Re: “Track purchases of returning military” (letter, 11-23).
I read with interest the letter advocating stricter gun control in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings. As is usual for the gun-ban crowd, his remarks are long on emotion and short on facts.
He repeatedly refers to the “assault weapons” that were used in the attack. Maj. Nidal Hasan did not use an assault weapon, which – according to the late, unlamented 1994 Assault Weapons Ban – refers to various types of military-appearing rifles. Hasan used a semi-automatic pistol.
Secondly, the writer implies that purchasing firearms is easier for a soldier than for a civilian. Not true. In most cases, soldiers are subject to the same firearms laws that apply to civilians in the state where they are stationed. In some states (though not Texas), they are considered non-residents and cannot purchase firearms at all.
Thirdly, the writer says Hasan faced no background check when he purchased his pistol. False: He underwent the FBI’s National Instant Computer Background Check (NICS). He passed it, only because he had no prior felonies and no record of mental illness (not even the FBI can see into the future).
What convoluted logic makes the writer think that stricter gun laws would have kept Hasan from carrying out his psychotic, jihadist rampage? Gun control laws, by definition, affect only those who obey the law. Criminals like Hasan couldn’t care less about gun laws.
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.