Philadelphia Inquirer -- Waiting Period Could Have Prevented Sandy Hook

From Breitbart's Big Journalism:

On June 13, the Philadelphia Inquirer weighed in on the feeding frenzy against AR-15s with a column that claimed a waiting period could have prevented Adam Lanza from opening fire on Sandy Hook innocents.

The immediate flaw with this argument: Lanza stole his guns. In so doing, he circumvented any and all gun controls. So a waiting period would not have made a bit of difference.

On the other hand, the Inquirer column contends that a waiting period might have prevented Omar Mateen from allegedly killing around 50 innocents in Orlando. The problem with this suggestion is that Mateen did submit to a waiting period for the handgun he used in the attack. In fact, Mateen complied with all gun control laws to acquire his guns and even possessed a Florida Security Officer license and a Statewide Firearms License on top of everything else.

The Inquirer somehow missed this.

It was not missed, but ignored!

They won't let the facts get in the way of the narrative.

Seriously. Adam Lanza blew past all gun control by stealing his guns, and he killed 26 people. Omar Mateen submitted to every gun control on the books — including a waiting period for his handgun — and he allegedly killed about 50. Can the Inquirer explain the advantage of a waiting period?

Ask every one of you gun control advocating friends one question, "What law would have prevented Mateen from getting his guuns?