The only reason I write today is because, unlike several of your counterparts, I believe you have a measurable I.Q. I share your shock and disappointment with the events of 1 October in Las Vegas. The loss of innocent life at the hands of a genetic defect is tragic, but your call for more gun control is flawed. I’m not going to rehash the true and common argument that no additional gun laws would have prevented Stephen Paddock from carrying out his heinous act. My argument is simpler and grounded in an economics principle that we know as substitution.
Tighter gun laws, assault weapon bans, ammunition restrictions, accessory restrictions will solve nothing. Evil, violence and hatred are human behaviors and in the absence of a firearm a human will find a way to express their violence and hatred. When a gun is inaccessible or unavailable, a perpetrator will use a vehicle, a knife, Molotov cocktail or any other device that he or she can gain access to or construct, this is substitution, and France, UK, Brussels and Madrid are living proof of that concept. Jimmy, when you are hungry at a ball game and they’re out of burgers you’ll eat a hot dog. So, unless you can figure out a way to implant a cranio-rectal or cranio-vaginal short circuit detector at birth, gun control will prevent nothing. I don’t think you’re ready to accept mass murder by truck as being o.k., are you?
I close by expressing my sincere hope that your shock over the Las Vegas tragedy is more than pandering to a mutual admiration society, or opportunism, but rather a genuine condemnation backed by a sizeable cash donation to aid the families of victims.