That article is somewhat misleading from the start.

 

The writer referenced several times that the shooter used an assault rifle.  It wasn't an assault rifle.  Assault rifles by definition can be switched from semi to fully automatic.  That's not the case with the Sig Sauer he was using.  It's a single fire semi-automatic long gun similar in function to most semi-automatic handguns like Glocks.  Using the mindset that it's a high capacity weapon because they can accommodate magazines with 30 rounds could be applied to a Glock as well.  They make 30 round magazines and even higher capacity that can be used in a handgun.  They're clumsy, but still available most places where you can buy gun accessories including Gander Mountain, Academy, Bass Pro Shop, Cabellas, or any gun shop.  So, is something like a Glock 17 with a high capacity magazine suddenly an assault weapon?

 

There isn't a 3 day waiting period for ANY gun purchase if you are a properly permitted and trained gun owner.  The background checks are still going to happen regardless, but there are no 3 day waiting periods if you've gone through the process to get properly trained to get a permit.  In the case of the Orlando shooter, he actually had the necessary permit because he worked in security.  Those conceal carry permits require a full local, state, and federal background check to obtain.  The article dismissed the fact that there are multiple databases that are checked before a permit is issued like it's some passing glance.  That's not the case at all. 

 

The laws on the books are fine.  None of the proposed laws that gun grabbers love to bring up any time there is a mass shooing would have prevented this incident from occurring. 

 

This guy should have had all sorts of red flags based on the fact that he had been investigated by the FBI twice.  That should have triggered some additional investigating to determine if he was a risk of some sort.  But, he was cleared in both instances, so there was really nothing that could be done there beyond possibly a little extra scrutiny.

 

I find it funny to see a publication like Rolling Stone opining the fact that you don't need a license to own a rifle.  Suddenly they care about licenses and having proper credentials?  Since when did that matter to them?

---