Rhetorical Response: “We Can’t Stop Murder”

Paper Info
Page count 3
Word count 956
Read time 4 min
Topic Sociology
Type Critical Writing
Language 🇺🇸 US

“We Can’t Stop Murder” is an article written by Shikha Dalmia, a senior analyst at Reason Foundation. On October 6, 2017, the article was published to address gun control, particularly in the United States. Most Americans have demanded arms control due to increased massacres in the country, especially after the mass shooting in Las Vegas. Such an urge is reasonable; however, there is no guarantee that it will entirely prevent capital crimes. While most Americans regard arms control as the key to ending gun-related violence, historical evidence proves otherwise.

First, frustrating the potential assailants is not more important than improving the victim’s defensive skills. Considering that twenty-three riffles were found in Stephen Paddock’s hotel room and nineteen others in his homestead, he was a gun nut. Using a “bump stock” device, Paddock managed to convert his guns into semi-automatic ones that would shoot several times and reload using the recoil energy (Dalmia, 2017). This incidence eviscerated the prevailing regulations and made private gun ownership difficult.

Second, Paddock had no criminal or mental illness record, which calls for strict gun rules. More Republicans and the National Rifle Association have supported the ban against conversion kits with “bump stock.” No capital offender has used “bump stock” before, and it is unclear if its ban would stop copycats from taking chances (Dalmia, 2017). Thinking that such actions can prevent motivated mass shooters is self-deception, especially after considering Paddock’s case, who excellently calculated his attack.

There are around three hundred rifles in the United States, almost one for every citizen. Congress’s decision to ban guns would still be futile, given gun fanatics would still purchase them. Additionally, decreasing the number of firearms in America can ensure that no terrorist buys a rifle without being noticed. However, accomplishing that does not necessarily involve a ban on guns. The solution is to wage war on firearms, similar to the conventional fight against terrorism. Contrary to The New Yorker’s Adam Gopnik, it will put an end to liberals’ “truce with the Second Amendment” and exenterate other constitutional aspects. According to Dalmia (2017), it is hard for American citizens to surrender their firearms willingly. It is not easy, even when they are politely requested to do so.

Liberals often regarded the Australian “buyback” programs as a practical model. However, its efficacy in limiting the number of rifles and crimes related to guns is highly controversial. Moreover, the model is not feasible because Australia has not succeeded in deterring illegal gun trafficking, which necessitated an additional amnesty initiative by the nation in 2017. The issue of gun possession in Australia is not more significant than in the United States. America’s love for guns explains why it has the Second Amendment, unlike Australia (Dalmia, 2017). Additionally, the considerable number of firearms in the US makes the buyback program unaffordable for taxpayers.

In this regard, the only alternative is to compel citizens to surrender their guns. The intrusive investigations conducted on the riffle owners’ property and homes would make warrantless communication surveillance of the Bush government seem completely restrained. Apart from that, the Americans will never accept such measures. As Dalmia (2017) argues, they will resist the government’s intrusive investigations, which is similar to declaring war on its own citizens. It is impossible to achieve the gun-free haven that liberals want. It is hard to wishfully eradicate the deep-rooted gun culture. As a result, the liberals must be ready to become ruthless if the number of firearms has to be lowered.

It is unclear, though, that the reduction of firearms would be worth it. Dalmia (2017) argues, that she is highly skeptical that reducing the number of firearms will end mass killings. During the mass shooting incident in Las Vegas, Paddock killed fifty-nine people, including himself. An important lesson can be inferred from some of the worst capital crimes that have occurred in the past. Examples are, 9/11, which involved skyjacking, killing thousands; the bombing of Oklahoma City in 1995, which claimed 168 lives; and the France shooting in which 87 people were killed and 434 others injured (Dalmia, 2017). The point is that there is hardly anything that can be done to stop criminals completely. The probability of havoc is infinite, and society has limited means to prevent them. Although the government may design an infallible system, offenders and psychotics will always exploit its weaknesses.

One of the good decisions involves introducing modest gun restrictions and asking private entities to improve their defensive measures. The way Paddock sneaked in firearms and installed surveillance cameras to monitor police movements is quite intriguing. In India, such situations could never happen. As the author wrote in a previous article, since the Mumbai attack in 2011, all the hotels run cars, luggage, and handbags through metal detectors (Dalmia, 2017). In addition, private guards have been installed in every neighborhood.

Due to the Indian government’s ineptness, citizens have found their own means to safeguard themselves from the assaulters. But even the most functional governments cannot fully guarantee security from every threat. Indeed, other industries should learn from the American Hotel and Lodging Association which has decided to reconsider its security protocols after the shooting in Las Vegas (Dalmia, 2017). Rethinking security strategies and building strong resistance is the only way to defeat criminals such as Paddock or Islamic terrorists, but chasing them is not an answer.

In conclusion, gun control is a controversial topic in the United States. In the recent past, the country witnessed atrocities such as mass murders and terror attacks. As a result, most people have associated gun ownership with gun-related violence. Historical evidence shows that arms reduction does not solve criminal offenses. Therefore, the only practical way to combat terrorism is to improve the victims’ defensive measures.


Dalmia, S. (2017). We can’t stop mass murder. The Week. Web.

Cite this paper


NerdyBro. (2022, June 7). Rhetorical Response: “We Can't Stop Murder”. Retrieved from https://nerdybro.com/rhetorical-response-we-cant-stop-murder/


NerdyBro. (2022, June 7). Rhetorical Response: “We Can't Stop Murder”. https://nerdybro.com/rhetorical-response-we-cant-stop-murder/

Work Cited

"Rhetorical Response: “We Can't Stop Murder”." NerdyBro, 7 June 2022, nerdybro.com/rhetorical-response-we-cant-stop-murder/.


NerdyBro. (2022) 'Rhetorical Response: “We Can't Stop Murder”'. 7 June.


NerdyBro. 2022. "Rhetorical Response: “We Can't Stop Murder”." June 7, 2022. https://nerdybro.com/rhetorical-response-we-cant-stop-murder/.

1. NerdyBro. "Rhetorical Response: “We Can't Stop Murder”." June 7, 2022. https://nerdybro.com/rhetorical-response-we-cant-stop-murder/.


NerdyBro. "Rhetorical Response: “We Can't Stop Murder”." June 7, 2022. https://nerdybro.com/rhetorical-response-we-cant-stop-murder/.