One of the items left on the gun control bandwagon after the withdrawal of an assault weapons ban is "extension" of background checks made before purchase of guns. The usual folks in Washington are announcing their strong support for these measures, but they are not really discussing them. There is a good reason for that lack of discussion: extended background checks will not do anything to keep guns out of the hands of those who are mentally ill. Remember that the recent rash of mass killings which gave rise to the latest gun control push was the result of attacks by deranged individuals, and you will understand the current silence out of Washington.
So how can I say this? The answer lies in the nature of those "background checks" that are being pushed in Congress. Federal background checks consist of looking to see if a prospective weapons purchaser is listed in a federal data base that supposedly covers felons and those who are metally ill. The problem, however, is that the federal data base is woefully inadequate. First of all, not all felons are on the list. Felonies committed as a juvenile are omitted. An 21 year old gang member who killed three people at age 15 and who is not out of juvenile detention will not be barred from getting a weapon. Felonies committed in another country are omitted. An illegal alien who was a mass murderer in Mexico will also have no problem getting a weapon. Even some ordinary American felons have not made the list. Certain states just do not provide accurate or updated information to the federal data base. While this is bad, it is less important that the second problem with the federal data base, namely that nealy all potentially dangerous, mentally ill folks do not make the list. Very few states give the feds information about the mentally ill. The rest of the states consider the information too private to give out. Why invade the privacy of these mentally ill folks when we could just limit the invasion to the taking of the lives of a few score people each year? Further, most states do not require mental care professionals to disclose the names of dangerous patients. Few do as a result. So only a small group of the mentally ill are disclosed to states and only a small part of that group is given to the feds for inclusion in the data base. Why even bother having background checks if there is nothing against which to check?
The gun control forces and the rest of Congress should insist that each state must give up the identities of the potentially dangerous mentally ill within their state or else lose federal law enforcement assistance. Further, Congress should pass a law that requires mental health professionals to file the names of those considered possibly violent. Failure to disclose this information should result in the mental health professional being held liable for damages suffered by the violent acts of the patient. The left will scream that such a proposal violates the privacy rights of the mentally ill. The rest of us should tell them that we have seen the bullet riddled bodies of the victims of violence by gun toting mentally ill folks. The left will scream about doctor patient privilege. We should tell them that we have had enough mass killings to last a lifetime. In other words, the left should be faced with its own words with which it responds to each discussion about the propriety of gun bans or gun registration.
My proposal is not a political ploy. The truth is that the killer in Newtown was mentally ill and his proclivity towards bizarre and violent behavior was known. The same is doubly true of the shooter in Aurora. The nut job who shot up that event in Arizona was likewise a mentally ill person who was known to be potentially violent. They all got weapons. None of them were on the federal list used for background checks. For once, why doesn't Congress do something that might actually work?
So how can I say this? The answer lies in the nature of those "background checks" that are being pushed in Congress. Federal background checks consist of looking to see if a prospective weapons purchaser is listed in a federal data base that supposedly covers felons and those who are metally ill. The problem, however, is that the federal data base is woefully inadequate. First of all, not all felons are on the list. Felonies committed as a juvenile are omitted. An 21 year old gang member who killed three people at age 15 and who is not out of juvenile detention will not be barred from getting a weapon. Felonies committed in another country are omitted. An illegal alien who was a mass murderer in Mexico will also have no problem getting a weapon. Even some ordinary American felons have not made the list. Certain states just do not provide accurate or updated information to the federal data base. While this is bad, it is less important that the second problem with the federal data base, namely that nealy all potentially dangerous, mentally ill folks do not make the list. Very few states give the feds information about the mentally ill. The rest of the states consider the information too private to give out. Why invade the privacy of these mentally ill folks when we could just limit the invasion to the taking of the lives of a few score people each year? Further, most states do not require mental care professionals to disclose the names of dangerous patients. Few do as a result. So only a small group of the mentally ill are disclosed to states and only a small part of that group is given to the feds for inclusion in the data base. Why even bother having background checks if there is nothing against which to check?
The gun control forces and the rest of Congress should insist that each state must give up the identities of the potentially dangerous mentally ill within their state or else lose federal law enforcement assistance. Further, Congress should pass a law that requires mental health professionals to file the names of those considered possibly violent. Failure to disclose this information should result in the mental health professional being held liable for damages suffered by the violent acts of the patient. The left will scream that such a proposal violates the privacy rights of the mentally ill. The rest of us should tell them that we have seen the bullet riddled bodies of the victims of violence by gun toting mentally ill folks. The left will scream about doctor patient privilege. We should tell them that we have had enough mass killings to last a lifetime. In other words, the left should be faced with its own words with which it responds to each discussion about the propriety of gun bans or gun registration.
My proposal is not a political ploy. The truth is that the killer in Newtown was mentally ill and his proclivity towards bizarre and violent behavior was known. The same is doubly true of the shooter in Aurora. The nut job who shot up that event in Arizona was likewise a mentally ill person who was known to be potentially violent. They all got weapons. None of them were on the federal list used for background checks. For once, why doesn't Congress do something that might actually work?
No comments:
Post a Comment