Obama's Justice people did screw up. The National Firearms act of 1934 put very stringent restrictions on full automatic weapons and the same rules applied to any part capable of making an otherwise semi-auto fire full auto.
Within two years of the ruling a mentally ill individual bought a bump stock and proceeded to kill 61 people (and himself) in Las Vegas. The lawyers in the Justice Dept bureaucracy were the real cause of these deaths.
No! The cause of those deaths was the act of the individual that carried out the murders...
We will never know what route he would have taken if he had not managed to acquire the firearms he did. There are many other routes to annihilation and we have seen from the suicide bombing at the NEC.. please stop tagging causes to desired effect! We have seen far too much of this from the anti lobby..
There are many routes to disasters such as this, and solutions are not simple. I would single out the following as probably more relevant factors to this case:
1.
Media fixation with unquestioned and anarchic violence. I cannot comprehend the idiocy of modern society which seeks to control peoples speech and opinion yet allows the portrayal of the most violent and pointless portrayal of society in the so called "fantasy" media, which is fed to our impressionable youth. The legitimisation of mayhem as an appropriate medium of social change is a real threat to modern social stability.
2.
Identification and treatment of mental health issues. I am the first to admit that the identification and handling of individuals with mental health problems that lead to dangerous and violent actions is an immensely difficult issue, however we do not seem to have found a sensible way of dealing with this. There is a line to be drawn between actions that are a product of character traits which should be controlled and those which can be put down to mental conditions, however in many cases the outcome is the same. I do feel that in too many cases we are too quick to hang "mental issues" on an incident as an excuse rather than an admission of failure to deal with a potentially dangerous individual.
3.
Legal interference in social society. I am more and more beginning to doubt the motivation of certain sectors of the legal profession who seem more interested in implementing social theories than providing neutral advocacy. Far too much political activity is bypassing the accepted democratic mechanisms and is using the direct manipulation of the legal system to achieve their goals. This damages both the political and legal systems in the long run as, for the democratic process to operate, there needs to be clear separation of the domains.