On April 7, the Joe Biden administration announced a series of executive orders for gun control. The announcement calls gun violence a public health crisis and proposes rules that purport to stop "ghost guns" and nationalize "red flag" laws. What's the issue with these proposed executive orders? They don't necessarily address the roots of the issue. Instead, they will disproportionately affect law-abiding gun owners more than criminals because guess what? This is how criminals react to gun laws:
There's a great article by Deejo that explains how gun control laws do not necessarily save lives. To summarize a few of the main points, much of the gun control laws are emotional. Outcries for more gun legislation happen right after a mass shooting hits national news. In addition, the police will not always be there to save you. As soon as a mass shooter pulls the trigger, people can die within seconds while it takes minutes for the police to arrive. If armed citizens are on the scene, they can neutralize the threat before any more harm is done.
But there are several other aspects Biden ignores or flat out gets wrong.
Some Mass Shootings Are Preventable
On March 22, there was a mass shooting at Boulder, Colorado. The perpetrator was identified as Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, who had a minor criminal record. His family also described him to be mentally ill. In fact, his family was not pleased with him playing around with his newly acquired gun in their house and subsequently took it away.
One has to ask how come this person slipped through the background checks? Both his criminal history and mental illness should have prevented him from getting a gun and yet, he managed to get one.
This is not the only time where enforcement was caught being too lax. If you remember the Pulse Nightclub shooting, Omar Mateen murdered several dozens of people as a result of religious radicalization. What you may not know is that an acquaintance of his tipped him to the FBI prior to the mass shooting.
Had the FBI taken the tip more seriously and urgently, would the Pulse Nightclub shooting not happen? Hard to say, but I would argue that there would be far less casualties. The overall point from these two examples is that there needs to be more proactive and effective enforcement of existing laws. Speaking of enforcing existing laws...
Politico published an article about Hunter Biden lied in his background check while getting a gun and the widow of Beau Biden, Hallie, threw the gun in the trash. Basically, "Hunter responded 'no' to a question on the transaction record that asks, 'Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?'” However, he has had a history of substance abuse. If you check out The Daily Mail's recent article on the "Laptop from Hell", there's a picture of Hunter's teeth badly decayed from meth use. (I'm not giving the link, not even an archived version because it contains pornographic material).
Anyways, lying on the form is a felony. What was even more idiotic was Hallie throwing the gun in the trash. It didn't take long for her to learn why that was a stupid decision because when she was asked to retrieve it, the gun was gone. There's a reason why throwing firearms in the trash is a crime because it's a golden opportunity for criminals to get their hands on them (and for free, too).
What baffles me is why Hunter is not in jail for this. As Politico stated, prosecutions for lying on the form are rare. But if the existing laws are not effectively enforced, then that sends a wrong message. What if someone even more sinister lied on the form and no one bothered to check? Is that really the fault of guns?
There Are Background Checks at Gun Shows, Joe
Apparently, Joe Biden and Jen Psaki are not on the same page:
Joe's assertion that you can just buy whatever firearm you want at a gun show without a background check is false. Any firearms dealer needs to hold an FFL. Without the license, they cannot legally sell firearms to customers. In addition, FFL holders are required to perform background checks before completing the transaction.
Whoever wrote Joe's speech, I'm not sure if the writer is wholly incompetent or maliciously fear mongering. Either way, it isn't good.
Joe's plans to be more strict on guns are a fool's errand. They only address the symptoms (if they even do that), not the actual roots of the problems. If you really want to reduce gun violence and casualties, perhaps have law enforcement be more proactive whenever there is a tip that someone might shoot up a place. Nipping the bud is generally a good concept rather than letting a disaster happen and then, reacting to it. Another viable solution is to be more consistent in enforcing existing laws. People who lie in a background check and throw out their guns in the trash should be put in jail, full stop.
Unfortunately, I don't think Joe is interested in that. He just wants to exercise more tyrannical control. I mean, he already tipped himself with his record-breaking number of executive orders and there's also this doozy:
Um... Joe. The amendments in the Constitution are absolute. If you have a problem with the current form of the Constitution, there are already rules set in place for you to pass a new one. And one of your fellow Democratic senators, Joe Manchin, has spoken out against eliminating the filibuster. How about you actually discuss and debate rather than force-feeding your way through?