What Do They Have in Common?

The New York Times published an interesting piece a couple of days ago, detailing “Criminal histories and documented mental health problems” of eight of the gunmen in recent shootings. While the NYT does its usual “fear the big, bad, black glock_19gun” thing, with close-ups and scary pictures of scary firearms, there’s something else that’s notable in this report: the vast majority of the shooters listed passed background checks and purchased firearms legally. They passed background checks that are supposed to keep bad guys from getting guns. None of the jackwagons listed had criminal records, the majority bought guns legally after having passed a background check, and one (Lanza) simply stole legally-purchased weapons from his mother. The majority were also not under the care of a mental health professional… hell, Nidal Hasan WAS a mental health professional!

I also note the Times’ froth-flecked zeal to paint the Roanoke shooting of two reporters as a “mass shooting,” but hey… it advances the narrative, so why not, right?

Several of these malcontents should have been prohibited under current law. John Hauser, who opened fire in a Louisiana theater was ordered into a psychiatric hospital by a judge and had been denied a concealed carry permit. Bureaucracy FAIL.

The white supremacist maggot who killed nine people in a church in South Carolina should have been barred from buying a gun because he had admitted to possessing drugs, but the F.B.I. examiner conducting the required background check failed to obtain the police report from that incident. Bureaucracy FAIL.

The father of the kid who used his dad’s gun to shoot up his school in Washington state, should have been prohibited as well, since he was the subject of a permanent domestic violence protection order, which should have been entered into the federal criminal background database. But he bought the gun legally, a background check failed to come up with the protection order as it was never entered into the system. Bureaucracy FAIL.

The dildo who shot up disarmed victims at the Washington Navy Yard passed local and state background checks, even though he was nuttier than squirrel shit and twice sought treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs for psychiatric issues. Bureaucracy FAIL.

And despite the fact that he communicated with a terrorist and advocated terrorist acts in his presentations, authorities were apparently too scared of being accused of cultural insensitivity or something to actually take action on Nidal Hasan. He wasn’t under the care of a psychiatrist. He was a psychiatrist and an Army Major with a clean criminal record. But apparently the exchanges with a radical cleric  and attempts to contact al Q’aida, weren’t enough to give the feds a clue that maybe something wasn’t quite right in Hasanland. Bureaucracy FAIL.

So what is it that Uncle Fester and other gun grabbing shitbirds think enhanced background checks and increased gun control will do in light of the fact that the bureaucracy can’t even handle current standard background checks correctly? How would banning private sales have stopped any of these murders, in which the perps easily walked into a store, passed a background check, and waltzed off with a gun? And more importantly, what kind of law would stop any criminal from obtaining a gun on the black market, avoiding a background check altogether?

And yet, the first words out of the maw of the White House spokeshole after last week’s tragedy were lies about public support for more gun control, including the hackneyed mantra about the nonexistent “gun-show loophole.”

Here’s a clue: no law would have done so. None. No law would have prevented the bureaucratic failures that resulted in the legal purchase of firearms by these violent fruitcakes. And yet, every time one of these yambags loses his shit and proceeds to kill innocent people, opportunistic swine all over the nation try to put limits on those of us who committed no crime.

In their zeal to foment fear of the big, black, scary guns, the NYT pointed out something most don’t think about: the failure and inadequacy of the background checks system that was supposed to prevent violent scum from purchasing firearms and the folly of growing said bureaucracy.

14 responses

  1. Follow through the chain of logic.

    Background checks are failing.
    “universal” background checks would, then, be expected to fail
    This, then, proves that “law abiding” (they passed the background check) gun owners are a threat to public safety.
    This, then, is used as an excuse to prohibit private possession of firearms.

    Which was the goal in the first place.

    “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993 (And, no, the leopard hasn’t changed its spots.)
    http://thewriterinblack.blogspot.com/2014/09/nobody-wants-to-take-your-guns.html

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Most gun control advocates truly aren’t thinking that way (some are). But when the next restriction doesn’t reduce homicides, they will cast their eyes upon the next. Surely, surely, this next restriction will be the one that turns the tide! Darn. Okay, the next one!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. hear hear .. so how do we get major media to note and make public these failures ? Ah .. if they are in any way responsible reporters they know but fail to make know because it doesn’t fit their agenda .. media fail

    Liked by 1 person

  3. The bottom line is confiscation… Plain and simple. THAT is what the left wants, and I think the administration is going to make some kind of try to ‘regulate’ that into existence in the next fifteen months.

    Like

    1. My thoughts as well .. An E.O. will be issued .. ATF/DOJ will regulate .. NRA will SCOTUS challenge .. 14th Amendment will allow CC for all 50 ??????

      Like

  4. And who was Deputy AG under Janet Reno? Why that would be Eric Holder.

    Here’s a blast from the past, a 1979 profile of Jeff Cooper. This would not see the light of day from any alphabet network today. And yes, liberal TV anchors were alive and well back then too.

    Like

  5. […] ON, GUESS:What Do They Have in Common? But give the bureaucrats more power.  This time they’ll get it right.  Pinky […]

    Like

  6. One law would improve the effectiveness of existing background check requirements. Create strict civil liability for the bureaucrats in charge of implementing. Increase it to criminal liability (manslaughter through depraved indifference) in cases of gross negligence.

    Like

  7. The fact that gun control laws fail is a feature, not a bug. They are a method to convince Americans that there must be some law that WILL work, if we can just enact the right one.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Keeping in mind that I am a passionate 2nd Amendment advocate ..
      After the President’s sweeping statement (paraphrased) it’s a fact there is less gun crime in areas with stricter gun laws .. I researched ..
      facts bear out ..
      But .. the truth remains gun legislation will not stop criminals / crazies ..

      Like

      1. Well, of course there is less “gun crime” where there are fewer guns. But look up the most violent states in the US. The facts don’t bear out. Gun violence isn’t any different than any other kind of violence. They try to make it so, because it suits their political agenda. Fact is Maryland, which ostensibly has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country is the third or fourth most violent state.

        Like

  8. Reblogged this on The zombie apocalypse survival homestead and commented:
    Nicki nails it.
    “Bureaucracy FAIL”
    But then, don’t they usually?

    Like

  9. @dbrenchley- Then they take the knives. Eventually they’ll be clubbing each other to death, The problem is not the weapon.

    Nice one Nicki.

    Like

  10. […] No one denies that what happened at Umpqua Community College is a terrible tragedy. But it doesn’t appear that the gun control laws that President Obama and like-minded members of Congress have tried to advance could’ve prevented this incident. The shooter didn’t have a record of mental health problems or past legal problems, unlike the Charleston, South Carolina church shooter, who slipped between bureaucratic cracks. […]

    Like

%d bloggers like this: