Firearms In the U.S.: Gun Control is Out of Control
John Nault

All these statistics support the assumption that if a person chooses to own a gun in their household, it raises the chances of accidental as well as premeditated death

They do no such thing. All you’ve done is state that some people were killed with guns, and that some people committed suicide with guns. That’s nothing like a causal relationship between owning a gun and increasing the chance of death. It’s not even a corollary relationship.

If government regulations continue to protect the gun lobbyists rather than American lives, deaths and injuries will likely continue to rise.

There have been no new major gun control laws put in place at the federal level since the 1994 assault weapons ban, and yet violent crime has been consistently trending downward since the 1990’s. These facts run counter to your claim.

If the laws did not allow associations to donate in these extraordinarily large amounts, perhaps Congress would pass laws based on the interests of the people rather than the special interests of the associations.

You can certainly make such an argument, but to do so you must be willing to also cut off all donations coming in from groups advocating for greater gun control as well. What’s good for the goose…

The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) needs to be more successful in saving lives by improving background checks and clarifying as to why the customer wants to purchase a firearm

Pause for just a moment and try applying this standard to literally any other constitutional right and tell me if you think that would fly. Can you imagine having to appeal to some un-elected government bureaucrat, to convince them that you have a good enough reason to exercise your freedom of speech? Who should decide what’s a good enough reason?

The background check currently has only twelve disqualifiers for limiting the sale of a gun, and this needs to be increased and made more stringent
The NICS background check should be revised to require the purchaser to show proof of ownership of a gun safe or lock for the firearms

Aside from mandating safe ownership, what other criteria would you propose to be added to the NICS system?

With regard to the safe issue, whether someone owns a safe or not is irrelevant, the real concern is whether someone will use the safe to store their guns securely. The problem is, that’s not something that legislation can possibly address, nor would it be upheld as constitutional. In Heller vs DC in 2008, DC mandated that handguns stored at home be kept in an inoperative state, disassembled or with trigger locks attached. This was ruled to be unconstitutional at the SCOTUS as it rendered the firearms useless for their intended purpose, thus quelling expression of the right to have a firearm for self-defense. The same rationale would apply to a law mandating safe storage.

Any person attempting to purchase a gun should be tolerant of more rigorous disqualifiers, or they are probably not fit to own a firearm.


Omar Mateen, a 29 year old, legally purchased an assault rifle…

No he didn’t, assault rifles are incredibly rare and prohibitively expensive, not to mention impossible/illegal for most citizens to obtain.

He was removed from the watch list in 2014, but he literally passed the NICS background check with zero red flags (Victor). This flaw in our system needs to be changed without question. Once someone has been under Federal investigation they should never be eligible to buy firearms.

This is utter crap. You seem to have no appreciation for the importance of due process. Of course he passed the background check with no red flags, because he hadn’t done anything to become a prohibited person according to the prevailing laws of the land.

This statement reeks of fascism. Do you have any idea of how dangerous it would be to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights simply because they had been investigated? Why bother with the whole trial and jury of one’s peers thing? Just have someone be accused and investigated, then take their liberty from them. The fact that you would blindly empower a government list in such a manner tells me you either have no conception of what it means to be a free country, and/or absolutely no idea of just how little it takes to be put on such a list. Here’s just a few people who have been on this super serious “terrorist watch list”, Congressman John Lewis, Senator Ted Kennedy, an 8 year old cub scout, a 6 year old girl, a 2 year old child, and a third grader…

If you had your way all of these people and thousands more would have their enumerated constitutional rights taken from them without having done a single thing wrong.

Mateen murdered 49 people and wounded an additional 53. The problem is that this crime was preventable

This is pure conjecture, you have no way of knowing this, and the nationwide data doesn’t really support it. What makes you think he wouldn’t simply have exploded a bomb if he hadn’t been able to obtain a firearm? Or, more likely, he probably would have just bought one illegally like most guns used in crime.

If the FBI investigates someone who is possibly linked to a terrorist organization and puts them on a watch list, that person should never be allowed to purchase a firearm.

Utter, absolute utter nonsense. How can you possibly be in favor of the existence of a secret list of people which has names added to it without a shred of due process. A system wherein constitutional rights are deprived from citizens up front, and though they may have the ability (only now, they didn’t initially) to petition the government for restitution of their rights, ultimately it’s the government’s decision whether to allow you to exercise the rights guaranteed to you by the constitution. Think about that.

When you have the NRA and the ACLU on the same side of an issue, you know someone screwed something up big time, and these bullshit lists are prime examples. DUE PROCESS. It’s the very core of our notions of justice and liberty, and tossing it aside is a legitimate step towards fascism.

As one of the NICS background check’s major flaws, reporting of persons on watch lists to the NICS needs to be of utmost priority to protect the lives of American citizens.

See above. Additionally, other than the single example of the Orlando shooter, please find me another example of someone who was on one of these watch lists and committed a crime with a legally bought firearm, such that reporting that person’s presence on the list to the NICS system would have had any effect. If you can’t do that, than your statements here are just alarmist rhetoric.

Gun shows and online sales also have loopholes that allow the gun sellers to circumvent the background check laws. They allow for private or third party sellers able to circumvent this crucial background check process entirely.

This is common gun-control rhetoric. You can spout words like “loophole” and “circumvent” around all you want, but anyone who understands the issues can see you’re intentionally mis-representing the situation. There is no gun-show loophole, and there is no circumventing background check laws, there is simply what’s legal and what isn’t. Congress implemented the laws to do specific things, to make specific things illegal, meaning that all things not specified as illegal are by default, legal. Then along comes someone like you to say that someone doing something that’s 100% legal is just using a loophole and circumventing the law. This is akin to saying that someone is just driving 64mph to circumvent the 65mph speed limit, they’re using the “driving slower” loophole to avoid the law. It’s utter nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that it is 100% legal in most states to purchase firearms from private parties without background checks. There’s nothing nefarious about it, IT’S THE LAW.

This enables certain people to obtain firearms that are able to arm others.

No it doesn’t. Here you’re referring to a straw purchase, which is illegal. You tell the story of how someone else bought the guns for the Columbine shooters at a gun show, and that the lack of background checks somehow enabled the straw purchase, but that logic doesn’t track. The shooters used someone else to buy their guns, so what would it have mattered if there was a background check? They could just as easily have had someone buy guns for them at a gun store. In either case, it’s the straw purchaser buying the guns, and it’s illegal in any case.

Unfortunately, even for how successful the NICS background check is, there are ways to buy a firearm without having to go through the process.

It should be noted that a large amount of the gun community that engages in private firearm sales would love, and have asked repeatedly for, access to the NICS system to run background checks on purchasers. They have simply been denied due to not being FFL dealers. How silly is that?

The Sandy Hook School shooting is another example of why we must reduce firearms held by the American population

Setting aside the constitutional question, how could this possibly accomplished? Guns are not drugs, you can’t simply cutoff the supply and wait for the current inventory to dry up. Guns will remain functional for 100 years and more, and there are more than 300 million of them in this country, so how exactly would you propose reducing the numbers held by the population?

The first issue this example brings to light is that parents should never have guns in the house with children living inside

So, the right to self defense with a firearm, one that was considered by the SCOTUS to be one fundamental to our concept of ordered liberty in Macdonald v City of Chicago, should simply dissolve once children are in the picture? The potential dangers that lead someone to believe they need a firearm for self defense are still just as present when children are there.

Second, the child should never be able to access the firearms.

Generally speaking i agree with this. I don’t see any problem with laws imposing criminal penalties on parents whose children obtain access to firearms and use them criminally.

The NICS background check should never allow a parental guardian with a mentally ill child to purchase a gun.

Nonsense, see above, repeatedly.

If an individual seeking to purchase a firearm or a dependent of a person seeking to purchase firearms is on antidepressant or anti anxiety medication, this should result in a red flag for NICS background check and the request should be denied

You are wildly stereotyping these groups of people here. Not only are the vast, over-whelming majority of people taking antidepressants or anti anxiety medications never even remotely violent, but depriving them of their constitutional rights because of those conditions will do nothing more than further stigmatize mental health conditions and prevent people from seeking treatment for their conditions in the first place.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.