You may say that it is too early to start talking about this issue, barely two days after the deadliest shooting in recent American history. But in reality, it's too late.





In the early hours Monday morning British time, Stephen Paddock, armed with semi-automatic assault rifles, opened fire from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel onto innocent festival goers. At the time of writing, 59 people are confirmed to have died, with a further 500+ people left injured.





As of now, investigations are ongoing into the reason why Paddock carried out the horrific attack. ISIS have claimed involvement, but no apparent link to them has been found.





Before I carry on, my thoughts are with all the families and friends that have been affected by the events of Sunday night. No one should go to a concert and not come home.





But this brings along the topic that will always crop up every time something like this happens. Gun control.





Picture courtesy of BBC

The argument can be made to not politicize these events. But a bigger disrespect to the victims would be to not mention in anyway how to stop this from happening again.





What I've found from reading through Twitter the last couple of days, is a split of people wanting to talk about gun control and those who just simply believe that these happen and there is "nothing you can do if people want to commit these crimes."





“Humans will always murder, no gun law can change that!” - this is the country that has outlawed Kinder Eggs because they're too dangerous.

Doing nothing is almost as good as pulling the trigger yourself. Simply accepting that these things happen is just not good enough.





Let me take you back in time to Australia 1996. Port Arthur was the centre of a horrendous massacre that left 35 people dead. Almost instantly, the Australia government, lead at the time by John Howard, effectively banned all guns. There were protests. There were many unhappy people. But the number of mass shootings in Australia since? Zero.

"The number of mass shootings in Australia—defined as incidents in which a gunman killed five or more people other than himself, which is notably a higher casualty count than is generally applied for tallying mass shootings in the U.S.—dropped from 13 in the 18-year period before 1996 to zero after the Port Arthur massacre. Between 1995 and 2006, gun-related homicides and suicides in the country dropped by 59 percent and 65 percent, respectively, though these declines appear to have since leveled off. Two academics who have studied the impact of the reform initiative estimate that the gun-buyback program saves at least 200 lives each year." - According to The New York Times

So, it works. And if people cannot be trusted with guns, then they shouldn't have them. Enforcing a system like you would have at school. One person ruins it for everyone else. But if it ends up saving lives, is it not worth it?





It's hard to say that America doesn't have a gun problem. Looking at the graph to the left, those stats are scary. You can see a strong correlation between those who have not got strict gun restrictions (America) and the others who either have complete bans or strict regulations. More guns does not equal safer countries, no matter what the mango moron says.





Ultimately, there is no excuse to own a gun. No need. You like them? No. Hunting? No. Protection? No.





Now, I like pizza. But if pizza started killing thousands of people, I'd probably think I could do without pizza if it meant lives were being saved.





The quote that really hit home with over the last couple of days was this. "The GOP insists that the Vegas shooter's gun arsenal is 'a right,' but medical treatment for his 500+ survivors is merely 'a privilege.'"





This isn't right. In no world does this seem right.





U.S. Congress are just days away from voting on deregulating gun silencers. Instead of progressing gun laws to improve safety, they're rolling them back; theoretically doing the exact opposite.





You may argue that if they didn't have a gun, they'd attack with a knife. But until someone attacks a group of people from 1200ft with a knife, that argument is worth taking seriously.





Stephen Paddock bought the guns legally and passed all background checks, buying a lot of guns from Guns & Guitars - how is there a shop like this? So, clearly, background checks and screenings do not work.





So, come up with stricter regulations, bans, or something better. Doing nothing is more disrespectful than anything.

The second amendment doesn't matter right now. Not when it starts to affect people's lives. The word amendment literally means "a minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation, etc." The law amendment was also created when fire arms weren't anywhere near as lethal as they are now.

So, when will enough be enough? A few months down the line when this happens again? When 100 people die in a mass shooting? When is enough enough?



This simple act of terrorism cannot happen again.





Share and comment.



