There are a lot more questions than answers. That will likely be the case for a good, long while. That being said, there are some thoughts that we have here that we'd like to share:
- Given the audio of the shooting, there is no question that the shooter was using a fully automatic weapon(s). These are the most buttoned-down and legally regulated weapons in our society, and the fact that they were used in this murder just goes to show how little "gun laws" did to prevent this.
- This isn't someone that "snapped." The planning and execution (I apologize for using that word) were meticulous. We don't know the motivation, but we do know that there is no question that this guy desired to kill a ton of people, and the actions he employed absolutely did so.
- Given the hate with which this act was prosecuted, even if no guns existed in our society, do you really believe that this guy merely would have shrugged and would have given up on his murderous intent? That sure seems ignorant. When evil wants to raise its head and do what it does best, the tool really doesn't matter. Evil will find a way to quench its thirst for death and blood; laws be damned.
- It has been asked why someone would need an AR style rifle. Uh, for protection. Why would I give up an inch when it comes to protecting myself and my family? From hurricanes to Antifa, we have examples on a nearly daily basis which shows how close we are to absolute chaos. When chaos hits, I'll be damned if I am going to be left without a means to take care of the ones I love.
- With people still in the hospital fighting for their lives, this morning a CBS executive posted on Facebook that “I’m actually not even sympathetic bc [sic] country music fans often are Republican gun toters.” How much do you have to hate people to post something like that? Thankfully, CBS couldn't stomach someone with so much hate in their ranks and they fired her.
This will kick off the start of a lot of talk and debate - a debate that we have covered here before. There are no easy answers, other than evil exists. It most assuredly exists.
Ok, I will bite. I believe in the 2nd Amendment but I also believe in common sense gun control. I know that Sidd's counter to "common sense gun control" will be the slippery slope argument, but the "slippery slope" is a very poor argument against something. It is stating, in essence, "I don't have an clear argument against your position except there are other things I might have an argument against".
ReplyDeleteNo control mechanism is going to be perfect. But they should be designed to place hurdles to people trying to acquire firearms for crime or other dangerous purposes.
I favor longer waiting periods, closing all the loopholes in background checks, regulating the capacity of magazines, regulating the purchase quantity of ammunition, prohibiting non-law enforcement civilians from purchasing bullet proof vests, and restricting the purchase of firearms to individuals under the age of 21 (like alcohol).
Would it have prevented the tragedy in Las Vegas? Probably not. But, if this killer was limited to a magazine of under 12 rounds it would have limited the tremendous firepower that was on display and the casualties would have been significantly lower.
I get that this killer could have purchased these items illegaly, but that puts another layer for law enforcement to catch these criminals BEFORE they commit the crimes.
Magazine argument is moot. The killer used a full auto gun(s). You can't get more illegal than that. If he could overcome those barriers, he was getting past them all. Other points need clarity. How long of a waiting period do you want? What are the loopholes in the current background check process that you want to see? How much ammunition would you allow to be purchased, and are you prepared to battle the black market it will generate? Without specifics , these are platitudes. With specifics, these solutions quickly get a hell of a lot more complex.
ReplyDelete1. Automatic weapons are not necessarily illegal. You can get a license in Nevada for one. Whether this killer had the proper license for automatic weapons is unknown at this time.
ReplyDelete2. Waiting periods, longer. A waiting period does not "infringe" upon any person's 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The waiting period must be long enough to eliminate any potential emotional reactions (including suicide attempts) and to complete absolutely the most thorough background checks possible. I would be satisfied with 168 hours, but double that would be better.
3. All firearm transactions would be subject to the waiting period and background checks. There would be no loopholes to this process, including private gun sales.
4. All legal requirements must battle "black market" and law breakers. And, everything is negotiable. In the end, the limit is somewhat arbitrary, but the ammunition purchase regulation should be a stepwise process. THe purchase of 250 rounds of ammunition triggers a cumulative sales monitor. THe purchase of 1,000 rounds of ammunition triggers some other levels of scrutiny. THe purchase of 5,000 rounds means you cannot purchase any more ammunition for a set period of time. I get people have weird hobbies and enjoy shooting, but there are limits to what you can do. For example,I might enjoy driving 180 mph on the freeway but that poses real public safety isues, just as the stockpiling of thousands of rounds of ammunition. If you purchased the ammunition indirectly, like at a gun range, to fire at the range then there would be no limits or regulation.
5. It ain't that complex. Not one of these topics of common sense gun control infringes the right to bear arms nor imposes any undue hardship on the purchase of firearms. WHile you can argue about the effectiveness of some of the measures, there is also minimum costs/impacts.