Firearms In the U.S.: Gun Control is Out of Control
John Nault
12

The Sandy Hook example also brings another issue to light, the reporting of mental health issues to the appropriate agencies. This information must be available to the NICS in order for a thorough as well as an accurate background check to be performed.

This, i’m in total agreement with. If we are going to have a national background check system, then we’re responsible for making sure that it at least functions properly by receiving the requisite information from the states.

In addition to mental health issues, restraining orders, loss or theft of firearms, domestic violence, and any other activity or behavior that makes a potential purchaser high risk should all be records that are legally required to be provided to the NICS

Some of that is valid, but you’re allowing way too much subjectivity. You cannot write a law governing a constitutional right that gives unfettered control of that right to an unelected bureaucrat based on their judgment. That is a recipe for abuse, for arbitrary and capricious use of that authority.

Keene agrees that the U.S. needs to address mental health problems. He is a pro-gun person, but still believes that regulations need to be more stringent and enforced.

Well, let’s be careful in our specificity here. He believes that gun laws should be enforced, he does not believe that gun regulations should be more stringent.

Over that past eight years, President Obama has signed twenty-three executive orders trying to improve gun safety.

Much of which was feel-good nonsense to make it look like he was doing something, almost none of which had any actual effect. What i’d like to know is, since he was willing to travel around giving speeches about the need for more gun control regulations, signing executive orders, and parading little children around as emotional props to play on people’s empathy, why wasn’t he willing to increase enforcement of straw purchasing laws? We know that’s where criminals get large numbers of their guns.

Why wasn’t he willing to increase enforcement of laws criminalizing the attempt of a prohibited person to obtain a firearm? You know when you hear that 90,000 or so background checks were denied because the people weren’t allowed to have firearms? That number gets trotted out as an example that background checks work to keep us safe, but what it doesn’t tell you is that if you’re a prohibited person, it’s illegal for you to even attempt to buy a gun. So, that’s 90,000 or so federal crimes, crimes that involved criminals filling out forms stating that they are not prohibited, and signing their names (under penalty of perjury no less). How difficult could that possibly be to prosecute? Yet, year after year we see a fraction of a single percent of that number ever get prosecuted. Do we not think that someone who is already prohibited and is attempting to obtain a gun is probably a threat to society? Shouldn’t those be the exact people we should focus on? Because i guarantee they went somewhere else to get their gun after they were denied, or they used a straw purchaser to get one.

Why wasn’t he willing to withhold federal funds from states that failed to feed the required data into the NICS system, failures that lead to the Virginia Tech shooting? His administration was willing to threaten to withhold funds from schools over the transgender bathroom issue, but not for failing to feed mental health records into NICS. What does that tell you about their priorities?

The possible cause of this month over month decrease may be correlated to President Obama’s Executive Orders put in place to curb gun sales and violence

I like how you offer this as a possibility (rightly so because the logic is incredibly frail), yet in the next paragraph you cite it as certainty. There is nothing in the data you cite to support that conclusion, it’s barely even a correlation. What would be more pertinent to point out is that gun sales had been artificially inflated for years on end due in very large part to president Obama’s statements about his intended action on gun control. That lead to a run on firearms to get them before they were banned. Towards the end of his administration he was talking about guns less, and the paranoia subsided. If there is any connection between a month to month decrease in increased sales and president Obama, it would be his lack of attention to the subject, certainly not his executive orders.

I applaud the effort you put into this piece, and the fact that you tried to focus on data and actually citing your sources. Your conclusions however, are dead wrong.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

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