Posted on 03/27/2021 8:51:38 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Anytime a mass shooting takes place, Democrats and members of the mainstream media make assumptions about why the gunman carried out the attack and how gun control proposals could have prevented the tragedy. The same thing happened following last week's attack in Boulder, Colorado. As the scene was unfolding, speculation took place and instant calls for anti-Second Amendment legislation were imminent.
One of the biggest claims is that "universal background checks" or "enhanced background checks" could have prevented the gunman from obtaining his firearm. This is flat-out false.
Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa purchased his Ruger AR-556 pistol six days before he carried out the attack at the Kings Soopers store in Boulder. He made the purchase at the Eagles Nest Armory in Arvada, Colorado, Reuters reported.
Alissa purchased his firearm from a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), meaning he purchased the firearm legally. He went to a "gun dealer," filled out a 4473 form – the form that's used to process a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) – underwent a background check, he passed, and the sale proceeded.
Democrats – including President Joe Biden – are pushing for the Senate to pass H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446, a pair of bills that would expand background checks, meaning a seller would have to undergo a background check, even for private sales.
There are three problems with these calls though: the first is that Colorado has universal background checks. If a person sells their firearm privately, he or she must meet the buyer at an FFL, where the buyer has to fill out the 4473 form and undergo the background check process. Even if Alissa purchased the firearm from a private party (which he didn't), he would still have to go to an FFL and have a background check run. The state has had this law in place since March of 2013, following the attacks at Sandy Hook.
The second issue: Alissa didn't have any felony convictions. He had a misdemeanor assault charge on his record for hitting another student when he was a senior in high school, back in 2018. In order to be denied for firearm purchases, a felony conviction has to be on a person's record. This was a legal transaction. He was not deemed a prohibited possessor at the time of purchase.
The third problem: the gunman was on the FBI's watch list before the shooting. Did the agency have information that showed he was a threat? Did they have information about a potential attack? Was this another example of the FBI dropping the ball?
Universal background checks sound great on paper, especially to those who are ignorant about firearm policies and legislation, but they do very little to curb "gun violence." The Boulder shooting is the latest example of where those gun control measures – which proponents guarantee would prevent mass carnage – have failed.
AWR Hawkins from Breitbart listed the other attacks where other gunmen legally obtained through firearms (through background checks conducted at FFLs):
- Atlanta-area attacker (March 16, 2021)
- Parkland high school attacker (February 14, 2018)
- Texas church attacker (November 5, 2017)
- Las Vegas attacker (October 1, 2017)
- Alexandria attacker (June 14, 2017))
- Orlando attacker (June 12, 2016)
- UCLA gunman (June 1, 2016))
- San Bernardino attackers (December 2, 2015)
- Colorado Springs attacker (October 31, 2015)
- Umpqua Community College attacker (October 1, 2015)
- Alison Parker’s attacker (August 26, 2015)
- Lafayette movie theater attacker (July 23, 2015)
- Chattanooga attacker (July 16, 2015)
- Alleged Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal attacker (Jun 17, 2015)
- Muhammad Carton Contest attackers (May 3, 2014)
- Las Vegas cop killers (June 9, 2015)
- Santa Barbara attacker (May 23, 2014)
- Fort Hood attacker (April 2, 2014)
- Arapahoe High School attacker (December 13, 2013)
- D.C. Navy Yard attacker (September 16, 2013)
- Aurora movie theater attacker (July 20, 2012)
- Gabby Giffords’ attacker (January 8, 2011)
- Fort Hood attacker (November 5, 2009)
- Northern Illinois University attacker (February 14, 2008)
- Virginia Tech attacker (April 16, 2007).
What these bills really do is to create a firearms registry. It would mean the government would know exactly who owns what guns moving forward, something Second Amendment supporters believe could lead to firearm confiscation. It also penalizes private party transfers, which typically take place between family and friends, and already regulated. Further legislation would be redundant.
bttt
Maybe put another question on the 4473: Are you purchasing this firearm for purposes of mass murder?
Only racial profiling would’ve stopped the attack, and only if the bastard had been monitored. Would the liberals have wanted that? Hmmmm?
At the point of sale, the dealer could’ve alerted the sheriff that a guy named al-asswad was buying a weapon that could be used in a mass shooting and that he may bear watching. The BATF bureaucrats could have alerted the F.B.... oh, forget that one.
That guy should have failed the NICS check but the Navy failed to forward his name to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS database.
To that point; the Dems filibustered the Cruz/Grassley bill that would have tightened up the requirements for states and other relevant authorities to make sure that the names of people who should be in the database are in it.
Coming or going Dems are evil. They want laws that do nothing but strip liberty and refuse to support laws that promote law and order.
I’m guessing compliance ould be very low, making criminals out of tens of millions.
It doesn’t matter. If it wasn’t a gun, it would be a truck full of fertilizer bombs. If it wasn’t a truck it would be arson. If it wasn’t arson he’d stab someone. If he didn’t stab someone he’d make a pressure cooker bomb. Blood thirsty terrorists will find a way to kill who they want one way or another.
Exactly. Why bother wasting time looking at the tools used rather than the tools using them?
I saw somebody the other day on TV in a discussion over whether the Boulder shooter was mentally ill. Umm, he shot a bunch of people; I’d say he had a screw loose. If the Democrats actually cared about reducing violence in America, they’d get serious about mental health and actual poverty reduction (rather than handouts that build generational dependency).
DENY the sale. Tell him the prices went up. Let him sue.
Same way Hunter Biden got his.
These "mass shootings" only began when such drugs of the anti-anxiety, antidepressant, and/or anti-psychotic--all supposedly psychotropic--were distributed and violent adverse effects were seen in some people because of them.
This shooter, like many of the others that have blossomed since the introduction of a slew of mental-affecting drugs, had a troubled history of violent behavior requiring them to be formally addressed.
His Muslim-induced view of social interactions that created or exacerbated his personal outbursts cannot be ignored. Why is these facets not being investigated by the medical or law enforcement commentators?
Had he ever been on drugs?
How about some answers to this? And remember, this was not a regular long gun. It was of the short-barreled "pistol" form, one usually viewed more closely in the hands of a civilian than the typical AR-15 or even M4 (semiautomatic version) rifle.
This epoch of "mental magic bullet" chemical therapy and mnass shooting, starting with abusive Charles Whitman on the first of these drugs (repurposed thorazine) and his University of Texas tower shootings; jumping forward eight years to depressed, suicidal Anthony Barbaro's escapade in Olean, NY shooting down from the height of the high school upper story (same time as the advent of Prozac); then multiplying dramatically as chemists and big pharma scrambled to invent new ones and market them through rather ignorant medical practitioners, these drugs were almost inseparably associated with the now unanxious, undepressed, sane, logical, but amoral talented sharpshooters operating pn well-thought-out game plans.
What about this? Why is this factor being ignored, or at lest played down?
More laws and gun confiscations will not solve any part of these massive shooting arcade scenarios. will they?
We don’t need gun control. We need criminal and psychotic control. His family should have dealt with him.
Look. Put the situation in perspective. The population in these United States is around 330 million people. The total of people killed by the mass murderers that the media have chosen to propagandize about (non-blacks who murder 4 or more people with rifles) is extremely tiny relative to the whole population.
Look at the tens of thousands of drug overdoses. Try to imagine how many people in this population of 330 million are abusing drugs. Why are so many of them in possession of firearms? And drug abuse kills at least tens of thousands of people every year—maybe more than a hundred thousand, if other deaths incidental to drug abuse are taken into consideration (armed robberies, assaults, crazy fits, etc.).
And how many people are beaten to death, stabbed, poisoned, run over with vehicles and so on? How many people are killed in workplace accidents?
The radical leftists among Democrats are control freaks. Many of them are only wanting to bother other people (psychopaths, anti-social personalities—whatever you want to call them). Many of them are known as exes. ;)
Hey, I know—let’s pass a LAW that says it’s ILLEGAL to KILL DOZENS OF PEOPLE!!!
Yeah, that’s what we need— a LAW!!! That’ll keep those meanies from killing dozens of people, because, well, they won’t do it anymore, because it will be...ILLEGAL!!!! Problem solved!!!
What? We have one of those? Really?
Oh.
Never mind.
So why did no one else with a legally purchased gun stop him?
“So why did no one else with a legally purchased gun stop him?”
They were just going grocery shopping, didn’t need to carry for that.
In todays jungle society.... ALWAYS CARRY. and have quick access to a firearm when at home.
“”What about this? Why is this factor being ignored, or at lest played down?””.................All you have to do is catch a thread over on DU when they talk about the meds their taking to answer that question. It seems one out of two are taking some kind of meds for depression, anxiety or some form of claimed PTSD. The last thing they want known is their mental health issues and treatment.
The truth is 90% or more of those involved in mass shootings have a history of known mental health issues and treatment. We don’t find out about it until after the carnage and then realize multiple people were already aware of it. The problem is it’s a double edged sword, our Veterans who suffer from combat related issues such as real PTSD get caught in the trap should some of these issues or meds get red flagged.
Never leave home without it.
Some people are born with Islamonazi names and look middle Eastern, but have grown up here with a love for America and its freedoms.
Do we deny them 2nd Amendment rights, especially to protect themselves from racist rednecks who would shoot them for the way they look or what their name is?
He waited for his second “stimulus” check to come in......
“Do we deny them 2nd Amendment rights, especially to protect themselves from racist rednecks who would shoot them for the way they look or what their name is?”
WHAT??? You got to watch out for those white supremist redneck conservatives. Just look at how many mass shootings and murders they have committed not to mention all the riots and violence against people and property. Those rednecks in Seattle are a major threat.... oh... wait.. they are progressive liberals. Never mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.