The Tragedy of Death of the Mandalay Bay Shooter and the Route 91 Festival
October 4, 2017
When I went to bed on Saturday night, I saw a blurb about a shooting in Las Vegas. I thought initially it was part of the usual nuttiness that is part of the Vegas weekend experience. However, once I logged onto my computer, I was absolutely shocked to read that the death toll from this incident was 59 dead, and a horrible number of wounded, 495 (number could change). It turned out that a random shooter (Stephen Paddock) took an arsenal of powerful guns with endless rounds of bullets, and rained hell on a country music festival that was across the street from the Mandalay Bay hotel, where the shooter was staying. The amount of carnage was inescapable, and not lost on the rest of the country that this was the most devastating active shooter casualty levels since Orlando's Pulse nightclub shooting in 2015. It is equally appalling that the country is resigned to being despondent, shocked and angry when these types of events happen on a regular basis. As soon as these tragedies occur, lines are drawn and proponents of gun control and supporters of the 2nd Amendment assume their usual positions and yell and scream at each other, advocating that their position is right. Neither side has a monopoly on the correct way to deal with this. Liberals and Democrats think more intensive background checks and other far-reaching regulations will end this type of violence. Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians feel that those invasive and draconian methods will not change anything or save lives. They feel that a more aggressive stance on finding those with mental health issues and ensuring they are found before they commit violence, along with protecting law-abiding citizens access to the gun of their choice (AR-15s, revolvers with large magazines, etc.).
However, there are many holes in the arguments of both sides of this hyper-partisan issue. Democrats immediately want to institute gun laws, which they feel would limit the number of persons with mental health issues from purchasing guns. The GOP and the NRA want the government to enforce the laws already on the books. However, both positions do not truly seek an answer as to how to end this carnage in our country. New laws will not prevent those who pass background checks from committing mass murder. The NRA has such a powerful stranglehold on the Congress that many members are too scared to protect its citizens. The gun lobby wants to make sure that any American citizen has the ability to purchase as many guns as possible, and they know gun and ammo sales increase after every major massacre.
So, where to go from here? More background checks will not stop anyone who passes background checks from buying an arsenal of weaponry and on any random day, committing murder on a large scale. Nor will having more guns in the homes of Americans allow them to return fire and save the day. I think the main issue is that guns are readily accessible to any person who qualifies. No background checks (unless they are very invasive) can predict which person at any given time will go nuts, so to speak.
What is the solution? I think the problem is that America is a very violent society, and adding to that is the immense racial tensions that are just under the surface. Unless we tackle those two main issues, I don't see the gun violence going away. Conservatives, or should I say conservative gun owners, do not want any infringement on their ability to buy as many weapons as possible, regardless of their need or realistic necessity to have so many. Liberal policymakers tend to live on the coasts (New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami) and do not have empathy or understanding of those who live in the middle of the country. People who live in large cities and have access to law enforcement arrival in a short period of time do not understand the life of those who live in rural parts of the country. Law enforcement's arrival could take too long to arrive to be effective.
Adding to this tension are the two political parties and the cable networks who constantly feed the point of view to those like-minded people who watch their respective channels. It is a fight between the fearful of increasing racial demographics of brown, black and Asian American and those who feel that guns are no longer necessary in a 21st Century America.
However, there are many holes in the arguments of both sides of this hyper-partisan issue. Democrats immediately want to institute gun laws, which they feel would limit the number of persons with mental health issues from purchasing guns. The GOP and the NRA want the government to enforce the laws already on the books. However, both positions do not truly seek an answer as to how to end this carnage in our country. New laws will not prevent those who pass background checks from committing mass murder. The NRA has such a powerful stranglehold on the Congress that many members are too scared to protect its citizens. The gun lobby wants to make sure that any American citizen has the ability to purchase as many guns as possible, and they know gun and ammo sales increase after every major massacre.
So, where to go from here? More background checks will not stop anyone who passes background checks from buying an arsenal of weaponry and on any random day, committing murder on a large scale. Nor will having more guns in the homes of Americans allow them to return fire and save the day. I think the main issue is that guns are readily accessible to any person who qualifies. No background checks (unless they are very invasive) can predict which person at any given time will go nuts, so to speak.
What is the solution? I think the problem is that America is a very violent society, and adding to that is the immense racial tensions that are just under the surface. Unless we tackle those two main issues, I don't see the gun violence going away. Conservatives, or should I say conservative gun owners, do not want any infringement on their ability to buy as many weapons as possible, regardless of their need or realistic necessity to have so many. Liberal policymakers tend to live on the coasts (New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami) and do not have empathy or understanding of those who live in the middle of the country. People who live in large cities and have access to law enforcement arrival in a short period of time do not understand the life of those who live in rural parts of the country. Law enforcement's arrival could take too long to arrive to be effective.
Adding to this tension are the two political parties and the cable networks who constantly feed the point of view to those like-minded people who watch their respective channels. It is a fight between the fearful of increasing racial demographics of brown, black and Asian American and those who feel that guns are no longer necessary in a 21st Century America.
This war between different thinking about what guns mean to America has no end in sight.
