At present, when a background check is performed before purchasing a gun, the only thing that needs to be looked for is a criminal history. Some states go further and check for a history of restraining orders, mental illness, fugitive status and misdemeanors. This allowed researchers Bisakha Sen and Anantachai Panjamapiron to conduct a study looking at the effects of more comprehensive background checks. The original study can be found at the link, but the paper is nicely summarized by Al.com (short for Alabama), these are two University of Alabama-Birmingham professors, by Mike Oliver.
The UAB study looked at state-level homicide and suicide data from 1996 to 2005 in addition to what kind of background information was required for gun purchases in those states.
The researchers found that states with specific checks for restraining orders, mental illness, fugitive status and misdemeanors – items which would be considered in a higher level of background checking – are associated with a 7 percent reduction in homicides and a 2 percent reduction in suicides.
Their study was comprehensive enough that they could look to see if death from other causes, say stabbings, increased to offset fewer gun deaths.
Sen said they found that the more comprehensive the background check was and the longer the states had been doing those comprehensive checks, the fewer homicides and suicides. Sen said researchers check to see if there might be an upward tick in other type of homicides, such as people killed with knives, but that was not the case.
Sen’s research suggests that any kind of background checks is better than none, but the more detailed the better.
Being a good researcher, Sen notes……
However, we strongly emphasize that these results are preliminary, and that more research is needed to establish whether these results are causal. Specifically, there are several underlying confounders that this study cannot account for.
However, we know that research into gun issues has mostly stopped since federal funding has been restricted by Congress. That makes it unlikely there will be follow up on this study. While many people suggested that the problem with some of our recent killings was not guns, but rather mentally unstable people using guns to kill, I think it unlikely that will convince the special interest groups that we should then look for signs of trouble prior to a gun purchase. I predict we will not see expanded background checks. Stopping research that could help lower the incidence of these deaths will continue to be part of the effort that results in no change in our laws.
Steve: I was under the impression that the NRA, historically at least, had been a supporter of wider background checks. Such checks do, of course, raise various issues of civil liberties and equal protection. I have friends, for instance, who have received psychiatric diagnoses and have been in psychiatric treatment for years. With the help of medications, they are living stable and productive lives now, and they have told me that they feel they have the same right to protect themselves with a gun, if need be, as does anyone else. And yet–I’m not quite comfortable saying “Sure, people with a history of mental illness should be allowed to purchase and possess guns.” I see the dangers of that, just as I see the civil liberty and personal protection concerns. I assume the same point can be made regarding individuals who were incarcerated but served their time and are now living “normal” lives…should they be deprived for life of their right of self-protection?
I don’t know the answer. My instinct is to support, as a simple matter of public safety, wider background checks, but I know that the wider the net we cast, the more people will be unfairly caught in it. Given that gun ownership is a protected right in this country, and not a conditional privilege like driving, it’s a thorny issue. I’ve never owned, touched, or wanted a gun in my life, but I long since stopped believing that we’ll ever have effective gun control (assuming such a thing is even possible) in America; for better or for worse, Americans are fiercely protective of their right to bear arms, and who am I to say that they’re wrong?
I agree that figuring out which mentally ill people should not be able to buy guns is difficult. However, restraining orders and fugitive status? I still dont see why we dont exclude a history of DUI. If you are willing to risk other people’s lives driving drunk, are you really a responsible person? It probably does not matter. The special interests groups have a lock on this. They will keep rersearch from being done. If private funding is found, they will find other reasons to not support background checks.
Steve
It’s a nice premise to limit or take away rights based on lives purportedly saved. Mayor Bloomberg could justify all sorts of draconian measures using that criteria.
It’s already illegal to possess a loaded weapon or shoot a weapon in most, if not all, states if you’re under the influence. That should lay your worries to rest. It’s the law and we know everyone obeys the law.
It is tragic special interest groups keep other special interest groups from doing research that will support taking away our rights though.
“research that will support taking away our rights”
research that will save lives w/o affecting the right to bear arms.” FTFY
Steve
LOL. You got a bridge I can buy?
I still dont see why we dont exclude a history of DUI.
Actually, 18 USC 922(g)(1) already may, at least to some extent, if the DUI in question is “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”. Whether that prohibition applies depends on the particulars of state law, and perhaps on how many DUIs one already has.
I’ve been told that in California, the mentally ill people who are restricted from buying guns are those who have been involuntarily committed as a danger to themselves and others (what we call a “5150″). I’m not sure the restriction is permanent (it may be only for five years). As far as I know, everyone in my husband’s depression and bipolar disorder support group who hasn’t been involuntarily committed as a danger to self or others could walk together to a gun store, buy a gun apiece, and start a bipolar shooting club.
I definitely don’t think it makes sense to restrict everyone who has received a psychiatric diagnosis or been in treatment; that’s a huge disincentive to get needed treatment, and, really, am I a bigger risk with a gun because I received psychiatric treatment for depression way back in 1984, after the boy friend I dated before my husband got run over by a truck? Lots of people have at one time or another received a psychiatric diagnosis who are quite stable and no more dangerous than the next person.
Not that I’d buy a gun, for other reasons, but a mental illness restriction that expansive would be a bad thing.
Lynn: I agree; I’ve worked in mental health and believe that such restrictive laws would prevent some people from seeking treatment, and could also further complicate relationships between individuals and their mental health providers, relationships where trust and honesty are such major components.
Steve: I’m all for research; and you’re right that some categories might be less controversial than others.
Regarding DUI: I’ve proposed that anyone convicted of DUI should be issued special DUI license plates, publicly identifying him or her as an offender, a modern-day version of a scarlet letter…