Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting site, Las Vegas Village and Festival Grounds, Las Vegas Strip, Nevada. Pictures were taken one week before the beginning of the country music festival from a helicopter. The image shows final preparations for the Route 91 Harvest Festival and the surrounding main casinos and hotels.
Photo credit: Mario Roberto Durán Ortiz (CC-By-SA 4.0)

The Las Vegas massacre rocked the nation.  It once again, brought out the calls for more restrictive gun control, even though this particular shooter passed all background checks, and even bought some of his guns in California.  A state with some of the most restrictive firearm laws in the nation.  Firearm laws that gun control advocates assured us, would keep people like Stephen Paddock from obtaining guns.

They were wrong.

There are 20,000 local, state and federal gun laws on the books.  Even if we have 20,000 more, none of them will legislate the evil or crazy out of a person.

This includes the banning or excessive regulation of bump fire stocks.  A device approved by the ATF and intended to help those with limited hand mobility to fire a rifle.  Infringing on the rights of the disabled because one man misused a product in a way it was never intended to be used, is no different than banning specific firearms because someone used one in a manner it was never intended to be used.

(Click here for the bump stock approval letter from the ATF.)

Here are my thoughts:

1 comment
  1. “… even though this particular shooter passed all background checks, and even bought some of his guns in California. A state with some of the most restrictive firearm laws in the nation.”

    I think that says a lot about how lax the laws actually are in the US. It’s clear that the gunman in Los Vegas would likely have been able to kill and wound far fewer people had he not been able to achieve near automatic levels of continuous fire. However, I agree that he’d still be able to kill many without the gun modifications.

    The ‘most restrictive firearm laws in the nation” still aren’t anywhere close to what conservative governments in Australia and the UK passed. Further, the goal is not perfect safety, which is never attainable, but a reduction in incidents and gun-related deaths in general. There still are incidents and mass killings in these countries but on the whole, gun-related death per capita is much, much lower, as are the percentage of the police violently killed in the line of duty, In the US, the number of gun-related deaths and murder dwarf the number of those killed in these shooting incidents. And these are cases in particular, where significantly stringent laws could make a real dent.

    Richard Erskin writes here (

    “In the US some will argue against gun control, saying that a determined criminal or madman can always get hold of a gun. This is a logical fallacy, trying to make the best be the enemy of the good. Just because an action is not guaranteed to be 100% perfect, is no reason for not taking an action that could be effective, and the case of the UK and Australia, very effective. Do we fail to deliver chemotherapy to treat cancer patients because it is not guaranteed to prevent every patient from dying; to be 100% perfect? Of course not. But this is just one of the many specious arguments used by the gun lobby in the USA to defend the indefensible.”

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Ex-Planned Parenthood Clinic Worker Reveals Profit Motive in Baby Part Sales

“We can see how much we can get out of It,” says Planned Parenthood Affiliate VP; whistleblower details job harvesting baby body parts in new web series.

CyHawkThoughts: Week 6

Steve and Chuck discuss the Iowa Energy’s new coach, Kevin Young.  As…

Common Sense Lacking with Largo, FL Police

I’m typically a supporter of police departments, but there’s something wrong with…

Latte Links (6/21/10)

Miscellany for your Monday! Monergism: Responding to the Arminian “Drowning Man” Analogy…