Better background check wouldn't have stopped Charleston

James Alan Fox

July 12, 2015

Mass murderers will find a way, no matter how restrictive the law.

Mass shootings, especially random massacres in public places, typically serve as irresistible opportunities for finger-pointing. Last month's slaughter of nine African Americans at a historic house of worship in Charleston, S.C., has presented many possible targets for blame besides, of course, the one who perpetrated the hateful act.

This time there is a twist: Both sides of the gun-control debate have used the same dubious talking point to advance their diametrically opposed agendas.

The finger-pointing began when we learned about friends and family who were aware of the alleged gunman's troubles and troublesome disposition. Immediately, questions were raised as to why no one took Dylann Roof, the 21-year-old accused assailant, seriously when he reportedly talked about trying to start a race war and about wanting to shoot people at a local college.

Attention then turned to the flag of the Confederacy flying high above the state Capitol, a symbol reminiscent of an era characterized by institutionalized racism. In light of the online white-supremacist rants ascribed to the accused, it was important to create greater distance from the shameful past.

But Friday's revelation that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for firearms purchases tragically had failed prompted FBI Director James Comey to point the finger of fault directly at his own agency. Due to inadequate record retrieval, Roof's admission of narcotics possession, which would have disqualified him from purchasing a gun from a licensed retail outlet, did not surface within the prescribed three-day time frame. Roof was therefore not prevented from acquiring the .45 caliber Glockeventually linked to the church shooting.

Suddenly, everyone gun lovers and gun haters alike had a scapegoat. Gun-control advocates wailed about the need to close every loophole in examining the backgrounds of prospective buyers. Not only was the existing system in need of repair, but it also should be extended to online and gun show transactions elements contained in pending congressional legislation.

Curiously, pro-gun advocates have focused on the very same system failure that cleared Roof's purchase, but for very different reasons. In their view, we need to enforce existing laws properly, but nothing more.

"It's disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale," Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, indicated in a statement. "The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws."

The forces previously dubious of how much crime background checks can stop are suddenly calling for them to be enforced more effectively. But this apparent turnabout is only to deflect further steps down the slippery slope toward expanding restrictions on gun purchases.

Although there was a "mistake," as FBI Director Comey described it, it most likely wasn't responsible for the slaughter in Charleston. Had Roof been denied the gun purchase, there would have been many other avenues for him to beg, borrow or steal the firepower he desired.

Adam Lanza, 20, used his mother's gun to kill her and then 26 children and teachers at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. The Columbine killers were too young to purchase their weapons legally but easily found an older friend to buy for them.

High-profile mass shootings invariably spark arguments from gun-control advocates and gun-rights groups. Both sides of the gun debate view them as reasons why more or less gun control is the answer ... and both sides are wrong.

Tighter restrictions on gun purchasing for example, eliminating multiple gun sales and closing the gun-show loophole might help reduce America's gun violence problem generally, but mass murder is unlike most other forms of violent conflict.

Mass killers are determined, deliberate and dead set on murder. They plan methodically to execute their victims, finding the means no matter what laws or other impediments the government attempts to place in their way. For them, the will to kill cannot be denied.

If the Charleston shooting does become a catalyst for sensible tightening of gun laws something more substantial than just the well-meaning gesture of lowering a flag it would be the right thing, but for the wrong reason.

Mass killings deliver the emotional punch that can change political realities that block sensible gun controls. But they are also among the least preventable by the gun-control proposals they inspire.

Short of sweeping changes in gun regulations and drastic reductions in private ownership of deadly weapons, mass murder will remain a too frequent part of American culture, no matter how many gun-control loopholes we close and no matter how many background check mistakes we avoid.

James Alan Fox, the Lipman Professor of Criminology, Law and Public Policy at Northeastern University, is co-author of Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.