Shooting in Vegas Prompts Typical Reaction From the Left

Las Vegas

ShootingIt is the standard response to a mass shooting in the United States, which receives widespread media attention. However, who can rightly determine that stricter gun laws and restrictions will prevent such horrendous crimes?

On Sunday, October 1, 2017, alleged gunman Stephen Paddock shot into a crowd of about 2000 concert attendees, killing 58 people and causing injuries to more than 500. Paddock took his own life before he could be apprehended. The massacre took place during an outdoor concert in Las Vegas, NV.  According to ABC NEWS, authorities first received reports of gunfire around 10:05 PM EST local time.

It’s understandable why so many welcome the idea of tighter gun control, however, no one should accept the bold display of insincerity. Resulting from the cries for gun control in the midst of a mass shooting investigation. Perhaps it is more about offering a potential solution along with the rudimentary prayers, thoughts, and kind words for the victims and their families, than just using the event to promote a political agenda. Nevertheless, it can be argued there is no ‘best time’ to discuss gun control. However, this may be an example of the least likely best time.

Aside from the discussion of tougher gun control laws, which invariably does more to hinder the efforts of law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to bear arms, than to deter someone from shooting dozens of people. The left could spend time seeking relevant answers before rushing into concluding that more gun control will alleviate the potential for these incidents of gun violence.

As of this report, authorities have not established a motive, however, those closest to Paddock are as full of questions as the rest of the nation.

Here are a few details about the gunman released to the public:

  • Stephen Paddock, 64, was a retired accountant
  • Apparently, he had been stockpiling guns since 1982
  • In the past year, he has purchased 33 guns
  • Paddock does not have a criminal background or history of mental illness
  • He is described as calm and quiet
  • He was seen gambling for 8 hours straight before the Sunday evening killing spree

Paddock purchased each of his guns legally, according to CBS THIS MORNING and never displayed any evidence of aggression. However, some believe he lived a double-life. Paddock’s girlfriend, Marilou Danley, said she knew Paddock as a “kind, caring man” and she did not know “something horrible like this was going to happen,” in a statement read by her attorney.  Danley believed they’d have a long and quiet future together, saying, “I loved him and hoped for a quiet future together with him; it never occurred to me that in any way whatsoever that he was planning violence against anyone.”

Until the Sunday night shooting, Stephen Paddock was the typical unsuspecting retired accountant. One might argue about his apparent obsession with firearms, however, since those closest to him were unaware of his intentions, perhaps it was more than just an obsession. According to a report by the New York Times, Paddock may have considered other cities such as Boston and Chicago to carry out this hideous plan.

Although there are several ideas for stricter gun laws, the debate on both sides of the issue warrants attention. However, none of the proposed regulations can do anything to help the victims of this latest mass shooting. Particularly considering the fact that Paddock owned over 40 guns legally.

Reports of a mass shooting in a public venue not only heightens awareness but also invites another reason to fear anyone with a gun. The Democrats did not waste any time, calling for tighter gun control within a day of the Vegas tragedy. Nancy Pelosi along with other top Democrats pose the question, “how many must die before we do something?” A question, although full of sincerity, may have done more to emphasize the survivors’ pain, than the need for more gun regulation.

Some reports indicate this latest gun incident is the 273rd mass shooting in 2017. A mass shooting as defined by Gun Violence Archive is when four or more people are shot and/or killed in a single event. However, there is no clear definition for which of the many incidents should receive national attention.

In this particular case, the gunman was a law-abiding citizen, and like in most of the notable mass shootings, the suspect(s) obtained the firearms legally.

So perhaps, the solution is not more gun control, and maybe, just maybe the focus should be on the moral decay in the United States. In the right hands, firearms have stopped mass shootings, defended our presidents, and kept countless soldiers alive. All too often it is a single individual for motives unbeknownst to us, who uses some of those same types of firearms to take innocent lives.

It can be argued that tougher gun control laws are the equivalent of using a band-aid when the laceration requires ten stitches. Nevertheless, as long as individuals are willing to carry out mass shootings, the Democrats will no doubt call for more restrictions on gun ownership.

Opinion by Jireh Gibson


The New York Times: N.R.A. Supports New Rules on ‘Bump Stock’ Devices
ABC News: Las Vegas shooter booked hotel overlooking Lollapalooza, seen with mystery woman
CBS THIS MORNING: Why Stephen Paddock’s gun purchases didn’t raise red flags
Top and Featured Image Courtesy of Douglas Cole’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License


Send Us A Message