When Democrats passed the assault weapons ban in 1994 it didn't prevent further gun-related crime or stop the Columbine massacre. Connecticut's own assault weapons ban, still in place, did nothing to prevent Adam Lanza from committing theft (another crime) to illegally posses a gun that he used illegally. The small matter that stealing his mother's guns was a crime in the first place did nothing to deter him from murder, which was his goal. This is true in so many cases: the minimal penalty of possessing a firearm in a gun-free zone like the Aurora theater is of no consequence when the criminal has murder on the mind. Just yesterday a man wielding a knife stabbed fifteen people, four of whom are in critical condition, in a gun-free zone.
Of course, free citizens can't keep their freedom protected from a tyrannical government with knives, so it means nothing that FBI Uniform Crime Reports from 2007 - 2011 show that knife deaths are more than double the deaths due to the very guns Democrats are naming in their proposals.
The senate tomorrow will take up a gun control bill with unenforceable proposals that would have not prevented Newtown, Columbine, Aurora, Tucson, VA Tech, or Fort Hood. Much of these nationwide proposals want to limit magazine capacity because criminals have large magazine capacities. In a normal world this would be an argument for why citizens, who are their own first responders, should have a fighting chance with the same firepower. Government, when influenced by tyranny, isn't concerned with protecting citizens from other citizens.
The Democrats' bill seeks to criminalize private commerce with regards to the Second Amendment, which would make even gifts from a father to a child suspect. The overburdened NICS database, faultier than the No Fly List, has a ridiculously high number of false positives and the appeal to have a denial overturned can take months. There are many stories online, even on Twitter, where people have chronicled their denial and their wait. This could spell tragedy for someone waiting for the I (instant) in the NICS acronym to protect themselves.
Ignoring the false positives, with such a high number of denials, that means many actionable violations of the Brady Act, right? No.
Third, as everyone knows, in our judicial system, people are innocent until proven guilty. So just how many people have been proven (or pled) guilty for violations of the Brady Act? I found five reports on the NCJRS website for 2006, ’07, ’08, ’09 and ’10 and totaled up the number of convictions for those years. This amounted to a whopping 209 convictions (and no, that 209 number is not a typo).
According to the figures in Table 1 of the reports, in those five years there were a total of 347,455 denials which gives us a conviction rate of 0.060%. When we apply that across the decade and a half of NICS checks we find that a mammoth 594 “dangerous people” who were kept from getting guns. Over the course of 14 years and one month. Which boils down to a whopping 3.5 people a year.
Democrats would like for you to believe that they believe criminals will abide by the "universal" in universal background checks. They want you to believe them naive enough to assume once denied, a criminal will simply give up his or her illegal quest. They assume it will be easier for voters to forgive stupidity than tyranny.
Don't buy it.