Las Vegas shooting a tragedy

My heart is saddened. I woke up Monday, Oct. 2, to news of a mass shooting in Las Vegas, and it is now the deadliest shooting in U.S. history. As of this writing, police are saying 59 have been killed and more than 500 injured in the attack.

While ISIL claimed responsibility, police have investigated and said the shooter, Stephen Paddock, has no known links to any terrorist organization. However, it is certain he committed an act of terror, although he does not meet the federal definition of a homegrown terrorist. As of yet, the motives behind his attack remain unclear.

What is clear, however, is that people on both the left and right are trying to turn this senseless tragedy

political. It is not political.

The murder of almost 60 people is not an event the NRA should use to raise money to donate to congressmen to oppose gun control laws. The organization has done so multiple times in the past, and whether it does this time remains to be seen.

This tragedy also should not be used to blast Trump or his policies. No, this was not a diversion to make Americans look away so that Trump can use sleight of hand.

This is a time for all Americans, regardless of political flavor, to come together and condemn violence, condemn mass shootings and condemn divisive politicking. There is a problem in America, and guns are only being used to help perpetuate it, to kill more people than one could

without a firearm.

Canada has enacted several gun control laws, and subsequent studies have found that none of them has significantly impacted rates of gun deaths. However, Canada also doesn’t have mass shootings.

Australia passed gun laws in 1988 and 1996 following a mass shooting both years. A study has shown that the implementation of these gun laws significantly reduced the number of gun suicides, and the country went more than a decade without a mass shooting afterward.

In every country in which restrictive, rather than permissive, gun laws have been passed, gun suicide rates have dropped, gun injuries have dropped, and gun homicides rates have either dropped or there is not enough information to make a claim.

Would laws in America do the same? It’s possible, but altogether it remains unknown. It is also against the Second Amendment.

One can make the argument that the Founding Fathers had no idea that guns could possibly become as powerful as they have, that none of them thought for a moment that one person would be able to kill and injure hundreds with the right type of firearm. While this may be true, the Fathers were also stewards of the land and had just fought against their former government that had embargoed gunpowder and directly attempted to disarm colonial militias.

The Fathers undeniably believed in the need for the Second Amendment to prevent government tyranny against its people.

In the wake of yet another mass shooting, gun control advocates and Second Amendment supporters are again facing off and using the tragedy to advance their political motivations. It is doubtful the two groups will ever see eye to eye, and one wonders if a compromise can ever be reached.

What is clear, however, is that America has a violence problem. When we solve that, the discussion of

firearms becomes moot.

HHJ News