Monday, February 19, 2018

Why does the government fail so often on existing gun control laws? - By Jack Hellner

It was obvious for a long time that the Fort Hood shooter was trouble, but the government did not protect his fellow workers from him.  The problem was not the gun laws; it was that government did not do its job.
Of course, one cannot ignore the reports from Hasan's colleagues and superiors about his conduct throughout his career.  While undertaking his residency at the Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in 2003, he became known for his anti-American rants and calls for his colleagues to turn to Islam.
The killer in the mass murder at a church in Florida should have been blocked from getting a gun, but the military did not do its job by informing authorities.  The problem was not the lack of gun control or gun laws; it was that the government did not do its job.
On Monday the Air Force acknowledged it did not relay the killer's court martial conviction for domestic assault to civilian law enforcement that could have prevented him purchasing the firearms used in the shooting.
It is clear that authorities and family knew that the killer at the Sandy Hook school was mentally ill and should never have been near a weapon – and that society needed protection from him.  But somehow he had access to these weapons.  The problem was obviously not the lack of laws.
Lanza struggled with mental illness, a history of obsessive-compulsive behaviors and a fascination with mass shootings – particularly the 1999 school shooting in Columbine, Colo., the report said.  Yet, none of the mental health specialists he had a record of meeting with predicted he was capable of lashing out violently.
The killer of 17 in Florida last week was well known to authorities, so why didn't a background check block this mentally ill person from getting a gun?  They visited his house over thirty times.  Isn't that enough?  The FBI also received tips regarding this killer but did not do its job.
Again, the law wasn't the problem.
Last week, a commander in the police department was shot and killed in Chicago by a career criminal.  Why was the career criminal on the street?
But of course, the protesters, the media, and Democrats (who always want more gun restrictions) use the victims to push their agenda.  No matter that many times, the problem has been that the government wasn't doing its job of enforcing existing laws.
From the rhetoric that we hear after every killing, one would think the U.S. would be number one in murders around the world, but we are far from it: "by the normal measurement – murders per capita, the U.S. ranks on one scale at 99th. "
If we took out large violent cities like Chicago, the American rate would even be lower.  Chicago has strict gun laws and a high murder rate.  Houston, with similar demographics, has much looser restrictions and a lower murder rate.  So why is the solution more gun laws?  Don't facts ever matter?
Isn't the actual solution to get the known career criminals off the streets and to destroy the violent gangs that are responsible for a significant number of the killings – instead of more laws?
When Islamic terrorists commit violent acts, we are always lectured not to stereotype Muslims.  But when violent mentally ill gun-owners commit atrocious acts, the immediate reaction is to stereotype gun-owners, who are mostly nonviolent, law-abiding citizens.  We are always lectured about stereotyping and profiling, but somehow it is OK to blame all gun-owners for the irrational acts of a few.
When an illegal alien kills someone, we hear very little about the crime from the media or Democrats because that is just so inconvenient to the agenda.  When a person kills a person with a gun, we hear that one death is too many – so why don't we hear that when someone let out by a sanctuary city or state kills someone?  Aren't all deaths and lives important?
North Korea doesn't allow its citizens to own guns.  Does that make them safe?
In Nazi Germany, the guns were taken away.  Did that make the people there safe or make them sitting ducks?
I am 64 years old and have never been a gun-owner, nor have I ever been a member of the NRA.  But I understand that the founding fathers understood the need for the Second Amendment to protect against tyrannical governments like North Korea and Nazi Germany.
I do not feel unsafe in my neighborhood or friends' houses when I know that my friends have guns.  I do feel vulnerable in sanctuary cities like Chicago that have very strict laws.
Many elitists that push for more strict gun laws have guns themselves, live in gated communities, or have security guards and bodyguards, so shouldn't ordinary citizens have the right to protect themselves when almost all are law-abiding people?
The media like to pretend they peddle facts, but this past week, we saw the knee-jerk reaction, as many just repeated over and over again that this was the eighteenth school shooting this year.  It didn't even sound truthful, but it was repeated continuously until it was partially corrected.  My guess is that most people still remember the number 18 and did not hear the correction.  The actual statistics are bad enough.  They shouldn't be exaggerated to push an agenda.
How about enforcing existing gun control laws, making sure that criminals and mentally ill people are on lists for background checks, and having sanctuary cities and states start enforcing laws that are on the books before we pass more laws?
Here is a hint for the leaders at the FBI: maybe pay attention to tips that may protect the people from violent, mentally ill shooters like Cruz instead of targeting and spying on political opponents, chasing a fictional Russian collusion story, and protecting guilty people like Hillary from prosecution.  The people would be better served and much safer.