Every time there is a mass shooting, anti-gun groups and politicians start clamoring for more gun laws. It has actually gotten to the point where it is very predictable. With the next presidential election getting closer each day, the rhetoric has reached epic proportions. ABC News, however, has taken an actual look at some of the proposed gun laws and determined they wouldn’t have made a difference; in most cases, the shooters purchased their guns legally.
“Laws that have been passed in the aftermath of some of the most extreme instances of gun violence in the U.S. would not have necessarily prevented previous shootings, according to an ABC News analysis.
“For example, while much focus has been put on curbing the illegal sale of guns, an analysis of all 17 shootings over the last two decades where 10 or more victims died shows that each of the massacres involved legally purchased guns.”
The report also states that there were three instances of someone purchasing the guns legally, before the shooter obtained them illegally. In both the Sandy Hook and Santa Fe incidents, the shooters stole the guns from there parents. However, the Columbine shooters got their guns via a straw purchase. In all three of these instances, the shooters committed a crime to obtain the guns.
The rest of the shooters went through background checks and legally purchased firearms. They then broke numerous laws when they used these guns to commit heinous acts.
ABC News Didn’t Exactly Go Pro Gun
While this report admits to facts gun owners have claimed for years, the writer still pushes some gun laws. In fact, the article quotes the president of the anti-gun group Brady saying that new gun laws would be worth it if they prevent one shooting. It also pushes that red flag laws and the bump stock ban could have prevented some of the shootings. No evidence was presented to prove this theory.
The writer then uses Bureau of Justice Statistics reports to show NICS denied initial gun purchases 3 million times. Some of the these denials were approved later after more scrutiny. The article doesn’t discuss what happens to people who tried to purchase a gun, but can’t legally own one. Instead, it goes into potential problems with NICS and the number of shootings gun laws might have prevented.
All this, of course, is debatable, as no one can predict what did or did not stop a crime that didn’t happen. It is also pretty predictable. Gun laws won’t stop mass shootings, but these laws are needed just in case they might.
In any case, news groups are beginning to include real facts in some gun stories, whether on purpose or not.