The shooting in Las Vegas was a tragic experience. Families will be recovering from the loss of their loved ones for years, if not lifetimes. Despite the tragedy, this didn’t stop Democrats from using this as an opportunity to push their gun control agenda.
Oddly, there is one Democrat who made an admission that the rest of her party won’t be happy about. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) admitted that there are no gun laws that could have stopped the mass shooting in Las Vegas, according to The Daily Caller. Make no mistake; she still believes there should be “gun control,” though the extent revealed during her interview was tamer than some of her colleagues.
Feinstein appeared on Face the Nation Sunday to discuss the largest mass shooting in US history, that resulted in nearly 60 dead and over 500 injured. The topic of conversation eventually moved to gun control legislation.
The argument laid out by the Senator is that there should be a ban on the sale of “bump stocks.” Bump stocks are modifications that can be applied to rifles to increase their rate of fire, closer to that of an automatic weapon.
Republicans have agreed that they would be receptive to a ban on the sale of bump stocks moving forward. However, at the time of this writing Feinstein’s bill has no Republican sponsors.
Even the National Rifle Association (NRA) said that they would support the banning of bump stocks. It is important to note that while bump stocks were found at the scene of the crime, there is no confirmation that they were actually used.
However, one could see why this would be such a concern. That kind of rate of fire–particularly in a crowded area like Las Vegas or at a larger public event–is alarming.
At one point, the host of the show, John Dickerson, asked the Senator if she believes that there is any law that could have stopped the shooter from committing this horrific act.
Dickerson asked, “Could there have been any law passed that would’ve stopped him?” This has been the most common question asked since the shooting. Everyone wants to know what could have prevented it.
Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), admitted that there are no gun laws that could have stopped the mass shooting in Las Vegas. Will Dems succeed in getting stricter gun control?
“No,” Feinstein conceded. “He passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions.” She went on to explain that the shooter had no history of being mentally ill, nor did he have a criminal record.
The truth of the matter is this: She is right. There is no law that would have prevented Stephen Paddock from going on a killing spree and murdering innocent people. It is a tragedy, truly. But there is an argument to be made about the whole “gun control” debate as it relates to stripping Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights.
Saying that we should ban guns from everyone because of this horrific incident is like saying that we should ban cars because drunk drivers are capable of getting behind the wheel and hitting people. Measures can be taken to stop drunk drivers — and insane shooters — from murdering people. However, the core rights that belong to the American people shouldn’t be stripped away in the pursuit of ideological purity.