Here is an article by Daniel Webster, professor and director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, from CNN.com that states there should be stricter gun ownership policies in wake of the Washington Navy Yard shooting on Monday:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/opinion/webster-navy-yard-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
We are still learning key details about Aaron Alexis, the man named
as the shooter in this week's horrific mass killing at the Washington
Navy Yard.
So far there is a record
of at least two prior incidents in which Alexis fired a gun under
circumstances that should have brought criminal charges. His time as a
Navy reservist was checkered with accounts of insubordination and
disorderly conduct. He was reportedly seeking treatment for mental
illness (he was hearing voices and having problems sleeping). More importantly from the perspective of risk for violence, a former roommate reported that Alexis was a heavy drinker.
While much of the focus
has been on how a person with this background obtained clearance to work
at a military facility, a similar question could be asked about how he
could legally buy a firearm in Virginia and allegedly obtain a permit to carry loaded firearms in Texas.
The gun lobby and other opponents to stronger gun laws like to talk
about the rights of "law-abiding gun owners," but the policies in place
in most states allow individuals with backgrounds far worse than that of
Alexis to own legally as many firearms as they can afford and carry
loaded firearms most anywhere.
To appease the gun lobby,
lawmakers have created an environment where individuals with numerous
convictions for misdemeanor crimes involving violence, firearm misuse,
illegal drugs and alcohol abuse, and who have previously been subject to
restraining orders for domestic violence, can legally arm themselves to
the teeth.
Several states have
stricter standards for legal possession of handguns than federal law,
and states such as New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts give law
enforcement some discretion in determining who should legally be able to
buy and carry handguns.
My colleagues and I published a study
last year where we found that in states with the weakest standards
(similar to federal standards), nearly one-third of state prison inmates
incarcerated for crimes committed with guns would have been prohibited
from possessing firearms when committing their most recent offense if
their states had standards for legal gun possession similar to those in
place in high-standards states. With reasonable regulations such as
background checks for all gun sales and proper regulation of gun
dealers, many of these inmates would not have had guns to use in crime.
In order to reduce
significantly the gun violence that occurs every day in communities
across the United States, we must focus on the issues that matter the
most where there is broad consensus. Public opinion surveys show large
majorities of gun owners support stronger standards for legal gun
ownership and policies designed to keep guns from prohibited persons,
including universal background checks and stronger regulation and
oversight of gun dealers.
We can't say for sure
whether such policies would have prevented the recent mass shootings
that have gripped our nation, but they would reduce a significant number
of shootings that don't receive national news attention, though they
are no less devastating to the individuals, families and communities.
Unfortunately, the gun
debate in the United States has been just that -- a debate. Instead of
engaging in the all too familiar, polarizing discussions that have
characterized gun policy, let's act upon the things we all agree upon --
keeping guns from people who shouldn't have them.
0 comments:
Post a Comment