Better background checks: Common Ground

Better background checks: Common Ground

 

Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckel is a liberal Democratic strategist. But as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues that lawmakers in Washington cannot.

BOB: The gun control proposals announced by Vice President Biden and President Obama last week will, among other things, call on Congress to restore the ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004. Most Republicans and their pals at the National Rifle Association have dismissed the proposals, saying they have no chance of passing a Republican House of Representatives. Do you also reject these proposals?

CAL: Not all of them. I would support extending background checks to gun shows and "monitors" in schools, especially armed monitors trained in the use of weapons. Though they didn't mention it, gun purchasers might prove they had taken a gun safety class, as well as a mental health screening. Surprised?

BOB: I certainly am. You sound more responsible than most conservatives.

CAL: That doesn't mean I support gun control. Laws alone won't prevent someone intent on breaking them. The hundreds of killings in our cities, more than 500 in Chicago last year, prove that. Why do so many believe government has the solution when it demonstrates it doesn't?

BOB: Because there are always things we can do better. That's what President Obama's executive orders are designed to do. For decades presidents of both parties have issued thousands of executive orders, many of which strengthen existing laws. Other orders are instructions to the various departments of the Executive branch from the president.

CAL: We'll see. Lawsuits will be filed and some states are already rebelling. No executive order in my memory has directly challenged a constitutional amendment like this one. Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens were meant to protect our liberties from tyrannical government. No one has anything to fear from an NRA member who subscribes to that view. This was a political act by the president. You mentioned the Republican House. I'm not sure any proposed legislation will get through the Democratic Senate. There are many NRA supporters and gun lovers in your party.

BOB: True. There are ten Democratic senators who have an A-rating from the NRA. They are mostly from rural states and would have a difficult time supporting a ban on assault weapons. That's why I believe the proposed ban on assault weapons will not succeed. However, there are a number of other important gun control measures the president proposed that could become law.

CAL: We know these shooters are often mentally ill. But even so, the Newtown shooter stole his mother's legally registered guns. Many of these killers have no criminal or mental health background to check. A deranged person can't be cured by passing more laws.

BOB: The horrific slaughters in recent years, like Virginia Tech and Aurora, Colorado, have a common thread: the perpetrators were mentally disturbed. President Obama's proposals are the first to make mental health central to these policies. Both the treatment of, and information about, the mentally ill, are addressed in his proposals.

CAL:How will mental illness be defined? Is someone who has been successfully treated for depression by a doctor or hospital mentally ill? If they are declared cured or their illness is under control, would that be sufficient to allow them to purchase a weapon? I don't like the president's proposal to use doctors to obtain information from their patients about guns they might own.

BOB: I agree that some forms of mental illness, like depression, should not be considered grounds for denying a gun to someone. However, there are clear cases of people with schizophrenia, borderline personalities and multiple personality disorders. In cases like these, allowing doctors to ask the patient if they own a gun is perfectly appropriate. If the patient acknowledges owning guns, it should also be appropriate for the doctor to notify authorities. This would not have stopped the Newtown shooter but even if these proposals stop one or two people from committing these murders it will have been worth it.

CAL: The operative word is "if." Deterrence works best in foreign policy and deterrence works well with criminals. I see signs in front of homes that warn of alarm systems and some that say "forget the dog, beware of owner." These shooters prey on the vulnerable in places like schools and movie theaters where they suspect no one is armed. If they thought they might not have such easy targets they might either not attack them, or be taken down before they could do any, or much damage.

BOB: There's a study by a Florida University professor that claims over 2 million people every year deter crimes with guns. That study is grossly exaggerated. That translates to 5,480 incidents per day . The notion that guns deter so many crimes is NRA propaganda .

CAL: It isn't the NRA that is harming America, anymore than car makers are responsible for people who speed or drive drunk . The moral dimension is what's missing from this debate. Fatherless young men join gangs as their family. Minority communities like Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Detroit are disproportionately affected. There is a general lack of respect for human life.

BOB: Carmakers do not lobby to remove safety regulations on their vehicles, but the NRA constantly lobbies to keep restrictions off deadly weapons. I agree completely that the "moral underpinnings" of society need to be rebuilt.

CAL: If politicians want to make a statement they can start with the things we agree on, but until we again accept the ancient truths that once made families stick together, I'm afraid these will be the equivalent of treating a deadly disease with a topical ointment. Guns are amoral objects. People decide whether to use them for good or for evil.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.