Stephen Paddock Today, Who Tomorrow?
By: Chloe Sherman
Late in the evening of October 1st, 2017, gunshots rang across a stage near the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada. 50 people were killed and over 400 are in critical condition due to Stephen Paddock's 15 minute mass killing spree. Americans across the country mourn for the loss of both dignity and many innocent Americans. However, our country needs to not only mourn but also consider the consequences of gun supply and demand and usage in our country. It’s time for our country to make a difference and end gun violence. 
American’s are allowed the right to obtain a Concealed Carry permit, which has been in high demand lately as Americans are feeling more unsafe and in need of protection. Though yes, taking classes and obtaining a permit is a viable option that doesn’t solve the problem of gun usage in American, rather it raises that bar. Naturally as more adults obtain their permit supply and demand increases causing more gun purchases which means more guns on the streets. Also, with a Concealed Carry permit one could buy how many guns they’d like as long as only one’s on your person or car. “Investigators found 23 firearms in Paddock’s room at Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino and 19 more at his home” (NBC). Paddock did violate that rule, along with many, but with his ability to purchase multiple guns he caused a mass killing. 
As seen above, within the first nine months of 2017, gunned down deaths and injuries and mass shootings is very high. It’s absolutely sickening seeing how many lives have been innocently taken and destroyed and with a total of 273 mass shootings alone this year. Australia has found a way to stop this madness and lower these statistics. “Between 1979 and 1996, Australia had 13 mass shootings. Since 1996, when the country introduced a law that banned the sale of semiautomatic weapons and launched a buyback program for weapons that have already been sold, there have been no mass shootings. None” (The New Yorker). The more of a toll americans put on their guns the safer americans will feel. This definitely will bring an opportunity cost into play, banning the usage and ownership of guns which leads to americans feeling more safe and end upending mass shootings all together, or let Americans keep their guns with the potential of danger around them.
When will it become enough, if gun supply and demand keeps increasing and shootings keep piling it, when will we finally stop it. How far is too far? Is 600 plus innocent victims not enough to bring the idea that something needs to change, that something has to be done? The scary reality is, nobody knows who the next Stephen Paddocks will be, and by paying more attention to gun tolls, and even possibly abolishing guns altogether, a difference can be made.
Works Cited
Audrey Carlsen, Kenan Davis, Ford Fessenden, K.k. Rebecca Lai, Sergio PeÇanha, Anjali Singhvi, Tim Wallace, Derek Watkins And Jasmine C. Lee. “What Happened at the Las Vegas Strip Shooting.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/02/us/mandalay-bay-vegas-shooting.html. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017.
Blankstein, Andrew, et al. “More than 50 people killed, 200 hurt in Las Vegas Strip shooting.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 2 Oct. 2017, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/las-vegas-police-investigating-shooting-mandalay-bay-n806461/. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017.
Cassidy, John. “Las Vegas, Gun Violence, and the Failing American State.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 3 Oct. 2017, www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/las-vegas-gun-violence-and-the-failing-american-state. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017.
Kristof, Nicholas. “Preventing Future Mass Shootings Like Las Vegas.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/opinion/mass-shooting-vegas.html. Accessed 3 Oct. 2017
Changing the law to forbid gun use in the United States would make no difference in the number of guns in the United Sates. It has become far easier and more common to purchase and illegal gun at lower prices than to go through the gun coarse to be granted permission to have a conceal and carry. Personally, I believe that gun use should be stopped, however that is nearly as impossible as to stop the use of illegal drugs in the United States.
ReplyDeleteHi Chloe, I found your writing inspiring as a politician and economist because you really threw your opinion in your writing. When I heard about the shooting I was shocked and as I listened to a general describing the event, he was just as shook. One interesting thing I heard from the news was that the shooter committed suicide after which leads me to believe he was embarrassed, or just didn’t want to face the consequences, of what he did. If people are killing themselves after they commit to a mass shooting, why are they doing this? Should we be making laws about mass shootings specifically to prevent suicides or change the consequences? I found it was really interesting you brought up the Concealed and Carrying laws, it didn’t occur to me until after your writing that with these permits...anyone can have a gun and perform a shooting. If anyone has a gun in public property, how can you assume they mean no harm? Thank you for sparking my curiosity.
ReplyDeleteCompletely agree that we need to limit gun use and distribution. Guns are a major problems to violence, but it's mostly the person behind the gun. I think there should be an easy way to identify potential psychopaths that want to obtain a firearm. I think people have to take a certain psychology test before they can obtain a firearm. This is what will prevent mass shootings. (Vinny)
ReplyDeleteHearing about this tragedy was very shocking and difficult to understand how one person can cause so much pain and destruction. It’s crazy to think that it’s now the largest mass shooting in history. Some people blame lose gun control laws, while others blame the people. I think that gun restrictions are a hard balance because no matter what, there will always be shootings. I think that there should be a little more restriction on how many guns one owns and that there should be better background and mental health checks before being allowed to purchase a gun. However, I believe that people kill people and it’s not always the guns fault. Your post was very interesting and well written and I enjoyed reading another person’s perspective on this issue.
ReplyDeleteYour piece was well written and had incorporated economy into an event that most wouldn’t think of the economy in. Such as the supply and demand and opportunity costs of gun laws and allowing Americans to have guns. Alongside, I enjoy the use of other countries’ laws on guns and how it might help America if we implemented them. I do believe gun laws should be pulled back a bit, but still allow people to carry weapons. Such as create a limit cap on how many weapons a person can have unless they go through extra screening and testing before they can get a secondary gun license that allows them to get a new limit cap that is higher, and just keep doing that until it is no longer needed. Creating more doorways and gates for people to have to trudge through to get what they wish, so if they really do wish to get the weapons, they would be willing to go through such screenings and testings. Also with each new license they could introduce new weaponry that a citizen can have the ability to buy. Sort of like a ranking system; first license owners would only be allowed small firearms, while secondary get a bit larger, and so on until we hit the limit of legal weapons that citizens can purchase. Overall, your piece was great and expressed great views that helped create ideas in the reader’s mind about the laws.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that there should be restrictions placed on guns, there is not much in terms of legislation that could get put into law. Especially with a majority of Republicans in the House and Senate. I think the first step is denying the SHARE Act that the GOP is planning to vote on soon. The act would make silencers much easier to acquire and smooth the path for people to purchase more guns. Whatever side you stand on, you have to agree that something in terms of policy has to be proposed to make change.
ReplyDeleteWhat Stephen Paddock did was just insane. Who knows what made him want to kill. Everyone in his family and everyone that knew him said he was super nice and never about any of the craziness he showed on October 1st. I agree that semi automatic guns should not be allowed. Most of the guns used in these mass shootings are semi automatic. Without them It would be very hard to kill a lot of people. But even if we do banned them or take them away people will still find a different way to kill.
ReplyDeleteStephan Paddock’s actions were brutal. For him to be able to have gotten hold of all those weapons in the first place is insane. I think that the United States Government should ban all these kinds of weapons, to lower the probability of these attacks happening. I totally agree with the fact that the Gun supply and demand is high and it needs to stop to completely prevent this. I think it is insane that Australia has only had about 13 mass shootings in the past 20 years, and we average more than a few a year. Take action by following in other countries footsteps and get rid of concealed carry law
ReplyDeleteI agree and I think Stephan Paddock should not have been able to use these weapons but changing to gun laws will have little effect on what is happening. Having weapons like this illegal will make it harder but not impossible and it will take away the rights of millions of people who use these guns in the right and safe way. The government needs to find a way to make sure people like this can not get their hands on a gun and not take it away for everyone.
DeleteAlthough there have been many mass shootings in the past, weapons are needed for protection. If one were to get a gun, there should be steps taken to getting it such as getting a license. There should also be a way to keep track of the guns being sold and to who they are being sold in order to keep it safer. If there was a shooting, it would be easier to tell who's gun it is if the state required a certain license where they keep track of the gun and who's buying it.
ReplyDeleteSemi-automatic guns with more than 12-20 rounds should be banned. Shootings like this is the reason why America needs to put a control on the amount of rounds a gun can fire in a minute. Everything Stephen Paddock owned was entirely legal, including a modified rapid-fire device that allowed him to shoot over 800 bullets a minute. There is absolutely no reason why a person would ever need such a device, unless their aim was to commit mass murder. Also the typical person shouldn't need more than 20 rounds in a magazine to go hunting or defend themselves. I am not against guns, I am against guns that have no practical purpose except to kill other people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement on how we need to make a more stricter law on guns because people are finding way too easy of ways to get guns with no background check whether it's from the US or from another country. However, I also believe that it’s also the people behind the gun that is doing the damage, and should receive some test before purchasing a gun because you don’t realize that you could be giving a gun to a crazy person. Overall, I thought this was a really interesting topic to talk about and see your point of view on the gun laws.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I believe that we should not ban guns completely, but we should make sure that it is harder for people to get semi-automatic weapons. As the years go on in the US people do fear more and more for their safety, and they should be allowed to purchase and obtain hand weapons and the right to bear arms and protect themselves, but they can do this without automatic weapons, or many weapons. I know and understand that if people do want to buy these types of guns they will find a way to, but we should just make it more available to get smaller weapons and classes/lessons on safety.
ReplyDeletePeople like Stephen Paddock are mentally ill, and are able to kill without remorse, but that is the matter of psychological damage, and possible biological concerns. People like him will find ways to buy weapons, but they should not be able to get a hold of dozens like he had.
I agree that gun laws should be more strict where an average American citizen should not be able to walk into a gun shop and buy any type of gun. It really makes the rest of society unsafe and like you said, no one knows who the next Paddock will be. In order to ensure the safety of Americans, I do believe that gun sales should be limited and there should be more thorough background checks of people buying guns. On the other hand, I generally liked how you incorporated economics into your piece. Overall, you did a good job explaining the events and their consequences.
ReplyDeleteI agree as well that gun laws should be more strict, the only problem is people find 100 different ways around them. With the black market or anything really it all depends who you know. It's like illegal drugs, you just have to know the right people in order to get things. It is such a sad tragedy that happened and I've been here and just knowing and remembering the feel of what it could've been like breaks my heart.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the gun laws in the US need to be stricter, though I feel that the concealed carry law isn’t the biggest problem. As you mentioned, most people get their concealed carry for their own protection, so in most of those cases, those guns won’t be fired unless the carrier feels unsafe or in major danger. I would say the laws that need to be changed are the ones allowing retail stores like Walmart to sell guns to customers without any kind of background check. The man who was the shooter in the mass shooting in Las Vegas had many, many guns on him, 23 as you mentioned, and he was allowed to have that many firearms, most being rifles and machine guns. I would say gun laws need to be changed, but also security laws, because this man was able to bring in 23 firearms to a hotel. There should be more security checks for bigger places such as hotels, casinos, movie theaters, etc.
ReplyDeleteWe could have more strict gun laws, but that wont really do much. If someone wanted to commit a crime like Paddock they can easily find ways and loopholes to get guns. Believe me,if someone really wanted to commit a crime they could easily get a gun EVEN with strict laws. But I do agree that the semi automatic guns need to be banned. There is no need for a gun that deadly.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point of gun laws needed to be more strict. Where certain people should be able to own a gun and not just everyone. On the other hand I feel like if the laws are super strict there are still gonna be people who don't agree with the law and will break it anyways. I liked how you added certain parts of economics to this piece because when I first saw it I didn't really know how you could connect it back to economics.
ReplyDeleteThe United States needs to ban guns period if you are not a police officer, apart of the armed forces, or holding some type of authority. Then you should not have a gun at all, the more and more we keep slapping this on the wrist. The more these problems are going to occur over and over. Peoples wife's,husbands, fathers, mothers, and etc are lost. This is not a joke this needs to end or something major is going to happen.
ReplyDeleteGreat job Chloe! After reading your article on the Las Vegas shooting, I decided to conduct a little more research myself. As of Monday, 59 people were reported dead—including the gunman—and about 500 others injured. The gunman, Stephen Paddock, had multiple semiautomatic rifles, weapons that fire a single round with each pull of the trigger. Twelve separate rifles the gunman had in his hotel room on Sunday were outfitted with a "bump stock”, a device that enabled him to fire hundreds of rounds per minute. Bump stocks are legal and inexpensive, with some versions advertised for $99. In 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California proposed outlawing bump stocks, but Congress has not acted on her proposal. She proposed a ban again on Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. economy will take a hard hit from this tragic shooting financially, but also in regards to American safety and security. It isn't appropriate that almost anyone is capable of purchasing a variety of lethal weapons; you never know what someone has planned ... even Marilou Danley, the girlfriend of the gunman in the Las Vegas mass shooting, claims she knew nothing of his horrific plans.
I agree that a stricter policy is needed in order to maintain a controlled society. As more and more incidents occur that fear humans, the more anxious they become and second guess their thoughts. People own guns as a usage for protection, but how far does a situation have to go in order to trigger a person to shoot someone or something. We as people have different levels of fears and also different limits in which affects the decisions we make. A change should be made in the world so the demand for weapons and arms is not as high as they are currently. As the demand of guns decrease, people can save money and time for other more important and useful things that don't regard a fear they have.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do agree with you that there should be a limit on the amount of guns an individual can purchase, I don't know how this law would come about. To begin with, banning guns or even limiting the amount of guns or type of guns someone can purchase, will be very controversial. There will most likely be many protests both nonviolent and violent. Secondly, the American Government can not actually ban the purchase of guns in this country. This would be a violation of the Constitution on multiple levels, most notably the 2nd and 5th amendments. And although the Constitution has been changed before, it is not common and takes a long time to do so. Something needs to change in the United States, but it may be awhile before that ever happens.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statements about how guns laws need to improve. Also, I agree that this will effect the supply and demand curve within the gun industry due especially due to the recent violence in the news.
ReplyDeleteI agree that action needs to be taken in Washington in regards to gun control. While it's not realistic to ban all guns in the U.S., I think it would be smart for the government to outlaw semi-automatic weapons and devices like bump stocks which are used to make legal guns automatic. Rather than completely infringe on the right to own a firearm, officials need to step in and regulate assault weapons to decrease the frequency and deadliness of these mass shootings that could be prevented with strengthened gun control laws.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the answer to end mass shootings in the United States is probably the hardest to answer, given the amount of guns in our country and the people who will fight for their rights to bare them. The case of Stephen Paddock, the perpetrator of the Las Vegas massacre, makes the situation even more difficult to solve; he had essentially no criminal record, and was not perceived by acquaintances as a belligerent person. So how do we prevent presumably normal people from buying guns? The simple answer is to overrule the 2nd amendment, but we all know that will not happen in the current day US, where guns outnumber the amount of adults. Conservatives, who support gun freedom, also have majority control of congress until at least 2018, so we can assume that new laws will be very difficult to pass. The right wing agenda will fight to halt any further gun control laws as they have for the past 5 years, so they turn the blame to mental illness, even though not all killers are mentally unstable. I don't see any changes from the government in the near future. Gun companies will never enforce more restrictions either; their main incentive is to make money, not to prevent murder.
ReplyDeleteI agree that gun violence needs to get under control in America. It's frightening to realize that there could be more people gathering guns legally since the only have one on their person. It's also scary that the shooter decided to commit suicide after the mass homicide because we can never find out his intentions. From an economics perspective, I would agree that it would be beneficial to reduce the amount of guns in circulation and make it more difficult to obtain a permit because while it could lower revenue in the gun industry, it would ultimately increase safety for Americans.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the demand for guns will remain high even if the government steps in that is why there should be a limit of supply which I believe was hinted at in the post if this was the message that was being portrayed I agree.
ReplyDeleteI agree with John. even if the government bans or restricts gun sales and use there will simply be a dramatic increase in the black market gun sales. If someone, such as Stephon Paddock, is sick in the head enough to really want to murder massive amounts of people, legal or not he is going to find a way to get the gun. The only people gun bans will really prevent from getting their hands on guns are the people who do not intend to use them unless absolutely necessary for protection. Now what you have is the same amount of people with guns looking to cause havoc and a reduction in the number of people who by guns to protect themselves from such people. All in all, I think stricter gun laws will do nothing but make it worse.
DeleteI agree that gun laws need to get a little bit strict, but how will we do that? Gun control has been debated for years with no actual outcome. Also, the President and many other government figures said "Gun laws can wait." And there is no easy way to find every gun and take them from people. The many firearms found also bring up an issue on hotel security. I've never had someone check my suitcase's contents before I enter, and that allowed him to easily bring guns in. There is also the problems with what we can do to control guns. If they were banned, Americans would get angry over the loss of the second amendment. People can also buy guns illegally, leading to guns that have no record of an owner. This would make it near impossible to remove guns, or even ban them. The only option I see is to make the background checks better, and clear less people for a firearm.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that America needs better gun control. Innocent people continue to die due to gun violence and nothing is being done. Many Americans argue that we should have guns because of the right to bear arms amendment; however, that amendment was created a long time ago and guns were not as advanced as they are today. Also, I believe that America should follow in the footsteps of Australia. If Americans aren't allowed to have guns, then people won't need to buy guns to protect themselves from others that own guns. Additionally, banning guns will show the victims of mass shootings and their families that their death did have an impact on our country and its regulations regarding guns.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that gun control should be tighten. One obvious positive externality of that would be hopefully less gun violence. However, I believe that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. While tightening down on gun control may fix one problem, it may just cause others as people will look to other means of violence. One negative externality of tightening down on gun control would be the backlash of the American people and the fact that it would impose on the right to bear arms. In addition, revenue may be lost as less gun permits would be sold. What are some other economic problems linked to the recent gun violence? Has the income from tourism in Las Vegas decreased since?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the gun violence is jumping as more and more guns are purchased, but as Alison states guns don't kill people, people kill people is enough to change many perspectives, these guns are used for mostly self defense in arms of people who do not feel save. These guns can provide a safe feeling for many in homes knowing that they can protect themselves and family. Even though guns can harm many I believe conceal carry should stay but the process behind should change eliminating many guns and others who may have had family issues or illnesses that could trigger a shooting. I also believe classes on control should be longer so if you are dedicated you have to take the time to get the defensive weapon.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with the fact that gun violence is taking a leap in our culture and it needs to be stopped. On the other hand I believe that conceal carry is a good idea for Americans. It makes people feel safer when they have it in some instances and most gun related deaths don't come from someone who has a conceal carry permit. The man who fired on the Jason Aldean concerts was in a hotel room, multiple stories up with an arsenal that carried weapons much more harmful than a pistol you carry at your hip.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with Alison on the fact that people kill people, not guns. Certainly if we make more strict policies on gun control, then gun violence should decrease. But we can't forget about mental health. Mental Health is a huge factor in these cases, and we need more done for that issue.
ReplyDeleteI believe that gun control should be increased and that Washington should do all they can to remove guns from the street. However, because people want a way to defend themselves, as the amount of mass shootings increase the demand for owning guns may increase. Additionally, if the government attempts to put restraints on the kinds of guns or amount of guns sold the black market will continue to provide these products illegally. I think our best hope in this case is to increase gun control laws and try to find a way to increase security at major events like concerts, plays, and sporting events.
ReplyDeleteI highly agree with this. If Paddock was able to break a bunch of laws to get the guns used in the shooting then I think that adding more laws will slow down the issue for a little bit but eventually people will find another loophole or black market to obtain these weapons. Increasing security and taking extra precautions at events like these will have the strongest impact because people won't feel the need to be armed in order to feel safe. Overall the increase in laws won't stop the gun violence but by taking the extra precautions it will help police officers stay one step ahead of the game.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear gun violence is out of control in the United States, and it's also pretty clear the United States isn't doing too much about it. Yes people feel safe when they have a carry and conceal, but it's just a feeling. How many times do people actually use it for their safety? If you don't feel safe, don't go in that area or get a security system for the house. Guns are too big of an issue, and making thousands of people unsafe, to be protecting people who just want to feel safe. It's like a bomb, a person can go off at any time, and if that person has easy access to guns like America allows them to, then there could be harm done to others. This guy had 10 guns, and only a background check is done. The things that can happen to a person after they buy a gun or to their mental state goes on and on. It's not safe, and there's no way to know if a person will snap. It could be anyone effected next, even family members, if guns continue to be allowed.
ReplyDeleteI found it really interesting how Australia has had no shootings since the changes. It makes me wonder how a change like this would effect the United States. Are the mass shootings recently causing Americans to feel less safe resulting in more guns being purchased out of fear? The increase in gun purchases could be a result of bandwagoning. If more people are buying guns, others will want to do the same because it seems like everyone has them. I also agree with the previous comments that the reason for the gun violence resulting from the purchasing of guns is actually because of the person holding the gun, not because of the laws.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! Like Nicole, I thought it was interesting that mass shootings in Australia were completely eliminated after gun laws were changed. I did a quick search and found that states with the least restrictive gun laws tend to have the most gun related deaths -- including mass shootings, suicides, and killed police officers. As most have mentioned, I doubt that Americans will completely give up their right to bear arms; however, further restrictions are clearly needed to prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we must make semiautomatic guns harder to obtain. There's really no purpose to having a gun that powerful. However there is no way that we can completely ban guns due to the 2nd Amendment. It is a very complex issue that has taken years to sort out, eventually a law or laws will be put in place restricting the purchase of guns but I'm afraid these laws will not be put in place fast enough to prevent further gun deaths in the coming years.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Retherford
Delete