Last October, Radcliffe Haughton drove to a Brookfield, Wis., spa and shot his wife and two of her coworkers. He had purchased a gun for $500 in a McDonald’s parking lot through a private Internet sale after being ineligible for purchasing firearms under federal law. Zina Haughton, the murdered wife, had previously gotten a restraining order on her husband and told the courts his threats had terrorized her every waking moment.
This happens all over the place. People who should not have guns can obtain them through private sales on the Internet because unlike the federally licensed gun dealers, private Internet dealers are not required to check the background of their potential buyers—though they obviously should. The fact it happened here in Wisconsin should pull at all of our heart strings, no matter our stance on gun control, no matter if we are Republican or Democrat.
This situation could have been potentially avoided had Radcliffe not been able to obtain the gun through an online seller. The fact anyone with 500 bucks can get a freaking gun in the parking lot of a McDonald’s scares me half to death and is beyond ridiculous. The guy had blatantly threatened his wife, and she had a restraining order against him, and he got a gun! So why would we not extend the background checks to online private sales and gun shows? What would be the drawback of this, especially if doing so could protect the possible victims of these crimes?
I mentioned the importance of bipartisanship in my last column Monday, and to my pleasant surprise, yet another agreement was made in a bipartisan manner between U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa. regarding gun control. I hope it will trigger a huge debate in the Senate regarding expanding background checks on firearm buyers to include gun shows and certain private Internet sales. Private sales between certain family members and hunters will not be touched in this legislation, however. The debate will likely and hopefully overcome the GOP’s plan to filibuster the agreement.
Of course we have our critics. Cough, National Rifle Association, cough. And regarding the agreement reached between Manchin and Toomey, this is what the NRA had to say: “Expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those who are not a danger to anyone.” So basically its idea is that this method should not be tried because they’re certain it won’t deter these crimes.
Although I agree we do need to address mental health deficiencies and perhaps go even further with addressing the gun culture in the United States itself, I can already think of a counterexample, such as the shooting in Wisconsin, that could have been deterred had these loopholes been closed. Or how about James Holmes, who had a history of severe mental illness and purchased much of his equipment legally used in the Aurora shooting online? Even worse, Wednesday, the NRA threatened members of Congress with giving them poor ratings, hours after the bipartisan agreement was reached between Manchin and Toomey, who might vote for what they call “anti-gun” laws. The NRA uses this rating system to rate lawmakers based on how well they vote on the NRA’s priorities. Apparently, the system is highly influential in states that have a strong gun culture.
The NRA has a valid point in their concern for individual rights, though I don’t think this expansion of background checks will infringe on anyone’s rights. I also think this expansion of background checks is worth a try. Even if it may not stop every mass shooting, it could help. It will simply work to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. What is important is our children and our gun violence victims. What is important is taking steps to make sure this doesn’t happen again, or at the very least happens fewer times.
We had three mass shootings in 2012—I’m sure there are others I’m not aware of. And guess what? In the last 50 years, 15 of the 25 worst mass shootings took place in the U.S., according to an article in The Washington Post. This extension of background checks will not take guns out of the hands of people who “deserve” (for lack of a better word) to have them. It will simply take a much-needed step in the right direction to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them; people like James Holmes, Radcliffe Haughton and Adam Lanza. Although Lanza did not purchase guns online, I mention him because the tragedy he inflicted shows the U.S. needs to do something immediately. Extending background checks will not solve all the problems, but it is a substantial step towards potentially fixing the problem, or at the very least, deterring it.
If the three Brookfield victims, the 12 Aurora victims and the 26 victims of Newtown, Conn., including 20 first-graders who probably didn’t even know what a gun was yet, aren’t enough for our parties to come together and reach an agreement that could possibly deter these events, then I don’t know what will ever be enough for us to come together.
Republican, Democrat, non-partisan, NRA member, gun-hating liberal; no matter who you are or what your label, the important thing is , protecting our loved ones, even if it means sacrificing some of our rights. Every time I think about what happened in Newtown I still get tears in my eyes. It’s worth it. When meeting Newtown victims’ families Wednesday in an emotional statement, Manchin said, “You give me more legislative strength than you know.” They are our strength to move forward and pass this proposal. This isn’t about politics anymore, or at least it shouldn’t be.
Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
