With the recent massacre at Las Vegas that has left 58 (so far) dead, the Left has let little time pass before promulgating their idea of “sensible gun laws”. Hillary Clinton already embarrassed herself by tweeting about the horrors of legal suppressors, implying this shooter would have been discovered far later into the slaughter. Hillary should learn the fundamental basics of firearms and their attachments before she decides to stand on the graves of innocent dead. Suppressors do not work like they do in the movies, or video-games. They don’t make your gun “whisper” bullets at your targets.
For starters, fully automatic weapons melt suppressors in minutes. If Paddock had been using a suppressor it certainly would not have lasted even half of the rounds that were put through his rifle. Suppressors, as mentioned, do not make your gun silent. They negligibly reduce the sound, primarily so the user does not have to use headphones while firing.
Paddock had been in Vegas for almost a week, planning this operation in great detail: the perfect vantage point over the concert, the 23 guns stashed in his apartment that overlooked the event, thousands of rounds of ammunition for all his firearms. Using what many people thing was a bump-stock on a legal carbine rifle to maximize round output. This clearly was no “snap decision” like many outlets are portraying it to be. This was a strategically planned slaughter. And no amount of bans on any item, will prevent this level of dedication to murder.
To suggest banning guns will somehow prevent mass murders like this is not only asinine – it is also intellectually dishonest. You don’t NEED a gun to commit these atrocities. Paddock could have cause just as much – if not more damage by using a homemade explosive device. Banning the guns is like banning a chainsaw because somebody used a chainsaw to cut a classroom of children to pieces. It’s not the fault of the tool that was used, but the user. Which leads me to my next point.
When you ban guns you are not removing them from existence, criminal entities will still have them because, well, they’re criminals. When you ban the guns you are only preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves against such criminals, as well as a possibly tyrannical government. What Hillary Clinton and her kin are proposing is that every aspect of a functioning state can be armed – bar the average Joe. The criminals as well as state/federal police and military.
Not only does banning the firearms not remove them from existence, it actually creates a stronger demand which allows criminal entities to supply those demands. It gives power to the black-market dealers of the illegal firearms and gives them an income. All of this is as true for guns as it is true for drugs. The more the “war on drugs” has raged in the US the more power it has granted to drug dealers, gangs, cartels and other nefarious criminal entities.
To top it all off, the issue comes down to a very fundamental and philosophical question.
Do you think people should be allowed to protect themselves, the product of their labour, and their family?
If so then you should be vehemently opposing any form of gun control. It has resulted in higher rates of violent crime in almost every other country in which it has been implemented, however track records and patterns don’t seem to matter to the people who are also pushing socialist policies.
In essence – no. I don’t think banning guns would stop mass murders like this, as someone this dedicated to maximizing civilian casualties will find some other way to do it. When you ban the guns, however, you are preventing law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, which happens on a daily basis as there are literally millions of defensive gun uses per year, like the man who took down the Steve Scalise shooter. Even after being shot Steve Scalise OPPOSES gun control, because he understands why they are necessary to a free people.