Why Background Checks Are Useless Without Better Emergency Mental Health Evaluations And Care

The Giffords Shooter.........

The Navy Yard Shooter........

The Santa Barbara Shooter.......

The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Shooter.........

And many, many more.........


What do every one of these mass shooters (and many, many more) have in common?   Every single one of these people had contact with law enforcement for bizarre and/or threatening behavior - and in every case, police did not send them in for mental health evaluation.  Had they been evaluated, there is a very good chance that they would have been committed which would have resulted in a lifetime firearms ownership ban - and their inclusion as a prohibited person in the background check database. 

How bad is this problem?

The Giffords shooter had over 20 law enforcement contacts for bizarre and threatening behavior and was even expelled from community college for the same - yet was never sent in for evaluation.

The Santa Barbara shooter was reported for posting threatening videos on youtube by his own parents. Not only did police not enter his home (where there was obvious evidence) - they did not even view the videos he had posted.  They decided that without doing either of these things that he was not a threat.  He later murdered people with knives,his car and guns.  This resulted in no reforms aimed at the failure of police - just new gun laws.

The Navy Yard shooter was reported for bizarre behavior less than 48 hours before buying the gun and committing the attack.  Police responded and did nothing.

Now we learn that the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Shooter had multiple contacts with law enforcement and perhaps even the mental health system as well.  You guessed it - police did nothing.  Neither did the mental health system.

Every one of these mass murderers should have failed a background check - but they passed because law enforcement and the mental health system failed - it really is that simple.

Yet what do we see gun control advocates pushing?  A ban on semi-automatic rifles, that is likely unconstitutional.  This in spite of the fact that many of the worst of these mass shootings - including 3/4s of those listed above did not involve such weapons.

We need to focus on stopping the people involved in committing these terrible mass murders.  Gun control is secondary and supportive.  Consider this chart:

At this point, the majority of weapons used in mass shootings are obtained legally - but a sizable chunk are obtained illegally or from unknown sources that could very well have been illegal.  The tighter we make our gun laws the greater the illegal market will become.  Denying would be mass murderers access to firearms through legal channels does not eliminate the threat.  If we focus our efforts on the people who are likely to commit such acts we stand a much better chance of stopping more of these mass murders.

Of course, we also have a problem with the simple task of getting prohibited persons into our background check database.  It's been more than 10 years since the Virginia Tech shooter was able to buy his firearms through legal channels because his mental health commitment was never reported.  Yet in spite of support from both the firearms industry and the NRA, we still see a massive number of people - including the Sutherland Springs Church murderer - not being reported to the FBI for inclusion in the database. We must fix this problem NOW.

We also must make it easier for family members to obtain in patient mental health care for their children and family members.  Newtown was one of the worst school shootings in our history.  We know that the shooter's mother had tried to have her son committed to a mental institution.  She had secured the firearms in a safe.  Her son somehow obtained access to them and the rest is sad history.

Yet the media and the gun control lobby is pushing one solution: Banning so called "assault weapons".  OK let's look at the effect such a ban would have.

So, we see above that only 39% of the 20 worst mass shootings involved the semi-auto firearms labeled "assault weapons".  So, it is clear that you do not need one of these weapons to kill a lot of unarmed and trapped people.  If assault weapons are not available, those inclined to commit mass murder have many other options.

Such a person can obtain a firearm that is not covered by the ban - after all, 61% of the worst mass shootings already do not involve "assault weapons".

They also could chose to use a bomb.  Directions for making explosives and building bombs are easily available on the web,  As we learned from the Boston bombing, you can do a great deal of damage with a bomb or bomb.

Then there is the possibility of using a vehicle.  A disturbed person could kill more people then were killing in many of the 20 worst mass shootings by running them down with car or truck.  The Las Vegas mass murderer was rich and had a pilot's license.  If he had crashed a fully fueled airplane into the audience at that concert, the resulting death toll may very well have been higher.

Failing the above, they could start a fire in the school building......

............. in short, an assault weapons ban would be useless.

What would not be useless?

Fixing our broken mental health system so the the profoundly mentally ill are detected, adjudicated, and placed in the FBI background check database.  Most of all, we could realize that we are paying a high price for not helping these people.

Fixing our broken background check database by insuring that all prohibited persons are placed in the database.

Prosecuting all prohibited persons who attempt to buy firearms at licensed dealers.  (No, this is not happening.  Less than one in 300 is prosecuted.)  This should carry a mandatory 5 year sentence.

Prosecute illegal gun dealers who sell to prohibited persons.  Make sure they serve 5 years per gun sold and that they serve these sentences consecutively.

Provide screened, trained and armed security at every school.  If our kids are important enough that we must take people's civil rights away to protect them, they are important enough to protect in the same way we protect our politicians and celebrities.

Gun control groups are only interested in pushing their agenda - and their agenda will not stop these mass murders.  Doing the above will not stop them all, but it will greatly reduce the death toll.