‘Stronger Background Checks’ Wouldn’t Have Stopped TX, OH Shootings

The New York Times suggests “stronger background checks” probably would not have prevented the August 3 and August 4, 2019, shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.

Contributor Richard A. Oppel Jr. and editor Adeel Hassan authored the NYT column, wherein they examined “stronger background checks” — i.e., universal background checks — at the state level and explained that such checks become effective when coupled with “fingerprinting” or requiring permits to purchase guns.

They transition from state examples to observe that “stronger background checks” at the federal level “most likely would not have prevented the massacres in Texas and Ohio.” However, they suggest “stronger background checks” coupled with an “assault weapons” ban and a method of seizing guns could have been preventative.

But the NYT column propagates the left’s belief in universal background checks nonetheless, especially noting that they could be an important part of controlling Internet firearm sales. They quote Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety as saying, “Criminals know that the internet is the place to go to get armed with no questions asked.”

The problem with this claim is that there are already a number of laws dealing with how and to whom guns purchased on the Internet must be shipped. For example, some of the Dayton shooter’s supplies were purchased on the Internet and shipped from out of state but were picked up “legally” at the local gun store to which they were shipped. Part of that legal transaction is undergoing a background check.

This is the problem with knee jerk reactions and the urge to “do something” anytime there is a horrific act of random violence committed. Unfortunately, those with the impulse to act desire to add another layer of laws, but are often unaware of existing laws that were ignored by the suspect.