Please allow me to tell you that you are 100% dead wrong.
Dylann Roof purchased his gun from a licensed gun dealer, Shooter’s Choice in West Columbia, South Carolina. Due to what amounted to a paperwork error, a drug charge that should have prevented Roof from passing the background check was not available in the NICS at the time of the inquiry.
The NICS responded with a “Delay” decision, meaning that the FBI had three business days to resolve the issue. At the end of that time, if the FBI has not issued a “Proceed” or “Deny” decision, the licensed dealer is allowed to either make the sale or refuse it.
In this case, Roof was allowed to complete the purchase.
The money Roof used was the birthday present, not the gun.
When the details of the drug charge hit the NICS system, federal agents are authorized to retrieve the firearm. They can also alert local authorities to handle the recovery.
Roof got his gun in April. The shooting at the Emanuel AME Church was in June. The government had more than a month to get the gun from Roof but did not even make an attempt.
You really need to learn more about this topic. Background checks have proven to be utterly worthless in preventing mass shootings and there is nothing to indicate that they have ever prevented a murder.
Since the background law became effective in February 1994, almost every mass shooter who was the legal owner of the guns used obtained them from a licensed dealer after passing a background check. James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Nidal Hasan, Omar Mateen, Devin Kelley, Seung-Hui Cho, the list goes on and on. Stephen Paddock passed more than two dozen background checks to assemble his arsenal, including the 22 AR-style rifles found in his hotel room.
The city employee who killed 12 people in Virginia Beach not only passed the regular background checks when he bought his pistols in 2016 and 2018, he passed an even more strict background check to buy the suppressor he used.
A suppressor is what is known as an NFA firearm. It is regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. In order to buy a suppressor, a person must complete a special application, complete with photograph and fingerprints, pass another background check, and pay a $200 transfer fee. It’s not quite as difficult as getting approval to buy a machine gun, but it’s close.
Proponents of “common-sense” gun laws are not one whit different from the old-time medicine show hucksters peddling patent remedies to gullible audiences. To be really blunt about it, they climb on the bodies of the dead to promote laws that wouldn’t have saved a single one of them.
And they know it.
In 2014, Mark Glaze, former executive director of Everytown for Gun Safety and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal. He was speaking of the difficulty they encountered trying to get their agenda into law. This is what he said:
“Is it a messaging problem when a mass shooting happens and nothing we have to offer would have stopped that mass shooting?”
The same things they were offering then are the ones they are still pushing today. They are the same things they have been pushing for the best part of three decades.
Some of the people who responded to your article mentioned the number of mass shootings. Because of the number, I have to assume they are talking about the figures generated by the Gun Violence Archive.
Everybody talks about the number but nobody takes the time to look at the data.
In 2018, the Gun Violence Archive reported 340 mass shootings. The two states with the highest numbers of these incidents were California and Illinois. California also had the largest number of deaths and the highest total body count while Illinois that the largest number of injuries. Yes, California is the state with the largest population, but Texas has the second-largest population and had fewer than half the incidents reported for California.
California has the strictest gun laws in the nation. Texas doesn’t.
To level the playing field and adjust for populations, here is a chart showing the Gun Violence Archive’s mass shooting data based on the rate of incidents per 100,000 population:
As you can see, gun laws don’t seem to make much difference. This is why studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Rand Corporation were unable to find any conclusive evidence that gun laws have any effect, good or bad, in violence.
You mentioned New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. You failed to mention that it was an Australian who killed all of those people in Christchurch. You also failed to mention that the number of murders in that single day was more than the total number of murders in the entire country for the entire year in 2018, before there was any consideration of changing the laws governing semi-automatic rifles.
Perhaps Prime Minister Ardern would have better served the people of New Zealand by banning Australians. The people of New Zealand seem to have gotten along just fine before Brenton Tarrant arrived.
You are welcome to voice your opinions. Just remember that others may not share them and they might even have good reasons for disagreeing with you.