No. We did it through education and ever increasing penalties for driving drunk. We lowered the threshold for chargeable offenses. We hold individuals responsible. Drive drunk? lose your right to drive. Get in an accident where alcohol may have contributed, increased penalties. Hurt someone? Go to jail. Kill someone? Go to jail.
You are comparing two distinctly different tools with distinctly different primary purposes.
I am not buying it.
You also left off that fewer people drink nowadays than they did 25 years ago. Drinking isn’t as much of our culture. Cops also don’t eat as many doughnuts.
It isn’t all about punishment. In fact, punishment isn’t a great great motivator.
So you think that the background checks are sufficient?
I think that there need to be more restrictions on those deemed unstable. My overall feeling about how the mentally ill are handled is not very good right now. However, thinking Venn diagram, that overlap between the mentally ill and guns MUST be reexamined and reformed. Throw in an extremely violent video game or two and you have the perfect storm.
@Moon-howler
“I amnot sure what differentiates a universal background check from a simple backround check. I think there should be one national data bank that can b used by the states.”
“Universal Background Checks” means that 100% of individuals who transfer a firearm to another, whether it be a sale, gift, or trade, must go through a Federal Firearms dealer who ensures the Federal and State forms are filled out, runs a background check, and collects a fee. Not a SINGLE mass shooting was conducted by a legally purchased gun that didn’t go through a background check, and was either illegally transferred to a “prohibited person” or stolen, or in the majority of cases, background checked individual was known by insititutions to be mentally ill, and this wasn’t reported to the FBI, who maintains the NATIONAL CRIMINAL INSTACHECK SYSTEM, or the State system:
Columbine: Straw purchased firearms illegally transferred to underage kids, known to school guidance counselors to be “distrubed”.
Tucson: Former Pima County College student expelled for “bizzare behavior” but not reported to authorities. Purchased firearms legally from a licensed dealer, passed background check.
VA Tech: Student referred to authorities after stalking and threatening another student. Judge ordered him to out-patient treatment. Legally purchased firearms from licensed dealer after passing FBI and VA State Police background check.
Aurora: Shooter (Holmes) known to be mentally ill to staff, faculty AND mental health professionals at University of Colorado. Legally purchased firearms from licensed gun dealer, after passing FBI and Co. background checks.
Newtown: Shooter (Lanza) obtained guns used by killing owner (mother). Mother had legally purchased guns from licensed dealer, passed background checks. Mother was also in the process of trying to have son civilly committed, due to known mental health issues.
Navy Yard: Shooter obtained one gun from licensed gun dealer, passed FBI and VA State background checks. Used legal gun to shoot security and obtained additional guns from victim. 2 previous un-prosecuted gun crimes, multiple interactions with mental health system.
So, where in this “common sense restrictions” being proposed that would have prevented even ONE of these shootings? Every firearm used was background checked before being legally sold, against a national and state system. Where did the system fail? Not in “who” and “when” a sale is checked…it was the data in the system. The data wasn’t there because “responsible” institutions didn’t do their jobs. The guns didn’t jump up and shoot themselves. The gun dealers didn’t fail to background check the sales. The shooters ethier obtained their guns illegally (Columbine, Newtown) or the individuals should have been on the prohibited persons list, due to their mental state.
Obviously the background checks weren’t enough.
I don’t see the 2nd amendment as an right without limitations. You and I obviously disagree. I have known several people who I don’t think should have guns.
What evidence is there that Mrs. Lanza was trying to commit her son? She seemed very much in denial about the serious nature of his illness.
I know if I bring up restricting some of the extremely violent games many of the killers have played, the no censorship crowd will rise up.
The bottom line is, everyone thinks their own rights are more important than the common good, or so it seems.
I would not have a problem at all with a universal background check, now I know the difference.
“You are comparing two distinctly different tools with distinctly different primary purposes.
I am not buying it.”
Blaming the tool, and not the weilder of the tool,…I’m not buying it. Defining an inanimate object as “bad” or “good”…not buying this either. I can buy a chainsaw and use it to cut wood to heat my home, cut down a tree that threatens life and poperty, or make a sculpture to decorate my lawn. I can use it to earn a living as a logger. Or I could use it like “leatherface”. Is the saw evil? Should chainsaws be banned? I can buy a car. Use it to get back and forth to work, take my wife to the hospital to give birth, earn a living delivering pizzas, customize it to be a speedy work of art or race it professionally. Or, I can get drunk or flip-out and run through a parade, like that guy did out in California. Should cars be banned? Is the car “evil”?
I am not assigning blame. You are mistaken and taking a quantum leap from what I actually said.
It would be foolish to blame inanimate objects. Clearly the bad behavior would be assigned to humans who mishandle the tools for whatever reason (carelessness, malice, selfishness, stupidity).
However, that is why we as responsible human beings need to make certain that those who aren’t responsible human beings don’t get their hands on tools that can cause harm to others.
“So you think that the background checks are sufficient? ”
Yes, I think the checks are sufficient. I think current laws on who can own, and what they can own are sufficient. It’s the list of prohibited persons that needs to be “tightened” and the data actually in the system improved. If I were to get a DUI and lose my license, cops in every other state would know, if I was “background checked” during a stop. They’d also potentially know if I had outstanding warrants or was a fugitive, provided the data had been properly entered into the system. Oh, and you can bet the insurance company would know, and would cancel my insurance as soon as my conviction hit the system. Later, when I got my license back, they’d know I’d lost my license previously, and would charge me higher premiums. Why? Because they have access to the data, and the data is pretty accurate and timely.
So how do you make sure that all the information gets to all the the people who can stop the wrong guy from getting his or her hands on weapons?
You can’t. You don’t have to have a license to have a gun or use a gun. You can buy a gun from just about anyone. There is no insurance company involved.
Cargo, how about drug and alcohol abuse? Where that fit into the equation and how long does it last?
@Steve Thomas
Another prohibited person is anyone convicted of even misdemeanor spousal abuse.
When is John Oliver coming back?
How can you completely prevent child abuse? You can’t. What you can do is reduce it by requiring teachers and healthcare providers report it if they suspect it. We might want to try something like this with mentally ill. How to you completely prevent domestic abuse? You can’t, but what you can do is require law enforcement to arrest one or both parties if they respond to a domestic disturbance call, and they see evidience of assault. We could tryo something like this for mental illness. Will it completely stop the mentally ill from passing FBI background checks for firearms purchases? No. Will it increase the chances of a background check coming back “denied” if someone is a danger to others, as a result of mental illness? I would think so.
Lots of laws were passed about child abuse too. Very little is done to educate people in general, I might add. Where are all these rules?
But actually that is another issue for another day. I really think if we are going to discuss gun violence and the misuse of firearms, we need to talk about the things that are directly related to it, not something remote like child abuse.
Gun violence is has some huge overlaps with other areas like mental health, alcohol abuse, background checks. I think we are more productive discussing it in those contexts.
So much for the “good guy with a gun” theory of crime prevention.
It seems that the same firm who let Snowden slip through the cracks was responsible for vetting Aaron Alexis in 2007 for a security clearance.
Really excellent piece by Petula Dvorak regarding the mental health component of mass murder.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/lets-connect-the-dots-on-mental-illness-before-the-violence-occurs/2013/09/19/13c99f40-2133-11e3-b73c-aab60bf735d0_story.html
@Starryflights
Really Starry?
So….who stopped him then? And since it was a gun free zone, in a gun free zone city?
But go ahead… keep up the snark.
@Cargosquid
Starry obviously missed the point in this thread where I responed to Moon’s saying the same thing. He was stopped by a “good guy with a gun”, eventually. Another thing we’ve learned is a tactical response team from the Capitol PD was the first armed response to arrive on the scene…within minutes of the first call. They were told to “stand down” by their supervisors. We need to determine why they were ordered to “stand down”. If Starry believes that society should largely be disarmed and rely on law enforcement for personal safety, well we best make sure that law enforcement will be there when we need them. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away….unless of course they are ordered to “stand down”. Then it might be hours.
Last night 13 people were shot in a gang-related mass shooting in Chicago. Chicago still has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, which the Supreme Court recently ruled constitute a “total ban” on private gun ownership. I’m going to go out here on a limb and say I don’t think these thugs went through a background check, purchased their guns through a licensed dealer, or aren’t otherwise prohibited persons. Also, no AR-15 was involved.
I don’t think we can talk about gang violence or inner city violence in the same context with these mass murders where someone goes on a rampage. Different causes although probably the same outcome. Dead folks.
I thought that law enforcement learned from Columbine that ‘stand down’ was NOT what to do. Do they need a refresher course in DC?
In the school in Atlanta, it was apparently a good idea but that was an exceptional situation with an exceptional person responding to the shooter. On the other hand, the problem would have been taken care of if the cops had fired about 50 rounds into the shooter. I guess it was his lucky day.
@Moon-howler
“I don’t think we can talk about gang violence or inner city violence in the same context with these mass murders where someone goes on a rampage. Different causes although probably the same outcome. Dead folks.”
We should talk about the scale of the problem, if we want to talk about context. Since 1983 about 580 people have been killed in mass shootings classified as “rampage killings” in all US states and territories. That comes out to about 20 per year. I’d venture to guess they have that many innocent bystanders killed in drive-by’s in Chicago alone in a year. Yet it’s the Columbines and the Newtowns that get anti-gunners all spun-up calling for bans, “closing loopholes” “universal background checks” when not a single, solitary mass shooting would have been prevented by these actions. Even the CDC has conceded that gun-bans and tighter restrictions on law-abiding citizens have no measurable impact on violent crime.
I think the problem here is that some of you (specifically Cargo and I am not sure about you ) see everyone, including gun owners, as “anti-gunners if they want some type of change regarding background checks, restricting gun purchase from certain people, etc.” That is not a fair assessment of those of us who want to see some change and don’t see the 2nd amendment as an absolute without restriction.
Until we can get to the point of admitting there is some middle ground that is far away from both citizens owning nuclear warheads and rounding up everyone’s guns, conversation almost seems pointless.
The problem with addressing rampage killing and inner city violence together is that they have nothing in common other than gun.
That is your opinion that mass shootings would not be curtailed by changing the law. Unfortunately, your opinion not a provable statement. How on earth do you know what would or would not have stopped a mass killer?
Just as a thought….many people are law abiding citizens, until they aren’t.
That’s the point. We’re AT the middle ground already. We’ve got background checks. We’ve got SCOTUS confirming that firearms suitable for a militia, in common lawful use, are protected.
We have the various existing gun control acts already as law. We have state laws that are restrictive. We have state laws that are not. We have ongoing gun bans and confiscations now.
Every time that people say that they want “some change,” the details seem to infringe further.
Saying that you want change, without detailing what change…. creates suspicion. Your actions and statements match those of the gun banners. They are always using general words, like “common sense”, “sensible”, “reasonable”, “change”, “compromise”, etc….then you discover that their reasonable change is criminalizing a gun owner that leaves his gun in his own apartment for longer than 7 days if his roommate is at home and the owner is on vacation….or criminalizing handing your gun to someone to hunt with or plink with. Or a law that has the cops arrest you for having an empty shell casing in your car while you drive through the city: DC.
You say that we are being unfair. But you are using the same language. How are we supposed to tell the difference? Are you saying that you are different from the ones that we consider to be gun control supporters?
Gun owners are tire of being lied to. They are tired of being accused of crimes that they do not commit. They are fed up with having their rights curtailed because others are committing crimes. Constant harassment by politicians has eroded any patience or good will. Feinstein, Schumer, etc jump at any chance to ban guns and criminalize harmless actions.
We do know that the proposed laws would not have stopped the killers. None of the proposed laws covered anything that would have stopped the killers. All of them either passed or would have passed background checks, or they criminally evaded them. We know that gun free zones don’t work. The only things that would work are improving mental health reporting (which I support since the states are not reporting to the NICS apparently), actually arresting and charging people when they break the law…as many of them did, and declaring the mentally unfit a actual danger, which, in some cases, they refused to do.
The ACLU prevents the weakening of HiPAA. Rights cannot be restricted without due process.
As for your thought…that is a common statement by the gun control crowd. Then they suggest that the rights of Americans should be curtailed because they MIGHT commit a crime.
It sounds to me like you care more about your rights than you do anything else. I am a gun owner several times over. No one has lied to me. I don’t think my rights are more important than anyone else’s.
You think I am a gun banner, even though I am a gun owner and have never lived in a house where there weren’t several guns present. I think you are an extremist.
Many of us are fed up with watching innocent people blown away. Many of us seek common sense solutions. Since when is ‘common sense’ a bad word? Your extremism hurts your cause. There are plenty of proposed laws that would have stopped some of these rampagers–not all but some. If you don’t see some that would at least slow down some of these goons then you just aren’t trying very hard.
There are no single answers. The ACLU is not a court of law. It can only bring suit. It hasn’t prevented jack. The courts might have but the ACLU hasn’t. You want every one else to cave but your side.
As I said, this kind of talk brings no newcomers to your side. In the end, common sense. <------there's that bad word again...will reign and you might be sorry you didn't seek solutions when the seeking is good. I have often thought that about the segregationists, as an aside. They should have sought solutions before the full weight of the court came down on them.
The Supreme Court in Heller made clear that firearms ownership was subject to reasonable regulation. It will probably take a couple of decades of litigation (assuming anyone has the guts to impose reasonable regulation) to figure out exactly where the limits are on that concept, but there’s no question that the state has the right to impose restrictions on weapons. I doubt that my idea of banning concealed carry will gain traction politically in many jurisdictions, but I do think it would be a constitutionally valid exercise of reasonable regulation.
@Moon-howler
Actually I DON’T think that YOU are a gun banner.
I think that you have valid concerns and have entered into the gun control debate while its been ongoing for 25 years. You are just using their words without realizing that THEY use the words to hide their unconstitutional agenda. “Common sense” becomes a bad word when the anti-rights people use it to hide ideas like making it illegal to own guns. When they use it to describe laws that get perfectly law abiding people arrested because they had an empty shell casing in their dash…and they get stopped for a traffic violation in DC. When anti-rights people state that there is NO reason ever to use firearms…including self defense. When they want all guns banned….. they’ve turned it into a “dog whistle” as you like to say. They have corrupted the phrase to imply that pro-rights people do not have common sense ideas
I have looked at every law presented. Name ONE law that has been presented that would have even slowed down ONE of these goons.
And the ACLU is NOT a court of law, but they convince courts to defeat laws….like a CT law that would have allowed Adam Lanza’s mother to institutionalize her son much easier. They defeated it THAT year. We want everyone else to cave, but the ACLU hasn’t? Cave about what? Weakening HiPAA? We want people to cave on that?
You say that we are not getting newcomers, but new gun owners are growing daily. Until last month, we had record NICS records every month. Gun laws are relaxing in most states.
What “solutions” should we seek when those that claim to want only “reasonable” laws are banning weapons, confiscating weapons, are trying to enact laws the infringe upon rights…. what “compromise” is it when the definition of “compromise” is “Do it my way and give up your rights for our idea of “common sense.”
@Scout
Probably…pendulums swing….as you said….subject to “reasonable” regulation. The problem is defining “reasonable.” Your definition may not be mine.
Scalia mentioned what is currently being done as an example but made sure to point out that those conditions were not being ruled upon in Heller. One thing that did happen, though, was that because Chicago bans both open and concealed, they were ruled unconstitutional. Jurisdictions will have to allow one form or the other or they risk infringing upon the right to bear arms.
And interesting point though….until Heller and McDonald, there were no cases incorporating the 2nd to the states. It applied only to the federal government. The federal gun control acts have NOT been adjudicated…no court cases have been brought. But if the 2nd forbids infringement by the Feds…..and now the states….DO the states ACTUALLY have the authority to infringe upon the 2nd? They USED to….but McDonald changed that.
Remember…the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the feds…..
I never said you weren’t getting newcomers. You have me confused with someone else.
I have only known one person ever to want no guns. Her brother had been murdered so she was not quite rational on the subject.
You can’t refuse to hear the words common sense when it simply means common sense to the rest of the world.
One law that could be enacted that would have saved the students and teachers of Sandy Hook would be a law that prevents unlocked guns being in the home with people with known mental illness. Too tired to think of them now.
I can’t think of a compelling reason to have large capacity magazines. Maybe the compromise would be special permit to have those.
Your fight is really now with the moderates and the gun owners who don’t think the 2nd amendment is an absolute right without any restrictions.
One more thing, I think that we need to look at mental health practices for sure. I also think we need to look at issues involving guns. I also think we need to look at video games that seem to be a current thread through out all these rampages.
There is no single approach.
Many of your suggestions have been already ruled on by the courts. That makes it more difficult.