 |
| Image URL: https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_40/2175121/171002-las-vegas-shooting-run-njs-1127a_f22aa7992c16a109d758bb28b392566f.nbcnews-fp-480-320.jpg On Sunday night, a heavily-armed gunman opened fire on an outdoor country music festival from a hotel room in Las Vegas, Nevada. At least 58 people were killed, and over 500 were injured in the attack. The gunman was using an automatic weapon and spraying the crowd with bullets from above. Two policemen were killed and the gunman was found dead in his hotel room. He has been identified as 64-year-old, Stephen Paddock, but his motives are unknown so far. Paddock's brother, Eric, was interviewed shortly after the event and told officials that his brother had no history with guns at all, but he was a gambler. |
This is an example of an inevitable loophole in gun rights. Paddock had only one traffic violation in his criminal record, and he had no violent history, so he was able to purchase automatic weapons legally. Even if he didn't purchase them from a certified gun-selling business, this shows how the background safety checks for gun-owners are inherently flawed because they don't account for a person's psychological state.
What can be done to fix this loophole in gun laws?
How do you think the Nevada government, as well as the federal government will respond to this attack? What should they do to prevent incidents like this from happening in the future?
Article Links:
Link
Link
Link
15 comments:
Gun laws have been a problem for decades and is a very controversial subject in America. Having background checks in order to buy guns is not enough anymore. I believe there needs to be more restrictions pertaining to owning a gun, but it may not help at all. Many people obtain guns illegally through shady traders, meaning they are unable to be tracked. Restricting the access of guns in gun shops would only limit a certain percentage of people from being able to cause harm. Banning all guns would also be impossible as the NRA would vehemently defend gun rights. One possible solution to this growing problem would be to create even stricter background checks, including a mental test for everyone who wants a gun. Furthermore, the owners of guns would have to take a test every year in order to keep their guns and gun license. The security forces would also need to capture the illegal gun traders and those who obtained these guns in order to ensure safety for the Americans. I'm not sure what the national government will do because of this event. Trump is very erratic, and I don't know if he will try to increase gun control or do nothing. I know that the state government would try to crack down on those related to this event, and it might even increase gun control due to this event.
Not to completely disregard your question regarding the loopholes of gun restrictions but I believe we should attempt understand the reason to why the shooting happened first. Reports have been put out that includes the weapons that he used to commit the mass murder. In his room, he had a handful of fully operating automatic rifles, which are banned for civilians to get hold of. In addition, he also had some AR-15s and tools to smash the hotel windows. The suspect had checked into his hotel room a few days before and from the amount of guns and preparation he has done, it doesn't seem like this is "revenge" after a few rough nights at the poker table. It seems more like a planned out mission. ISIS had already claimed that the suspect is part of the group but there has been no evidence found proving that. To address your question, frankly, I don't know what there can be done other than stricter background and mental checks(as Alex had stated). Any other alternative seems unrealistic.
I had actually never took into consideration how you mentioned that this is an example of how gun background checks are clearly not 100% efficient, and I completely agree. I believe the government ought to treat this for what it is, TERRORISM. This is domestic terrorism and ought not to be passed as just another "shooting". They must investigate Paddock's motive for carrying out such a heinous act but most importantly, provide the victims and their families aid in any way possible. Whether it be medical aid, financial aid, or emotional support, the government must take direct action in order to ensure the well-being of these individuals. While the debate over gun laws is highly controversial, I would argue that gun laws MUST be revised immediately for this is not the first "massive" shooting our country has witnessed in the past couple of years. Individuals safety heavily outweighs the desires of others who support maintaining current gun laws. I am very conflicted on what can be done to prevent future situations, I would suggest maybe a gun ban on certain types of guns? Although I lack confidence in this statement since I am not too well informed on this matter.
While I firmly believe we need much stricter gun control laws, from a realistic standpoint, I don't think there will be any major changes following this attack. After the 2012 Sandy Hook shootings in which 26 ELEMENTARY schoolers were killed, a tearful President Obama pleaded for mote gun control laws...but Congress did nothing. Unfortunately, I think that was the be-all end-all for gun control laws, as once a precedent is set in which we establish that we value guns more as a society than the lives of six- and seven-year-olds, there is no turning back. If the senseless massacres of children couldn't do it, I don't think this realistically will either, especially considering Trump has been pushing for carry laws in all 50 states— the opposite direction from which we should be going. I agree with Alexa that the urgency of implementing stricter regulations is only increasing, as we have witnessed two shootings in which 49 and 58 people were killed, respectively, in just over a 12-month span, we cannot wait any longer to see changes in society. But with Trump's anti-gun control stance combined with our past passiveness in the issue, I fear that regulations will not be put in place as of now.
Alexa and Alex have wonderful points in saying that the government should treat events such as this massacre as acts of terror and ought to restrict the means by which people can obtain guns, but I would have to agree with Zack that the government’s passivity at the multitude of mass shootings that have happened in recent years shows signs that gun control regulations may not be increased; I find this to be sad, considering how it appears that the government is prizing the Second Amendment over the lives US inhabitants. Even if the government was to pose restrictions on certain types of guns and increase the amount of intensive testing for people who want to purchase guns, the reality is that the illegal gun business is so strong (and obviously, since it’s illegal, is underregulated) that anyone can receive access to assault weapons so long as they have the money to pay for it. Additionally, some shooters as of late have used weapons that are registered under someone else’s name, so it is highly unlikely that potential changes such as this can severely decrease the number of acts of terror prevalent throughout the United States.
As others have said, I also think there should be stricter gun laws but I don't foresee any change in the future. Especially since there is so many other major events happening right now such as the natural disasters, I don't see the government doing much to immediately make changes in response to the shooting. Hopefully this will start more conversations in Congress about making stricter background checks for gun owners. In many other shootings in America the gunmen have also obtained their guns legally and after the shooting there there are always reports of some mental instability. As Alex suggested, if there were consistent psychological tests for gun owners then maybe these issues can be found before anyone gets hurt.
The problem with this issue today is people are pointing fingers rather than doing anything. As Zack said with what happened with Sandy Hook, the Democrats just complained and blamed the lax gun control laws rather than taking action and pass laws. Ultimately, the gun control laws aren't gonna do anything (ex. California had the strictest gun control laws yet San Bernardino happened) as well as people will try to find ways around it such as through black markets. Rather than trying to fix the loopholes in gun laws, the government should try to eliminate the cause, which is not the guns, but people's mental health, such as a mental illness, thoughts of committing an act of violence, or any affiliation to radical groups. The solution to this issue should be helping those with mental instability and those that are thinking of committing an act of violence in the future. By identifying potential threats, they can get help and lives can be saved.
I agree with Alexa that this shooting should be regarded as terrorism, even if it had nothing to with ISIS, which is still unclear. The fact that we tend to label acts as terrorism only if they're committed by Islamic radicals is discriminatory and incorrect. Also, I agree with Justin that mental health is the real problem here, but how do you solve a problem of mental health when, in this case, your closest family and the people around you see you as a normal person with no problems? I don't see any plausible way to be able to efficiently and correctly label people as crazy when it can be hidden so easily.
This is a very interesting case. There is no clear motive for the shooting, the guns appear to have been purchased legally, and it is the most destructive mass shooting in US history (beating the previous record of 49 deaths in last year's shooting of a gay night club in Orlando). It is my hope that because of the circumstances of this shooting (it being committed by a non-religious, non-political, rich, white guy), we can finally focus on eliminating the common factor in all these shootings: military grade weapons. For years the NRA and other gun advocates have claimed that if everyone in a shooting scenario had a gun, they would be able to defend themselves and stop the shooter. In this case this was simply not possible, because of the location of the shooter, the people who were being shot at in the crowd could not tell where they were being shot from. One of the musical acts at the festival had several cast members carrying weapons and they later stated that they were unable to tell where the shots were coming from and therefore their firearms could not help defend them; one of the band members even reversed his position on gun control based on the incident. TBC when i get the chance to right again...
...Continued from above. Even if everyone at the concert was armed with military grade long range weapons, and they were able to tell where they were being shot from, most of the people there would not be able to hit the shooter as he had the high ground and shots fired from the ground would have to be way more accurate than shots coming from his position in order to hit their target. In the unlikely event that the people in the audience were able to kill the shooter, it would create a difficult situation for law enforcement as the person who killed him would technically be guilty of murder even if it was in self-defense. In this scenario if everyone had weapons and was firing back, it would be practically impossible to tell who shot who, and of course having thousands of people with high powered weapons shooting at a hotel creates property damage and potentially more loss of life. Clearly arming all people for "self-defense" is not a good solution to these tragedies.
My solution: I believe there are several things we need to do to prevent this type of attack and others. The first thing we should do is restrict the type of guns and ammunition that people can buy. I believe that private citizens should only be able to purchase: medium range hunting rifles that use lower caliber ammo (~.22-~.308), shotguns, and low caliber pistols. People should still be able to use larger and more powerful weapons but they should have to do so at a government licensed shooting range. I believe it is the federal government's duty and right to implement these measures under the necessary and proper clause, as it would be a law to protect public safety and it is to solve a clear problem; and the commerce clause, as the guns can be bought in one state and sold in another or carried from state to state. The second solution which I believe needs to be implemented is an increase in hotel security (this would need to be implemented by private sector industries). If we implement these common sense measures,I believe we can drastically reduce the number of mass shooting deaths.
Sorry for the rant :P
I think Will mentioned a lot of important points in his comment(s). Self defense is not an option against well-planned attacks like this, and would only make things worse, especially in this case, where it took time to first figure out the shooter was in Mandalay Bay, then more time to determine the floor, as the police first thought it was in the 60th floor, then the number changed to 34 or 34, and floor 32 was determined. Even the police weren't sure, so it would be much more chaotic on the ground. The argument of self-defense is a fully valid one and I support the second amendment, but self-defense will never require automatic weapons and powerful assault rifles, and people who want guns for that purpose need to be educated on when and how to use them so they don't make situations worse. Most of the situations where a violent crime is deterred is actually done by people without guns, and some without any weapons, and it has been shown in studies that people will make wrong impulsive decisions when they have a gun and have the choice to face an attacker.
I would also have to disagree with Justin, as it is pointless to always divert the blame for mass shootings after each one, when there is a clear common thread between all of them - guns. If it is a religiously-motivated attack, people blame Islam. When the person is insane, we blame the lack of mental health help. When it's at a hotel, we blame hotel security. There will always be new situations for future mass shootings, and the only thing we can predict and control about it is the tool that enables it, which is guns. I don't even know if mental health checks would do anything, as this person didn't seem insane to anyone, and people who are insane or have it in their subconscious can keep it deeply internalized and not show any signs.
I agree with Michael. It is important to acknowledge the reasoning behind a mass shooting, but I also want to point out that diagnosing an individual with mental health issues is subjective. To one person, the mass shooting might have been non-existent if he had access to mental health facilities, but to another, he seemed perfectly fine and therefore needed no mental health attention. In every situation, there are people who agree and disagree which means that the outcome can’t be directly determined. Allowing guns to be available to anyone shouldn’t be allowed as it poses a multitude of safety and ethical issues. I believe that a deeper analysis is needed where it identifies the beliefs that are associated and fundamental to the basics of gun ownership. For example, why do people want to own a gun and what’s their point. The Nevada government can only do so much. I believe that it all comes down to the mindset of a person and morals. The Las Vegas shooting calls into question whether the freedom and personal liberty associated with guns can be justified when it causes pain and suffering -- a terrible price that we have to pay.
To address the "loophole" of not being able to address someone's psychological state in a background check, what can you reasonably expect? I do think that background checks do need to cover mental illnesses (which is difficult on its own, because they often go undiagnosed or if diagnosed are very arbitrary), but that is only a small sliver of someone's psychological state, and other than mental illness, there is nothing that we can really detect. Our psychological state changes every day, even every hour or every minute, depending on how what is happening in our life. You could be a usually happy individual, but wake up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and be angry and depressed. I wish background checks could detect that, but there is absolutely no way for that to happen. In the case of the the Vegas shooter, he seemed like a healthy, normal dude, but like Theo suggested in his post, for all we know he could have just woken up on the wrong side of the bed after a couple bad nights of poker. We do not know how his psychological state changed, and we do not know his motives, and who knows if we will ever be able to discover them. I think to say that we should have done a better job detecting his psychological state is unreasonable because it is almost not possible. Instead, we should be focusing on other things to detect in background checks, like the fact that the Vegas shooter had bought around 30 firearms in the past year. It is PAINFULLY obvious that he was plotting something, as no one buys thirty guns just for casual use. How could that not be detected!? No one should be allowed to purchase that many guns in multiple lifetimes, least of all one year. It is clear that there are major flaws in the way that background checks are conducted, and they need to be fixed immediately, but like many have stated before, the government has failed to do so after past mass shooting, and with this administration, I have no faith that it will happen now.
Post a Comment