Wednesday, 4 October 2017

Las Vegas shooting and the BBC

The bizarre and tragic shooting dead of 58 people by Stephen Paddock in Las Vegas three days ago has the BBC frothing at the mouth. (He also shot himself, making the total dead 59, but that’s not tragic.) Predictably the BBC went from merely reporting the news to making the case for gun control long before the bodies were cold.

Breathless reporters announced that in America “machine guns are freely available”, semi-automatics can easily be converted to fully automatic, and “you can buy as much ammunition as you can afford.”

Of these, only the last is true. Why the BBC is so keen to control guns in a foreign country is not clear. What they never said of course is that if Stephen Paddock had simply rented a truck and driven it through the 22,000-strong crowd at the Route 91 Harvest music festival, he would undoubtedly have killed far more people. In July 2016, Mohammed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel did just that in the Prominade des Anglais park in Nice, France. He killed 86 people.

The inconvenient truth is that gun control would not prevent mass killings, but it would prevent people from defending themselves. Either nobody has guns, or everybody has guns. In the UK, the nobody option just about works. In the USA, if you took away the guns from law-abiding citizens then only the criminals would have guns. Strangely, that seems to be what the Left, including the BBC, wants.

Some will ask, even if you accept self-defence as reason to own a pistol, why should semi-automatic AR-15s be allowed? Surely, they are for crime only? Well, no, they are mainly used for hunting. The technology of a “black gun” the scary guns people want to ban, is no different from that of the “brown” guns – the guns considered respectable. In terms of muzzle velocity and rate of fire, they are the same. But because they look “military” the Left wants them banned.

Regarding true machine guns, they are largely banned in the USA anyway. During the 1980s Ronald Regan banned new machine guns from being registered, so unless you have one dating from back then (now worth $30K-$50K on the open market) you are not getting one. (There are exemptions for dealers authorized to sell to the police and armed forces.)

So, Stephen Paddock did not have any true machine guns. He seems to have had some devices to increase the rate of fire of semi-automatics but that is all.

We do not currently know why Paddock did what he did. He does not match the profile of a mass shooter. He was rich, mature in years, white, educated, no previous criminal record, and had no known religious or political convictions. He must have known he would die, but he had no expectation of 72 virgins. In fact, he is almost textbook to make the case for gun control. It is as though someone said, gun control is stalling – we need an atrocity to put it back on the agenda. The whole operation really seems too “organized” to be just an accountant gone loopy.

Paddock did make two mistakes though. He failed to use silencers on his weapons; which made him easier to locate, and he failed to block the smoke detectors in his hotel bedroom which allowed the police to find him when his gun smoke set them off.

This whole thing has the smell of “who shot JFK?” about it. Was Stephen Paddock the real shooter, or just a patsy? A real shooter will have left letters or videos explaining his actions. A real shooter would want recognition and posthumous fame. But if this is really a false-flag operation, Paddock’s motivation will remain obscure, mainly because he didn’t have one.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Kind of surprising that no one has yet managed to get the appropriate security footage from the hotel on T.V. until that's been independently vetted and authenticated I'm loving the conspiracy theory.