Current gun control proposals wouldn't have stopped Tulsa

janmarcustrapp / Pixabay

It’s easy to forget that St. Francis Hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma was the site of yet another mass shooting. In the wake of Buffalo and Uvalde, that shooting is easy to miss due to the fact that it didn’t have quite the same staggering body count.


But it’s still a mass shooting, one some will use to justify pushing for gun control.

Currently, a bipartisan group of senators is hashing out a series of gun control proposals meant to stop such madness. However, those measures wouldn’t have done much in Tulsa.

Many of the gun control measures currently considered by Congress would not have stopped the gunman who killed four people and injured around ten people at the Saint Francis Medical Offices last week.

In the wake of numerous mass shootings in less than a month’s time, multiple proposals are currently being considered in Congress as a way to reduce the continuously growing number of mass shootings in America, but many of the proposals being considered by Congress would have only prevented school shootings like the one in Uvalde, Texas and not shootings like what happened last week in Tulsa.

Currently, Congress is considering proposals like raising the age someone can purchase a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21, magazine capacity limits, waiting periods for when someone could purchase a gun to when they could actually pick it up, comprehensive background checks, making all guns traceable, red flag laws, proper storage requirements, and an assault weapons ban.

Based off the events of that day and what witnesses and law enforcement have told FOX23, many of these proposals would not have stopped [name redacted] from opening fire on his victims in the orthopedic offices of the Natalie Building.

For example, the Tulsa shooter was a 45-year-old man. An age limit would have done nothing to stop him from getting his gun.


Further, at least some of his victims were shot with a handgun, not the AR-15 that’s been much demonized. It also suggests that he would have carried out the shooting regardless of whether he had a dreaded “assault weapon” or not.

They also note that a “ghost gun” ban would have done absolutely nothing here, either.

But what about magazine capacity limits? Could that have made a difference? It’s possible, of course. Police believe that had they acted as they did in Uvalde and waited outside, more innocent people would have died. Would magazine limits have prevented that? Again, it’s possible, but I also think it’s unlikely. After all, let’s look at Parkland. The killer there had 10-round magazines and still slaughtered plenty of innocents.

At some point, we need to come to terms with the fact that, at best, gun control is a band-aid solution being applied to an arterial bleed-type problem. Unless you deal with the issue at the root level, you’re never going o actually make a dent in it.

Meanwhile, gun control comes with tons of other issues and may well cost more lives than it might potentially save.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member