The New York Times suggests “stronger background checks” probably would not have prevented the August 3 and August 4, 2019, shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.
Contributor Richard A. Oppel Jr. and editor Adeel Hassan authored the NYT column, wherein they examined “stronger background checks” — i.e., universal background checks — at the state level and explained that such checks become effective when coupled with “fingerprinting” or requiring permits to purchase guns.
They transition from state examples to observe that “stronger background checks” at the federal level “most likely would not have prevented the massacres in Texas and Ohio.” However, they suggest “stronger background checks” coupled with an “assault weapons” ban and a method of seizing guns could have been preventative.
But the NYT column propagates the left’s belief in universal background checks nonetheless, especially noting that they could be an important part of controlling Internet firearm sales. They quote Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety as saying, “Criminals know that the internet is the place to go to get armed with no questions asked.”
The problem with this claim is that there are myriad laws dealing with how and to whom guns purchased on the Internet must be shipped. For example, some of the Dayton shooter’s supplies were purchased on the Internet and shipped from out of state but were picked up “legally” at the local gun store to which they were shipped. Part of that legal transaction is undergoing a background check.
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.