|Some guy shot a bunch of people in Las Vegas recently. Here are a few of my thoughts on the situation:
At this point in time, it seems like this was just a guy who wanted to murder a bunch of people, like a terrorist. Apparently there was nothing we could've done to prevent it. Even if there were no guns, this guy would've found a way to carry out this attack. And that sucks.
- Are we not calling this a terrorist attack? If the shooter had been even slightly Middle Eastern, CNN's headline would be "Terrorists Hit the U.S.".
- Saying this had something to do with mental health is an insult to people with actual mental health issues. It takes a certain amount of mental acuity to plan out an attack of this magnitude, and saying the guy was "crazy" is a total misrepresentation of the word and the idea.
- This brings up the issue of motive: Was he angry at those people? Was he getting revenge for something? Did he just want to make a name for himself? This is the most troubling thing for me; if we can't identify something to fear, we're left fearing everything. Hence, terrorism.
- Personally I'm in favor of extremely strict gun laws, background checks, magazine size restrictions, the whole gamut. Guns are tools that have the potential to be dangerous, and they should be regulated as such. That said, none of the proposed gun law changes would've had any effect on the outcome of this situation. Banning assault weapons means he would've used a hunting rifle or several. Restricting magazine size means he would've had to swap out magazines, which isn't difficult. Background checks would've found nothing because he was fairly normal.
- The idea that the second amendment allows the populace to bear arms to support an armed insurrection against a tyrannical government has always seemed laughably naive to me. The government has tanks and fighter jets. End of story.