That's a very tired strawman argument. Gun control with other measures (ie. mental health funding) all contribute to inhibiting mass shootings. Paddock legally bought 33 guns (most of the assault variety) over the course of "several days" per the LV Sheriff. Had we had the system in place to tie the totality of the gun purchases to a single non-dealer buyer we may have been able to react or at least investigate. I'm railing on a purposeful paper-based background system. It's purposeful to prevent law enforcement from putting all the dots together and interceding in Paddock's plans. Why is it impossible to limit the carnage? In 10 minutes Paddock took out more Americans than the Taliban did on any single day. Keep in mind, what Paddock did was completely legal up until he fired the first shot at the security guard. Bill O'Reilly was right. Letting a crazy dude purchase 30 assault rifles, thousands of rounds of ammunition and mow down 59 people and wound another 500 is the "price of freedom". I'll say it only once. That is ****** up! We are the only industrialized nation that guarantees the right to maximum carnage over an irrational hyperbolic fear that the government is going to "take my guns". Weapons designed for war should not be in the hands of citizens. When I was in the Army I had to check out/in my M16A4 and count the shells to prevent a weapon of war from walking off the base. The NRA in this instance is insane. I have no problem with pistols, hunting rifles or other associated weapons generally used for sport. Next year, when someone surpasses 59 kills in a single mass shooting I'll be ready for the same ******* excuses. That's all they are. Excuses because the gun control crowd has no other solution on the table but to accept more mass casualties by a single deranged assailant. Your price of freedom just left hundreds of families damaged.