Late at night on the first day of October, 2017, a gunman opened fire from the Madalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas unto concert goers across the street. This evil act is by far the deadliest shooting in U.S. history. And the Left is salivating over the opportunity to attack the 2nd amendment.
But doing so makes absolutely no sense. Granted, that won’t stop the Left from attacking gun rights, but there’s a reason I say it makes no sense.
You see, according to reports, “Video of the attack showed panicked crowds fleeing as sustained rapid gunfire ripped through the area.” Did you catch the important part? Sustained RAPID gunfire. There are people that can shoot very fast, but they are typically very skilled and experienced with weapons to do that. According to the UK Sun, the gunman, Stephen Paddock, “was a retired accountant who flew small planes and had no criminal record, authorities said.”
So a retired accountant who flew small planes seemingly as a hobby couldn’t possibly be skilled enough to fire a semi-automatic weapon so fast that it seems automatic. Paddock very clearly had an automatic weapon at his disposal.
“Over a period of more than a minute at least four separate periods of sustained gunfire, believed to be from a high-powered assault rifle, were heard as hundreds of deadly rounds unleashed into the crowd, which included children.”
So this is very obviously, and according to the UK Sun, a high-powered assault rifle. Assault rifles tend to be fully automatic… oh, and ILLEGAL in the States.
But of course, that fact doesn’t matter to the Left. Hillary Clinton tweeted out: “Our grief isn’t enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try and stop this from happening again.” And: “The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.”
Oh, how I wish the Left would go after ISIS the same way they go after the NRA. The Left will never accept that radical Islamic terrorists do anything, but if there’s any sort of shooting, it’s automatically the NRA’s fault.
But here’s why attacking the 2nd amendment doesn’t make sense: YOU AREN’T ALLOWED TO OWN AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON IN THIS COUNTRY!
You can own a rifle, provided that it’s semi-automatic and that the magazine doesn’t have too many rounds in it at any one time (dumb as I may believe it to be, but that's the law as it is currently written). And since you can’t legally own an automatic weapon, why attack the 2nd amendment here? The shooter got his hands on an automatic weapon somehow and obviously outside the means of the law. Clearly, nothing stopped him from breaking that particular law. Why would more laws preventing good guys from owning guns be in any way able to stop bad guys with guns?
If someone wants to hurt you, they will. Murder is illegal, and bad people still do it. This guy had no legal means of acquiring his weapon. Not to mention that he had in his possession 30 OTHER WEAPONS TOO!
According to Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo, there were more than 10 rifles in the room where Paddock killed himself. Now, I don’t know what kind of rifles all of them were. But I’m certain that if he could get his hands on ONE automatic assault rifle, it’s entirely possible that he could’ve gotten more as well.
This guy was out on a mission to do some serious damage. I don’t know why he had so many rifles with him, but he clearly intended to destroy lives on that day.
Now, ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack and the FBI has said that there’s no evidence to suggest that Paddock had any sort of relation with any terrorist organization. The FBI, being the FBI, is not exactly trustworthy to me at this point, if the last 9 months have been anything to go by.
But I do want to see evidence of his relationship with ISIS if there is any. That’s why, at this point in time, I want to call this a “shooting” as opposed to a “terror attack”. He could’ve been a new member of ISIS, and a recent convert, as ISIS claims. Or, he could’ve been a lone wolf with a heart full of evil and hatred. He also could’ve been a socialist nut looking to kill some Republicans at a country music concert.
But, as of yet, we don’t have a motive and I won’t assume anything.
But there is something that irks me about the situation. Like it has been mentioned, Paddock was a retired accountant who flew small planes, seemingly as a hobby. And yet, he was able to kill 58 people, and wound over 500 others. He was able to do that using a fully automatic assault rifle from the 32nd floor of a hotel.
Now, this being a concert, people tend to group together. But the fact that Paddock doesn’t seem to have an awful lot of experience with weapons (he might’ve, but maybe not with automatic weapons) and that he was quite far away from the concert, at least in terms of height, doesn’t quite add up.
There are people that question whether Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK because he wasn’t too skilled with a sniper, but he at least had training with it! No doubt Paddock trained for this attack, but Oswald had VERY professional help to teach him as a member of the U.S. military, and still, people ponder over whether he had the necessary skill to effectively kill JFK.
This guy, however, doesn’t look as though he would have enough experience to do as much damage as he did. Granted, people were grouped up in the concert, he had the necessary view and panic and chaos would lead people to not know what’s going on and where the shots are coming from. But Paddock managed to kill and wound FAR many more people than you’d expect from a former accountant.
Whether he simply got lucky or he had the necessary experience, I don’t know. But it is indicative of someone who may have ties with some sort of militant group. Now, I said I wouldn’t assume he is tied to ISIS, but this isn’t merely an assumption. From what we know and what we can see, it doesn’t look as though Paddock had the right training or experience necessary to pull this off as effectively as he did.
Someone working for ISIS or a militant group, however, is entirely different. They train and they train a lot with any kind of weapon at any range. I wouldn’t be surprised if the FBI is wrong (or simply lying to us) about his ties to ISIS.
The other thing that irks me about it is the fact that the FBI said there’s no evidence of ISIS ties merely 12 hours after the attack. They’ve been investigating Trump for over 9 months, but they still think he colluded with Russia despite the lack of evidence. And now evidence is very important?
ISIS claims responsibility for the attack, but the FBI decides there’s not enough evidence for it, so they dismiss their claim. Could you imagine if O.J. Simpson claimed to killing Nicole Brown, and the judge dismissed it because there’s not enough evidence of it?
Or if Russia admitted to colluding with Trump in the election? I imagine the FBI would immediately go with their claim, even if there was no evidence for it. As I imagine a judge would take OJ’s confession over lacking evidence.
But returning to the main topic, it makes absolutely no sense to attack gun rights. Paddock used an illegal weapon to do what he did. It makes no sense to push for good people to not be able to use weapons over this attack.
In fact, this is the perfect example as to why gun control DOESN’T work. The legality of Paddock’s weapon didn’t matter. He still managed to acquire it somehow. A bad guy wanted a gun, and a bad guy got a gun. If a good guy wanted the same kind of gun, he would be told no by gun stores and would simply purchase a different gun or not get one at all.
Paddock shouldn’t have been able to have that gun, but he still did. Others can’t get a similar weapon, so why punish THEM when no law will ever be able to stop a bad guy from hurting someone?
And don’t tell me “well, we have to try”. No we don’t. Gun control only puts good people in danger. It doesn’t help anyone. It never works. Like socialism, it’s never worked, doesn’t work and never will work. Because bad guys will always manage to get a weapon and do damage to people, no matter what law is passed. And if good people can’t get guns, only bad people and politicians will have guns. And that’s not a world I wanna live in.
“He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.’”