Vegas Shooting Reignites the Gun Control Debate


Tanner Hoops and Laura Petersen

In the wake of the deadliest mass shooting in American history, the political saga regarding gun ownership rights and the 2nd Amendment has been reborn. 

On Sunday, October 1st, 2017, 64-year old Stephen Paddock opened fire on a large crowd attending a Jason Aldean concert on the Las Vegas Strip, killing 58 and wounding nearly 500. Paddock took his own life shortly afterwards; his motives unknown.

As America woke up to news of the tragedy in the early hours of Monday morning, many details surrounding the tragedy remained unclear – but that didn’t stop the gun control elitists from taking to social media to re-spark the perpetual gun control debate.

The sheer ignorance of the former First Lady; to think that someone who was planning to commit mass murder would worry himself with the legality of a silencer, let alone the legality of obtaining the weapons used in the first place. Or to believe the notion that a silencer would effectively make the sound of a discharge firearm virtually inaudible.

“We can and must put politics aside,” continued Hillary Clinton, while doing the exact opposite in her next sentence, denouncing the NRA.

The 23-year old entrepreneur does not appear to understand that the majority of responsible gun owners believe in individual gun rights as a means of defense against an act of violence, not the other way around. Guns can and have been used to minimize the amount of bloodshed that occurs during mass shootings, a launched nuclear weapon serves no purpose other than to eradicate, destabilize and destroy. 

This is an interesting concept, to blame horrific events on legislators instead of the madman pulling the trigger. The political left continues to push the notion that we must hold the criminal responsible in all cases…except when there’s a gun involved. 

Apparently, the High School Musical star is unfamiliar with 22-year-old Robert Engle of Antioch, Tennessee.  Engle is a legal gun owner who used his firearm to subdue a gunman during a mass shooting at his church on September 24.  This event took place just seven days before the horrific events at Las Vegas.

According to Black, Stephen Paddock is not to blame; however, a constitutional organization that he doesn’t agree with is. I’m sure this will guarantee the democrats to earn the house majority in 13 months.

The problem regarding violence and mass shootings in America will not be solved by passing strict gun laws. If an individual is hateful enough to commit an act of violence against another human being, they will find a method to do so, with or without guns. 

Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. The Nazis used cyanide. Ted Kaczynski used rubber bands and some match heads.

The problem regarding mass acts of violence has little to do with the method in which it’s carried out and has everything to do with the perpetrator’s state of mind and soul.

Instead, politicians continue to debate whether the Las Vegas shooting should be considered an act of terrorism. A quick overview of social media shows that civilians are quick to answer to that question based on the color of the perpetrator’s skin rather than what was in his mind.

Was Stephen Paddock a terrorist?

Yes. Without question and he needs to be regarded as such.

Paddock, like many other enemies of this country both foreign and domestic, was mentally ill when he perpetrated a malicious act of violence.

Nothing will change in America until we change the way we view mental health.

We must end the stigma surrounding mental health if we wish for things to change. The issue has never been about weapons. Murder has existed long before the invention of firearms and murder would continue long after legislation could outlaw firearms. The root cause of mass violence is and will always lie within the perpetrator, not the method used.