Nothing in the background
About the Dayton mass-murderer:
[P]olice said there was nothing in the background of 24-year-old Connor Betts that would have prevented him from purchasing the .223-caliber rifle with extended ammunition magazines that he used to open fire outside a crowded bar.
Nothing at all?
High school classmates of the gunman who killed nine people early Sunday in Dayton, Ohio, say he was suspended for compiling a “hit list” of those he wanted to kill and a “rape list” of girls he wanted to sexually assault.
Oh, that.
The entire paragraph reads:
High school classmates of the gunman who killed nine people early Sunday in Dayton, Ohio, say he was suspended for compiling a “hit list” of those he wanted to kill and a “rape list” of girls he wanted to sexually assault. The accounts by two former classmates emerged after police said there was nothing in the background of 24-year-old Connor Betts that would have prevented him from purchasing the .223-caliber rifle with extended ammunition magazines that he used to open fire outside a crowded bar.
I would have led with the nothing in the background part, myself.
CNN has more:
Another former high school classmate, who asked not to be identified out of concerns for his privacy, also recalled being summoned to a school administrator’s office and being told he was “number one” on the list of students Betts wanted to kill.
He said the list was separated into two columns: a “kill list” for boys and a “rape list” for girls.
Chivalry is not dead.
A fourth person, who also asked not to be named for privacy reasons, said, “All I know is there was a list of violent actions and a list of names including mine.”
She said some of the names were female students who, like her, turned him down for dates. She said Betts often simulated shooting other students and threatened to kill himself and others on several occasions.
“He loved to look at you and pretend to shoot with guns, guns with his hands,” she said.
Another former classmate, who was not on the list, said he met Betts through a “friend of a friend.” He said whenever they hung out, Betts would talk about violence and use harsh language about women, like calling them “sluts.”
I take it back about chivalry.
So is that too much “nothing” or not enough “nothing” in his background? Is the bar for “nothingness” actual illegality only, or would it include compiling “kill” and “rape” lists (which, in and of themselves is not illegal). The default is “Sure, you can buy guns and ammo, unless we find something legally “bad” that indicates you shouldn’t be allowed.”
What if the default was “No, you can’t have a gun at all until we’re sure you have no issues in your background at all. And we’re going to check back as far as there are records of you of any kind whatsoever. Like school records. Do you play well with others? Do you plot revenge, murder and suicide? If there are any doubts at all, of any kind whatsoever, no gun. Ever.”
That’s the way the background checks are done – to permit as many people to buy guns as they can, and shut out almost nobody. They are so limited, that is probably why the Donald has come out in favor of them. The examination of their background is minimal.
Did Betts’ high-school behavior get reported or recorded in any meaningful way? Was there any trace that even an honest background check would have revealed?
Gun laws are an incoherent mess from state to state. In California, at least a few years ago, one only had to check a box on a form to declare that one wasn’t a felon/fugitive/addict/mental patient.
The magic of self-identification in one more context.
Probably not, unless the police were called, which is getting increasingly common for the most minor of infractions in school. Though, since he is white, probably the police were not seen as necessary.
That’s another problem with background checks. There is so much that can give us a jolt of recognition that this person shouldn’t have a gun, but if it isn’t part of the official record, it won’t be seen.
If it was, something like that might be shrugged off as “boys will be boys” or “just a kid doing kid things”. Again, white boy. A black boy with something similar probably would have been sent to juvi. Or jail.