Texas shooter violated a multiplicity of gun laws – ‘morally reprehensible’ to say more would help

The Uvalde mass shooting has prompted another outcry from the Democrat Party for stricter gun control laws, with the belief among the left being that tighter restrictions on gun purchases would have somehow prevented Tuesday’s tragedy.

But critics say and have long said that this emotionally driven mentality is just plain wrong.

Here’s how conservative commentator Ben Shapiro put it: “The Texas shooter violated a multiplicity of gun laws. The suggestion that more gun laws would have prevented this act of unspeakable evil is unsupported, and the implication that those who oppose such laws are somehow in favor of mass shootings is morally reprehensible.”

But is there merit to his argument? The answer appears to be yes and no.

On one hand, schools are gun-free zones, according to Dana Loesch, an expert on guns who used to serve as a National Rifle Association spokesperson.

This means that shooter Salvador Ramos was already in violation of the law when he entered Robb Elementary School. Therefore, the law prohibiting weapons on school grounds did nothing to stop him. So how would additional laws have made a difference?

But on the other hand, according to the latest reports, Ramos may have committed the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School with a rifle he’d purchased legally.

“State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, a Democrat, said the shooter purchased two semiautomatic rifles on his 18th birthday at an Uvalde-area gun store. It was not clear whether either of those weapons was used in the attack,” according to NBC News.

State Sen. Gutierrez was reportedly briefed by the Texas Rangers.

What’s known is that prior to entering Robb Elementary School, Ramos was seen wielding a handgun and possibly a rifle.

“It is believed that he abandoned his vehicle, then entered into the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde with a handgun, and he may have also had a rifle,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced late Tuesday.

Regarding the handgun, he definitely violated state and federal law, according to Loesch:

And so if he primarily used the handgun during the mass shooting, then the question remains — how would additional gun laws have helped?

But if he primarily used the rifle that he’d presumably purchased legally, then that might raise valid questions about the leniency of America’s gun laws, members of the left say:

However, critics rightly note that the country is littered with illegally obtained weapons, including both firearms and rifles.

In fact, a study published by the Department of Justice in 2019 found that of the 287,400 criminals locked up in 2016 for criminal offenses involving weapons, over 90 percent of them had obtained the weapons illegally.

“More than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift,” the study reads.

Only seven percent had purchased a gun from a licensed arms dealer.

Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Latest Articles