I'm going to post an opinion here. I know some will disagree.
I think that one Congressman's opinion that Congress lead to this happening is indirectly true. Before you rage, at least hear me out:
The right to bear arms is, to quote rulings: for 'self defense'. Of all the types of guns out there, the only gun you should need for self defense should be a handgun. Shotguns and Rifles are not tools of self defense, but of murder. The sheer difference in destructive power even between a normal handgun and a relatively modern rifle is leagues apart. Even comparing the old flintlock 'handguns' to a rifle from say the American Revolution is a league apart.
Simply put: the point of the amendment is not so you can kill. And it's not for the purpose of maintaining a hobby either.
This comes back to the beginning: it's congress' fault, namely the republicans and the NRA filling their pockets (let's be real people, before anyone argues otherwise, there's a clear and confirmed moneytrail there, and no, I am not a democrat, I am a neutral voter who will vote republican or democrat depending on the needs of this country at the time of an election), for letting these weapons into the wild.
To disable an opponent with a handgun is possible enough. To defend yourself against anything short of certain wild beasts is possible with one. So then, what's the point of having anything more? Well, there isn't. That's my view on this. While I can't fully argue against shotguns as an ideal means of defense against say bears, there is
absolutely no modern need for any form of rifle in civilian hands.
The modern rifle tend to be mid-long range weapons with far more accuracy, and also on average more destructive force than a handgun due to their larger rounds (see:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-mor...shotgun-and-why/answer/Ben-Skirvin?srid=u7M6e ). Why would such a weapon need to be in civilian hands, when it's clearly meant for more disruptive, destructive use than a handgun, which is the ideal tool for self defense? To carry a rifle anywhere in public is an intended show of hostility and force, hence why they are not usually covered by law to be carried about (kinda like how they banned katanas in Japan, but nobody really is THAT off their rocker about a knife for self defense).
Why am I writing the above? The easy answer is, were there better restrictions and regulations in place, preventing the obtainment of rifles, then the ability to have launched an attack from 30 odd stories high and hit such a large number with not only such relative accuracy from such a distance, but with such a high casualty rate, would have dropped considerably.
I already said this but rifles should not have been in any civilian's hands. I barely appreciate the thought of Shotguns being in civilian hands. Because a rifle was in this man's hand, not only could he kill about 50, and injure about 500+, but he did so from a place nobody could quickly respond.
Were he instead forced to a handgun, or even a shotgun, the damage from his 'sniper's nest' would have been vastly inferior. I would estimate not even 10% of the damage would have occurred. This isn't about the morality of whether or not having guns is legal, this is a question of the morality of having certain guns and the damage those guns can cause. Afterall,
this same sort of question came up after a certain school shooting.
The question of the 'right to bare arms' can be turned around for those who think it means 'the right to bare any arms'. Under such an interpretation, I could bare a nuclear warhead, for an extreme example, and it would be under my '2nd amendment right', but that would be folly. It is an
"arm" (Yes, I'm being semantical, as the writers of the preamble believed more in semantics than the current day American). To quote: "
A weapon,
arm, or armament
is any device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems." But a nuclear weapon is clearly not an arm we are permitted to bare, so let's not even debate the legality of banning certain weapon types.
So the question is: should the common civilian be able to bare any sort of gun they so please in the name of self defense? My belief is a flat and resounding
NO. This Las Vegas nightmare is a resounding reason why there needs to be gun restrictions. I personally would love to see a complete ban on all forms of rifles - automatic and semi and the like; along with again a ban on all automatic weapons (it seems the 1994 ban ended 13 years ago...). Neither are the sort of tools a man needs for self defense. They are tools to inflict as much harm to as many as possible before being able to be reacted to for as long as possible.
And any mods that could create similar results should be similarly banned.
As I said above: were this man unable to, or less likely to have obtained rifles and/or their ammo, or any form of mod that made them automatic, this whole tragedy would have been a lot less tragic. But the fact remains that, even were he unable to get bumpstocks, the damage would have still existed. Not as bad, but the damage still would have been worse than had he been restricted to handguns. Those on the scene may have been baring guns and able to disable him had he been forced to closer range himself.
I do not support banning all firearms - I do support the right to every man to be able to defend himself. To that end, I do not support extreme gun laws banning all firearms. I only support the idea that the age of needing more than relatively close-range weaponry for self-defense is long past.
PS: Personally I'd love to see shotguns gone too as they are basically guaranteed kills at their range, which goes against the concept of 'defense' as in deterrence, but you'd need to rework the hunting associations and make them a singular group rather than 20+ different associations throughout the states, and manage their membership and the management of rifles and shotguns for hunting purposes so that mishandling of the weapons becomes a federal offense. It would require a lot of work from the federal government they just wouldn't support. Either way, just restricting rifles and automatics, and mods to emulate them, would do more than enough to heavily prevent another massacre like this.
Edit: I want people to realize one thing: yes, it was the man who did the damage, but the gun enabled him to inflict the volume of damage he did without retaliation. And that is the problem: the lack of defense and retaliation these people had. No different than if a sniper rifle were involved, or on a national scale - a nuke. The gun didn't do the action, but the man did. But the man could only inflict this much damage with a rifle. In fact rifles, automatic or not, are probably the #1 weapon in such massacres.
If you can't stop people from going insane, you can lessen the damage, and limit the means at which they can inflict damage with minor retaliation from the victims.
Edit 2: yes, I fully recognize that the black market and other illegal/under the table methods of obtaining these weapons will exist. But by limiting/removing legal venues, it would still make it harder for such events to occur.