April 24, 2007
VT Murders Raise Background Check Questions
Legal experts believe last week’s massacre of 33 people at Virginia Tech was a direct result of a flawed background-check system that did not prevent Cho Seung-hui from purchasing firearms, even after a judge ruled he was mentally ill and required treatment.
According to a report by The Christian Science Monitor, Virginia officials did not report Mr. Cho to the federal authorities because he had not been institutionalized. That state’s law says a person must be committed to a mental health institution in order to be prevented from purchasing firearms.
Beyond the intricacies of state law, some maintain the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is fraught with communication breakdowns and a general lack of resources to do the job it is intended to do.
Rep. John Dingell (D) of Michigan, a former member of the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) board of directors, is looking for new legislation to create an improved system.
“Our purpose is simply to see to it that if we have an instant background check, that it in fact works. There are significant problems with it, and not only in Virginia,” said Rep. Dingell. “We’re not putting the money into it, the states aren’t putting the effort into it, and there is neither the carrot nor the stick to the degree that there should be to require that the records be properly kept.”
Critics point to many issues with the current law, including it only applying to federally licensed dealers and not those sold privately as well as a three-day waiting period that allows a dealer to sell a firearm unless instructed otherwise through the NICS.
The proposed legislation co-sponsored by Rep. Dingell and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D) of New York does not address those issues but instead focuses on updating states’ computer systems to improve the speed and accuracy of the record-keeping process.
“While maintaining NICS records ultimately is the responsibility of the states, state budgets are already overburdened,” said Rep. McCarthy. “The NICS Improvement Act will give states the resources to eliminate the legal loopholes that allow prohibited individuals from legally purchasing firearms.”
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Dingell/McCarthy bill is worthy of support. “In most states, it’s harder to get a job at McDonald’s than it is a gun,” he said. “The American people would be willing to put up with a little more red tape if it stops some of the yellow crime-scene tape.”
Others, including Erich Pratt, spokesman for Gun Owners of America, see no need for new legislation. “Our view is that if someone is a danger to themselves or society, as apparently many people thought Cho was, then he shouldn’t be on the streets,” he said.
Discussion Questions: Should retailers that sell firearms come out in support of the bill introduced by Representatives Dingell and McCarthy? What impact would a more automated background check system have on how retailers conduct business with gun buyers? Would federally licensed gun dealers lose a high percentage of sales to private sellers as a result of such legislation?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
NICS isn’t funded properly by the states because there isn’t the political will. It has nothing to do with finances. State governments fund their priorities. Gun dealers lose sales all the time to private person-to-person transactions. It doesn’t matter what gun dealers’ lobbyists say, because the huge political power is with focused gun enthusiasts, not dealers.
Here’s a great RFID opportunity: universal RFID for all firearms. Want to bet on its chances for quick adoption?
Your question regarding gun shop owners supporting Dingle’s bill amounts to a freedom of speech issue. I personally feel that gun shops should not be in the business of influencing regulations that they must enforce. However, with regard to privacy–some steps should be taken to enter into the public record any legitimate diagnosis indicating that a person is not stable. I would also recommend that anyone on antidepressants be denied the use of or purchase of firearms even though we all know that anyone in this country can buy illicit drugs, firearms, sex, et al if he/she has enough money. The real issue has nothing to do with guns and anyone with an ounce of sense knows that. The issue has to do with personal protection and personal responsibility.
Whether or not it was difficult enough for Mr. Cho– or is difficult enough for anyone else, for that matter–to purchase a handgun is really the basis of the question. With all due respect to the Second Amendment, there has to be a way for us as a society to make the purchase of handguns the most difficult purchase that one can make–bar none. There is no conceivable explanation for an ‘instant check’ system. None. No handgun should be allowed to be purchased instantly by anyone for any reason aside from law enforcement.
One small amplification to some of the points made here–any law, current or new, requires every individual charged with a responsibility under that law to carry it out. Unless every judge is willing to make the hard choices to put people “on the list” (whatever list that may be)–even though it will probably cause some people an undeserved social stigma–we will never be able to prevent people like Cho from purchasing guns or causing other harm to others or themselves. This cannot be taken lightly by anyone who purports to champion Constitutional rights. Whether your favorite cause is the First Amendment or the Second, tagging people with labels that may limit or eliminate some of their rights based on a “judgment” is dicey business. And removing judges flexibility ala the “three strike rule” has its own pitfalls. Are we really ready to move that line? Or should we focus of making judges/politicians/state bureaucrats hold the lines that are already there?
Vigorous enforcement of present gun laws would probably help some. The private dealer loophole is certainly ludicrous, but a fact of life unless we get serious in this country about changing the rules. The type of automatic pistols used in the VT incident have no legitimate place in a civilized society, in my opinion. (Yes, I’m aware that many people believe otherwise.)
Most legally sold firearms are owned by law-abiding people who do not commit mass murder. However, the latest tragedy underscores how automatic weapons greatly amplify the amount of damage one deranged individual can do in a short time.
I would encourage retailers to stand in support of a law that requires scrutiny of handgun purchasers and registration of those weapons. It would make legitimate purchases slightly less convenient while keeping some weapons out of the hands of some hotheads who might inflict damage on innocent consumers.
The owner of the store that sold at least one of the guns to Cho looked anguished when interviewed on TV.
Coordinating databases is a problem everywhere, not just within one company. Sorting through the issues is a challenge. The challenge of controlling one person determined to wreak destruction will probably never be solved. The trade-off between feeling safe and keeping individual freedoms is always contentious and is never resolved to the satisfaction of either side. However, having access to relevant information is important because informed decisions are better.
This country is awash in guns and banning them (with the subsequent confiscation) is unconstitutional. What is reasonable is to require of gun owners the same (at least) that we require of car owners…namely that you register your weapon, pass a test of competence in its use and have insurance for an accident.
I have to agree with Bernice–the “they’ll get them anyway” argument is specious. Regulations are no less valid if they prevent many, but not all, tragedies. I think the car analogy is apt: it should be in everyone’s interest to ensure that gun owners know how to handle one and are responsible. The fact that someone might get one anyway is completely beside the point.
Retailers can and should take some responsibility for how they sell weapons, regardless of the laxity of any given state law.
The proposed legislation co-sponsored by Rep. Dingell and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy focuses on updating states’ computer systems to improve the speed and accuracy of the record-keeping process, is probably a fairly pragmatic approach considering it might come off to some as typical of politicians being reactive to the latest event in the news, rather than proactive.
Gun laws really don’t mean much. Kind of like drug laws. If someone wants to buy a gun or drugs, they will find a way to do it.
Politics and retail are a really complicated combination, particularly in today’s world of national chains and online retailers.
Retailers are obligated to operationalize the controls at least to the letter of the law. This holds for all regulated products–alcohol, tobacco, firearms and even pharmaceuticals–and most retailers comply diligently. Smart retailers will see a trend coming out of this tragedy. Restrictions will get stricter and likely fast. The government will act to comfort a grieving nation while emotions are still flaring. Retailers can both do the right thing for society and make a statement to their shoppers by raising the standard for gun purchasing to a national level. State-by-state restrictions are part of the problem. If retailers can rally in just a few months to move pseudaphedrine from OTC to restricted space behind the counter, we as an industry can certainly get creative (like Mark’s RFID idea or extending waiting periods to properly check identities) and find ways to still sell guns to legal buyers and better stop sales to those who aren’t.
David is right insofar as anyone sufficiently determined to buy a gun and go out killing people will always find a way but that doesn’t mean that we have to make it easy for them. Saying that such people shouldn’t be out on the streets really isn’t good enough. It isn’t easy to lock people away before they go on the rampage just because there is good professional reason to fear that they might. Nor is it good enough to say that guns don’t kill but people do. These are cop-outs to use a phrase from my youth. I would prefer to use the ubiquitous personal responsibility argument. Deranged people cannot be expected to have any (personal responsibility) but law enforcement officials, doctors and lawyers should. If they have actually come across someone who is showing demonstrative signs of mental disturbance, the very least they can do is flag it up so that those offering weapons for sale have good and sound reason for turning them away and at least making it a bit more difficult for them to follow those inner voices they may be hearing.
More Discussions
Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?Should IKEA Be Flattening Management?
Should IKEA be trimming down its management headcount?Is Legislation the Answer on Visa, Mastercard Swipe Fees as ~$200 Billion Record Is Set?
Is lawmaking the way forward on swipe fees?
NICS isn’t funded properly by the states because there isn’t the political will. It has nothing to do with finances. State governments fund their priorities. Gun dealers lose sales all the time to private person-to-person transactions. It doesn’t matter what gun dealers’ lobbyists say, because the huge political power is with focused gun enthusiasts, not dealers.
Here’s a great RFID opportunity: universal RFID for all firearms. Want to bet on its chances for quick adoption?
Your question regarding gun shop owners supporting Dingle’s bill amounts to a freedom of speech issue. I personally feel that gun shops should not be in the business of influencing regulations that they must enforce. However, with regard to privacy–some steps should be taken to enter into the public record any legitimate diagnosis indicating that a person is not stable. I would also recommend that anyone on antidepressants be denied the use of or purchase of firearms even though we all know that anyone in this country can buy illicit drugs, firearms, sex, et al if he/she has enough money. The real issue has nothing to do with guns and anyone with an ounce of sense knows that. The issue has to do with personal protection and personal responsibility.
Whether or not it was difficult enough for Mr. Cho– or is difficult enough for anyone else, for that matter–to purchase a handgun is really the basis of the question. With all due respect to the Second Amendment, there has to be a way for us as a society to make the purchase of handguns the most difficult purchase that one can make–bar none. There is no conceivable explanation for an ‘instant check’ system. None. No handgun should be allowed to be purchased instantly by anyone for any reason aside from law enforcement.
One small amplification to some of the points made here–any law, current or new, requires every individual charged with a responsibility under that law to carry it out. Unless every judge is willing to make the hard choices to put people “on the list” (whatever list that may be)–even though it will probably cause some people an undeserved social stigma–we will never be able to prevent people like Cho from purchasing guns or causing other harm to others or themselves. This cannot be taken lightly by anyone who purports to champion Constitutional rights. Whether your favorite cause is the First Amendment or the Second, tagging people with labels that may limit or eliminate some of their rights based on a “judgment” is dicey business. And removing judges flexibility ala the “three strike rule” has its own pitfalls. Are we really ready to move that line? Or should we focus of making judges/politicians/state bureaucrats hold the lines that are already there?
Vigorous enforcement of present gun laws would probably help some. The private dealer loophole is certainly ludicrous, but a fact of life unless we get serious in this country about changing the rules. The type of automatic pistols used in the VT incident have no legitimate place in a civilized society, in my opinion. (Yes, I’m aware that many people believe otherwise.)
Most legally sold firearms are owned by law-abiding people who do not commit mass murder. However, the latest tragedy underscores how automatic weapons greatly amplify the amount of damage one deranged individual can do in a short time.
I would encourage retailers to stand in support of a law that requires scrutiny of handgun purchasers and registration of those weapons. It would make legitimate purchases slightly less convenient while keeping some weapons out of the hands of some hotheads who might inflict damage on innocent consumers.
The owner of the store that sold at least one of the guns to Cho looked anguished when interviewed on TV.
Coordinating databases is a problem everywhere, not just within one company. Sorting through the issues is a challenge. The challenge of controlling one person determined to wreak destruction will probably never be solved. The trade-off between feeling safe and keeping individual freedoms is always contentious and is never resolved to the satisfaction of either side. However, having access to relevant information is important because informed decisions are better.
This country is awash in guns and banning them (with the subsequent confiscation) is unconstitutional. What is reasonable is to require of gun owners the same (at least) that we require of car owners…namely that you register your weapon, pass a test of competence in its use and have insurance for an accident.
I have to agree with Bernice–the “they’ll get them anyway” argument is specious. Regulations are no less valid if they prevent many, but not all, tragedies. I think the car analogy is apt: it should be in everyone’s interest to ensure that gun owners know how to handle one and are responsible. The fact that someone might get one anyway is completely beside the point.
Retailers can and should take some responsibility for how they sell weapons, regardless of the laxity of any given state law.
The proposed legislation co-sponsored by Rep. Dingell and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy focuses on updating states’ computer systems to improve the speed and accuracy of the record-keeping process, is probably a fairly pragmatic approach considering it might come off to some as typical of politicians being reactive to the latest event in the news, rather than proactive.
Gun laws really don’t mean much. Kind of like drug laws. If someone wants to buy a gun or drugs, they will find a way to do it.
Politics and retail are a really complicated combination, particularly in today’s world of national chains and online retailers.
Retailers are obligated to operationalize the controls at least to the letter of the law. This holds for all regulated products–alcohol, tobacco, firearms and even pharmaceuticals–and most retailers comply diligently. Smart retailers will see a trend coming out of this tragedy. Restrictions will get stricter and likely fast. The government will act to comfort a grieving nation while emotions are still flaring. Retailers can both do the right thing for society and make a statement to their shoppers by raising the standard for gun purchasing to a national level. State-by-state restrictions are part of the problem. If retailers can rally in just a few months to move pseudaphedrine from OTC to restricted space behind the counter, we as an industry can certainly get creative (like Mark’s RFID idea or extending waiting periods to properly check identities) and find ways to still sell guns to legal buyers and better stop sales to those who aren’t.
David is right insofar as anyone sufficiently determined to buy a gun and go out killing people will always find a way but that doesn’t mean that we have to make it easy for them. Saying that such people shouldn’t be out on the streets really isn’t good enough. It isn’t easy to lock people away before they go on the rampage just because there is good professional reason to fear that they might. Nor is it good enough to say that guns don’t kill but people do. These are cop-outs to use a phrase from my youth. I would prefer to use the ubiquitous personal responsibility argument. Deranged people cannot be expected to have any (personal responsibility) but law enforcement officials, doctors and lawyers should. If they have actually come across someone who is showing demonstrative signs of mental disturbance, the very least they can do is flag it up so that those offering weapons for sale have good and sound reason for turning them away and at least making it a bit more difficult for them to follow those inner voices they may be hearing.