Unintended consequences
At Matching Tracksuits, GLS asks whether or not we really want more intrusive background checks when purchasing firearms. The short answer is “yes.” It took several days for my application to rent an apartment to be approved — credit checks, criminal background checks, etc. The background check to purchase a handgun in Virginia is supposed to happen in one minute.
Let that sink in. It takes several days be declared safe enough to move into an apartment. But the background check to own a weapon, something intended to end life, takes a minute.
But that’s not really the issue. GLS says:
Do we want to have background checks that include interviews with former educators? Is that even feasible?
Just what kind of background check can stop someone like this from getting a gun? The only solutions I can think of involve national databases and inquiries into very personal information.
The sad thing about this is that the one-minute background check would have been sufficient if it weren’t for one tiny decision.
A judge did find that Cho was a danger to himself and others, but stopped short of involuntarily committing Cho. I wonder if the judge knew at the time that this meant the dangerous Cho would still be allowed to purchase a gun. If the judge had checked the box ordering involuntary hospitalization in 2005, Cho would not have been eligible to purchase a firearm in 2007.
Common sense would seem to dictate that someone found dangerously insane would not be allowed to purchase a firearm. But common sense is not always operative in a bureaucracy.
I don’t think it’s a secret that I believe in much stronger gun control. But at a bare minimum this should be changed: the dangerously insane should not be allowed to purchase firearms — regardless of mode of treatment.
