Enough is Enough: Why Orlando should end the debate once and for all
Hillary on Orlando
Oh, Hillary, the irony...
Hillary Clinton's first speech after the mass shooting in Orlando was laced in irony.
"Someone who was investigated by the FBI for suspected terrorism shouldn't be able to purchase a gun."
That someone also jumped through numerous hoops to do so, including two interviews each with Homeland Security and the FBI to get a security contractor license. So both federal agencies clearly did their homework, and properly vetted him to possess a semi-automatic AR-15. So if Omar Mateen clearly was vetted with background checks, and extensive ones at that, what does this say about how well we can vet 100, 000 Syrian refugees? I'll wait for your answer.
I would also say that someone, who is being investigated for risking national security due to a childish obsession regarding control of said person's information, shouldn't be in the position to gain access to the launch codes of our nuclear missiles, yet here we are.
Some of the proposals are old and tiresome. A renewal on the assault weapons ban, expanding background checks, and closing the so-called "gun show" loophole.
There would also be a ban preventing anyone on a terror watch list from buying a gun legally.
There are more than a few problems with each. I'll go over the flaws of all of them by going over every mass shooting, or mass attack, since the first assault weapons ban. Hopefully, this should end the debate once and for all.
Assault Weapons Ban
In 1994, Bill Clinton signed Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act which prohibited the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms (meaning a gun that the trigger had to be squeezed after each round) it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity." By large capacity, meaning anything over 10 rounds.
Columbine occurred in 1999. From 1999 to 2007, there were no mass shootings.
Since 2007, the Virginia Tech massacre, there have been 9 mass shootings.
They all have two things in common. All weapons were purchased legally, and all but Fort Hood took place in gun-free zones. The owners of these weapons ALL passed background checks.
Mass murderers have some common traits
- Male. (The only recent exception is one of the San Bernadino shootings)
- In their 20s to 30s
- High IQ
- Chronic mental illness, currently untreated
- History of substance abuse
- Narcissist tendencies
- Blame is shifting outwards (This does help explain the sudden explosion of mass murders. In determining the cause of people's actions, we now seem to shift blame from the criminals to a variety of culprits.)
- Habit of wound collecting-meaning never forgetting any slights or wrongs.
- Familiar with and has access to firearms
- Serious difficulties with school or job
- Some incident that sets it off (the trigger, for instance the Va Tech shooter recently was rejected prior to his spree)
- Personality Type of a Mass Murderer
Personality Type of a Mass Murderer
The layout of the Orlando Nightclub
In 1999, at Columbine High School, 2 shooters (I'm not writing names. These sickos have received enough attention, and I have no desire to encourage the next psychopath looking for his 15 minutes of infamy to commit this kind of heinous act.) entered Columbine High School with a 995 carbine, a TEC-DC9 semi-auto pistol, and a pump-action shotgun. All were acquired illegally, since both attackers were only 17 at the time. One friend bought the rifle and shotgun for them. They acquired the pistol from two adults.
Bear in mind also that the assault weapons ban was still in place. Neither the carbine nor the TEC qualified.
2. Virginia Tech
In 2007, a student (again, I'm not mentioning their name) tore through the campus with a .22 Walther SA and a Glock 19 9mm. This student passed background checks for both guns despite some signs of mental illness. Of course, that wasn't revealed until after the massacre. Nor, due to patient confidentiality, is it likely this would've turned up. An applicant enters that information voluntarily.
Note, like Columbine, neither would've been a candidate for the terror watch list either. None of these three perpetrators ever expressed views that would've drawn the attention of Homeland Security of the FBI.
The worst mass murderer ever was a government official named Himmler (Architect of the Holocaust)
3. 2012 Wasn't the Best Year
1. Aurora shooting: Assailant had a Glock 22 and a Remington shotgun, as well as a Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle. He owned all 3 legally after passing all background checks due to a lapse in the system. (that's reassuring.) One of the guns was a gift from his father. He also used tear gas.
2. Sandy Hook shooting: Shooter entered school with a .22 bolt action rifle and a Bushmaster XM15-E25 rifle. His mother owned both guns legally, and he took them after killing her.
No proposed rules would've stopped either shooting.
4. Military gets hit
1. Fort Hood 2009: FN Five-seven pistol was used by the shooter. Attacker was in the Medical Corps, so clearly passed enough of a background check to not only enter the military, but treat military personnel. Oddly enough proclaimed workplace violence instead of a terror attack.
2. Washington Navy Yard 2013: Shooter used a Remington 12 gauge shotgun and stole a Baretta 92FS 9mm when he entered the Navy Yard. One wouldn't have been covered by the proposed laws, and by stealing the pistol, there wouldn't have been a background check there, either.
The Navy Yard was also considered a gun free zone.
5. Isla Vista
In 2014, a man began a killing spree in Isla Vista, California. He was armed with 2 knives, a Glock 34, and 2 two SIG Saver P226 pistols, both had 15 round clips. The knives wouldn't have been covered, and he passed background checks for all 3 guns. The capacity limit would've reduced the shooter by 10 rounds (5 per) before needing to reload. Not sure what that might've accomplished.
2015: The year gun control gains some traction
1. Charleston Church: a white supremacist used a .45 caliber handgun in a church. Another lapse in a background check got him clear. HThe pistol didn't have a high capacity either as he had to reload multiple times.
2. San Bernadino: a married couple enters their job with a .223 AR-15, pipe bombs, and a pair of 9mms. The rifle was bought by a neighbor. The woman bought the pistols, and passed background checks for both. The pipe bombs weren't covered.
3. Planned Parenthood: The man used a semi-automatic rifle he legally owned, meaning he passed a background check.
Again, none were on terror watch either. In fact, so far, none mentioned were
The worst mass shooting to date
In 2016, the shooter entered with a SIG Saucer semi-auto (not an AR-15 as first reported), and a 9mm Glock 17.
As mentioned above, the killer was once a security contractor (a euphemism for mercenary. Blackwater is a security contractor), meaning he had to pass, not one, not two, but four interviews with Homeland Security and the FBI. And yes, he was interviewed by the FBI for comments sounding like threatening, or at least sympathizing with, terrorism. He was released by the FBI. And still passed background checks for both guns.
As a security contractor, the assault weapons ban wouldn't have affected him either.
The 2nd Amendment
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Federalist Papers made it very clear what the purpose of this Amendment was. Our Founders believed that all governments eventually deteriorate into tyranny. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is that it allows all citizens to guarantee that the remaining rights are protected.
Some of the worst mass murderers in history were IN government, whether it was Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Zedong, Himmler, the Butcher of Rwanda, the list goes on and on. The 2nd Amendment ensures we don't have such a monster in Washington.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment (someone gets it)
As stated above, none of the proposed rule changes would've prevented any listed massacre. While it was clear all killers were mentally ill, most were not diagnosed. That, and much like serial killers, mass murderers get off on the fear and terror they instill in their victims.
All of the targets, with the exception of Fort Hood, were gun free zones, meaning the only armed people present were the ones shooting innocent bystanders. How might these attacks have looked if at least one person in the crowd was armed.
I also find it highly hypocritical that people with armed security, whose children are protected by that same security, want to tell me what I can protect my children with. Once again, the ruling class wants to tell us people that they lord over, that they, and their families, deserve better protection than we do.
Think on that the next time these hypocritical monsters march children in front of the screen telling us we need to disarm to protect the children. How about the hypocrites instead protect our children with armed security instead of signs that act like magnets to the kinds of people who would shoot into an unarmed crowd.