The wave is building. We’ve got to ban automatic weapons.
There is validity to this effort.
But will it do anything to stop mass murders?
In this instance, where 59 people have died and almost 500 were wounded, it seems unlikely that a ban would have had an effect on the deadly outcome of this massacre.
But another wave is building
This wave of thought and fact that says the Las Vegas shooter could not have been stopped with a ban or without a ban.
No matter what Congress might contrive to ban automatic weapons, the shooter, Stephen Paddock, a millionaire gambler with nothing to lose, could not have been stopped.
This isn’t the right wing making such claims.
It is lifetime law enforcement experts and professionals.
“I don’t know how this could have been prevented,” Las Vegas Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo told reporters during a briefing following the massacre.
“We didn’t have any prior knowledge of this individual. It wasn’t evident he had any weapons in his room. We determined there have been workers going to and from his room and nothing nefarious was noticed…” he added.
How do you stop someone like this, he seemed to ask.
Good question, isn’t it?
It is a question that haunts all of us today wondering how these senseless killings are stopped.
What doesn’t help either is that Paddock does not fit the profile of a mass shooter.
Other than his heavy gambling habit and the fact he owned 30 firearms, Paddock was just another 64-year-old American man living a quiet life in a retirement community 80 miles out of Las Vegas.
Or was he?
We don’t know and we are not likely to find out.
The sheriff also said that Paddock was being described as a lone wolf and he repeated, “It couldn’t be stopped,” because no one knew.
This makes matters even worse.
With an estimated 300 million privately owned fire arms in America, bans on automatic weapons will make them more difficult to procure but folks like Paddock could buy them on the black market.
He was a millionaire — and with money — Americans can buy anything we want as well all know and understand.
Money subverts everything Congress does.
Money allows us to go around any law that Congress passes.
Maybe we should ban money?
It is a proven fact of reality that many criminologists and psychiatrist like Respvblica’s Dr. Keith Ablow, believe that mass killing events are likely to continue, if not increase in the future due to a variety of factors.
Access to guns with huge killing capacity. Ineffectiveness of poorly funded mental health programs. Stresses of living in America. The connection of violence to the media’s excessive portrayal of it.
The suggestions are manifold. The solutions are harder to come by.
Banning automatic weapons does not ban mass murder.
Perhaps it assuages the national conscience and there is something positive to be said about this.
However, does it get to the root of the problem?
And what is the root of the problem?
Man’s nature as an angry homicidal type whose greatest effort on this earth is to exterminate himself.
Yes, this is what man does best on this earth — efforts to wage wars, kill one another, slaughter large groups of people and to prevail as the lower mammalians.
What Stephen Paddock did is not the end of the long list of atrocities.
It is simply a horrific view of things to come.
The enormity of his crime and the publicity it has garnered is likely to cause another mass murder somewhere by a lunatic or an insane person or a converted terrorist.
The easy access to guns contributes to the death toll but it is not accurate to suggest that random mass killings would be eliminated if there were no guns.
Guns are in this nation’s DNA.
The public uproar, even the political uproar is just and right.
But to what end when we are told, “Nothing could have prevented this from happening.”
There’s the rub.