The Efficacy of Gun Data

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We've learned in recent weeks that Nidal Hasan's communications with a radical cleric had come to the attention of the FBI, which had begun investigating the Army psychiatrist accused of the Fort Hood massacre. Federal officials did not, however, know about Hasan's purchase of a handgun -- a move that would likely have brought greater scrutiny before the shootings. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) and former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean ® write this morning that the FBI couldn't have known about Hasan's firearms purchase because of a shift in the law, approved several years ago. The curb on gun data, they argue, can and should be fixed.

During the Clinton administration, the FBI had access to records of gun background checks for up to 180 days.

But in 2003, Congress began requiring that the records be destroyed within 24 hours. This requirement, one of the many restrictions on gun data sponsored by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), meant that Hasan's investigators were blocked from searching records to determine whether he or other terrorist suspects had purchased guns. When Hasan walked out of Guns Galore in Killeen, Tex., the FBI had only 24 hours to recognize and flag the record -- and then it was gone, forever.

As former FBI agent Brad Garrett has said, "The piece of information about the gun could have been critical. One of the problems is that the law sometimes restricts you in what you can do."

The Tiahrt amendments passed by Congress interfere with preserving, sharing and investigating data on gun purchases by terrorist suspects. If that weren't bad enough, Congress has also failed to close a gap in federal law that prevents the FBI from blocking a sale to an individual under investigation for terrorist activity.

To put this in a slightly larger perspective, if the FBI is investigating someone who may have terrorist ties, that person will be put on a no-fly list. That same person, however, is free to purchase firearms, and the FBI will likely not know. In other words, those suspected of terrorist activity can't buy a plane ticket, but they can buy a semi-automatic.

The fatal lesson we learned on Sept. 11 was that, if we are going to protect innocent Americans from terrorists, we must break down the walls standing between federal agencies and effective investigative practices. The attack at Fort Hood was a tragic reminder that such walls still exist. Until Congress shows the political courage to tear them down, there will be more catastrophic breaches of national security and more tragic loss of life.

The Bush administration sought a change in the law, but Congress, listening to the gun lobby, ignored the request. The Obama administration wants the same change -- Attorney General Eric Holder reminded lawmakers about this last week -- though there's a limited political appetite for closing the existing gun-data gap.

Here's hoping the Fort Hood tragedy changes the equation.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Here's hoping the Fort Hood tragedy changes the equation.

Fat chance.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's hoping the Fort Hood tragedy changes the equation.

Fat chance.

Yep. As son as AG Holder mentions the word gun in any sentence, the gun lobby goes ballistic.

[slim 1,533]

Yep. As son as AG Holder mentions the word gun in any sentence, the gun lobby goes ballistic.

As they well should. Hasan made a LEGAL purchase of firearms.

Let's not forget this guy was mental health professional IN THE ARMY. If you can't trust your Army officers with guns.... who can you trust?

Also keep in mind these "suspects" are put on a no-fly list because the original reason we started allowing the government to violate peoples' Rights was because 19 men crashed planes into buildings. It had nothing to do with the purchase of small arms.

Where's the ban on box cutters?

[Heracles 417]

Where's the ban on box cutters?

An individual with a box cutter cannot kill 13 people and wounded 38. Certainly not in under 5 minutes.

[slim 1,533]

Where's the ban on box cutters?

An individual with a box cutter cannot kill 13 people and wounded 38. Certainly not in under 5 minutes.

No, but 19 individuals with box cutters can kill 3,000 in one morning.

[Ban Hammer 14,665]

Where's the ban on box cutters?

An individual with a box cutter cannot kill 13 people and wounded 38. Certainly not in under 5 minutes.

No, but 19 individuals with box cutters can kill 3,000 in one morning.

i saw that one coming, apparently booyah didn't.

[tallcoolone 102]

Where's the ban on box cutters?

An individual with a box cutter cannot kill 13 people and wounded 38. Certainly not in under 5 minutes.

No, but 19 individuals with box cutters can kill 3,000 in one morning.

i saw that one coming, apparently booyah didn't.

Agreed

Here's hoping the Fort Hood tragedy changes the equation.

Fat chance.

Agreed

[Heracles 417]

Where's the ban on box cutters?

An individual with a box cutter cannot kill 13 people and wounded 38. Certainly not in under 5 minutes.

No, but 19 individuals with box cutters can kill 3,000 in one morning.

Maybe they should have had guns on the plane too them The plane took down the building not the box cutters.

Gun = weapon used to kill. Box cutters = pretty self explanatory.

You guys cannot have such a gross failure in an education system.

[MrsCat 6]

Yep. As son as AG Holder mentions the word gun in any sentence, the gun lobby goes ballistic.

As they well should. Hasan made a LEGAL purchase of firearms.

Let's not forget this guy was mental health professional IN THE ARMY. If you can't trust your Army officers with guns.... who can you trust?

Also keep in mind these "suspects" are put on a no-fly list because the original reason we started allowing the government to violate peoples' Rights was because 19 men crashed planes into buildings. It had nothing to do with the purchase of small arms.

Where's the ban on box cutters?

Amen.

I think anyone against the ownership of handguns looks to any violent crime which used a firearm and suggests that handguns are the problem.

A severely wayward individual was the problem.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

BY - you need to accept the fact that here in America, we are always going to have guns. It's not only a constitutional right, but is ingrained in the American psyche. If you want to advocate specific regulations on guns, then that's one thing, but making the general argument that guns are evil is pointless, irrational, and unproductive.

[tallcoolone 102]

BY - you need to accept the fact that here in America, we are always going to have guns. It's not only a constitutional right, but is ingrained in the American psyche. If you want to advocate specific regulations on guns, then that's one thing, but making the general argument that guns are evil is pointless, irrational, and unproductive.

Yup.......

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yep. As son as AG Holder mentions the word gun in any sentence, the gun lobby goes ballistic.

As they well should. Hasan made a LEGAL purchase of firearms.

Let's not forget this guy was mental health professional IN THE ARMY. If you can't trust your Army officers with guns.... who can you trust?

Also keep in mind these "suspects" are put on a no-fly list because the original reason we started allowing the government to violate peoples' Rights was because 19 men crashed planes into buildings. It had nothing to do with the purchase of small arms.

Where's the ban on box cutters?

Amen.

I think anyone against the ownership of handguns looks to any violent crime which used a firearm and suggests that handguns are the problem.

A severely wayward individual was the problem.

The argument in the original post is this:

During the Clinton administration, the FBI had access to records of gun background checks for up to 180 days. But in 2003, Congress began requiring that the records be destroyed within 24 hours. This requirement, one of the many restrictions on gun data sponsored by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), meant that Hasan's investigators were blocked from searching records to determine whether he or other terrorist suspects had purchased guns. When Hasan walked out of Guns Galore in Killeen, Tex., the FBI had only 24 hours to recognize and flag the record -- and then it was gone, forever.

.....

So we went from 180 days to 24 hours before records of gun background checks are destroyed. Knowing Hassan's attempt(s) to purchase handguns would have alerted the FBI, who had been keeping an eye on him. Just like if Hassan had gone out and tried to purchase large quantities of fertilizer.

Why the need to destroy background check records within 24 hours? That's insane and most probably something the gun lobby pushed to get passed.

[Heracles 417]

BY - you need to accept the fact that here in America, we are always going to have guns. It's not only a constitutional right, but is ingrained in the American psyche. If you want to advocate specific regulations on guns, then that's one thing, but making the general argument that guns are evil is pointless, irrational, and unproductive.

I get what you are saying. It's the reason why this country has so many problems that are either non-existent or negligible in most other first world countries. It's the same deal with you guys and topics like illegal aliens to minorities and crime. You guys refuse to accept the reality, furthermore, refuse to discuss it logically and without including personal biases. After so many years here you get what is a trait, that is, common to people here. E.G. the refusal to accept that others are doing numerous things better. I never said America should change its whole way of life but at least accept others do things better. Yet to this day, I believe one American in this forum has acknowledge this.

It's no coincidence the rest of the world thinks what they do about Americans. If it makes people feel better, yes people can sit here and say that's Booyah's opinion and call me names but it is what it is. You don't believe me? You shouldn't, go to any English speaking forum in a first world country and ask them what they think of the United States 2nd Amendment and guns.

[MrsCat 6]

The argument in the original post is this:

During the Clinton administration, the FBI had access to records of gun background checks for up to 180 days. But in 2003, Congress began requiring that the records be destroyed within 24 hours. This requirement, one of the many restrictions on gun data sponsored by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), meant that Hasan's investigators were blocked from searching records to determine whether he or other terrorist suspects had purchased guns. When Hasan walked out of Guns Galore in Killeen, Tex., the FBI had only 24 hours to recognize and flag the record -- and then it was gone, forever.

.....

So we went from 180 days to 24 hours before records of gun background checks are destroyed. Knowing Hassan's attempt(s) to purchase handguns would have alerted the FBI, who had been keeping an eye on him. Just like if Hassan had gone out and tried to purchase large quantities of fertilizer.

Why the need to destroy background check records within 24 hours? That's insane and most probably something the gun lobby pushed to get passed.

What was in my original post (deleted before posting) was I assumed that critics were going to say, had there been an ability to see that he had purchased a gun, someone may have acted on this information. That's purely presumptive. We don't know that have saving information 180 days would have changed anything.

I can see the point that anything to be of assistance. But I personally would not like mine or my husband's information being stored for 180 days. Not sure if you've ever applied to buy a gun but even in Alaska you fill out more paperwork than on most loan applications.