Country music star Eric Church slams NRA for Las Vegas massacre
Eric Church, a headliner at the
Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas where dozens were killed last October, is slamming the National Rifle Association for not taking enough action to prevent mass shootings.
"There are some things we can’t stop," Church
told Rolling Stone, "like the disgruntled kid who takes his dad’s shotgun and walks into a high school. But we could have stopped the guy in Vegas."
Church performed at the festival two nights before a gunman unleashed a rapid-fire barrage of bullets from the 32nd floor of a hotel down on the crowd of about 22,000, sending terrified concertgoers running for their lives. At least 58 people were killed and hundreds others injured, marking the
worst mass shooting in modern American history.
Authorities said the accused gunman,
Stephen Craig Paddock, was solely responsible. They found thousands of rounds of ammunition and nearly
two dozen weapons in his hotel room, mostly military-style rifles, including at least one that was modified with a bump stock to enable it to fire off rounds more rapidly.
I don't understand the logic here. Church believes that we can't predict the future therefore school shootings are going to happen yet we should be able to predict the future and prevent mass shootings such as what occured in Las Vegas? He advocates closing the gun show loophole but as the two investigative articles below indicate, Paddock as well as the majority of the individuals responsible for the mass shootings of the last decade, obtained their weapons legally - no gun show loophole. This means we're going to have to come up with something more concrete. You can't expect to solve a complex problem with a simple one-size-fits-all solution.
Where Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock bought his guns;
it was all legal
How They Got Their Guns
There can be no solution absent agreement concerning the nature of the problem.
There are those who incorrectly perceive any firearm regulatory measure as being ‘too burdensome,’ when in fact those measures are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional.
There are those dishonest who attempt to advance the slippery slope fallacy that the enactment of any firearm regulatory measure will ultimately result in ‘bans’ and ‘confiscation’ – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
There are those so ignorant as to maintain the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment right is ‘unlimited,’
With such ignorance and unwarranted opposition to necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures – many of which have nothing to do with the direct regulation of firearms – seeking a solution to the problem is pointless.
