Former FBI Profiler: ‘We Need Self-Control,’ Not ‘Gun Control’

Clint Van Zandt says Democrats want to legislate morality, but more laws are not the answer

Former FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt told Laura Ingraham today that “instead of gun control, we need self-control” in order to prevent further shooting sprees like Sunday’s massacre in Las Vegas.

During an interview Thursday on “The Laura Ingraham Show,” Van Zandt noted that Democrats’ typical response to a shooting always tends to turn to gun control and renewed scrutiny of the Second Amendment. Because gunman Stephen Paddock used a “bump stock” to make his semi-automatic weapon function more like a fully automatic weapon, many members of Congress have focused on outlawing bump stocks as part of their reaction to the tragedy, which left 59 people dead and more than 500 others wounded.

[lz_ndn video=”33075315″]

MORE NEWS: Ep 25 | Pence on the November Election and Mayoral Candidate in Portland Refuses to Condemn Violence

“We’re saying, ‘How do we legislate morality?’ And the answer is, you don’t. You don’t legislate morality, you don’t legislate sanity, you don’t legislate the Ten Commandments,” Van Zandt said. “If we want to feel good about something and say, ‘OK, we’ve legislated away bump stocks, so we can’t change the semi-automatic into a fully automatic,’ that’s fine. But instead of gun control, we need self-control.”

He added, “We need to work with kids and children in grade school and bring them up and have them look at violence as the last means for conflict resolution instead of, ‘Let’s pass a law, feel good, and go on.'”

Do you agree that protesting is acceptable, but rioting is not?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

As more details emerge about the gunman and the shooting itself, more unanswered questions have been raised, Van Zandt noted, including what Paddock’s true motives were and why law enforcement officials were so quick to label him a “lone wolf” who wasn’t radicalized.

“We always, from the profiling standpoint, we always look for some incident,” Van Zandt said. “What took place that turned this person on, that put him in high speed? What from the time when he was 60, when he wasn’t planning anything like this apparently till a year ago or six months ago, what happened in his life?”

“And that’s what [law enforcement is] trying to do, is reconstruct at least the last year, at least from the time [Paddock] started buying those weapons up to the current time,” he said.

MORE NEWS: John Cusack unravels: Trump’s ‘a test run for true evil: the anti-Christ for dummies’

The former FBI profiler also noted that a person can become “radicalized” in a manner that doesn’t have anything to do with radical Islamic terrorism, as he wondered why law enforcement officials ruled out “radicalization” only several hours after the massacre occurred.

[lz_related_box id=”848793″]

“One can become radicalized for a number of different thoughts, ideas, political, religious, personal. So radicalization in and of itself should not define what [Paddock] may or may not have gone under within the last year,” Van Zandt said.

He also pointed to the difficult position in which Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo finds himself.

“You’ve got to look at the sheriff. I mean, he’s under a hard dilemma,” Van Zandt said. “Number one, he has to put out a message that Las Vegas is safe, that people can come, they can continue to come … we’ve got this well in hand. And yet, you don’t want to … say, ‘OK, we’ve got it. There was only one shooter. That’s it.'” And then 15, 30 days from now, you do the, ‘Oh my God, how did we miss that? There was a second shooter.'”

“They wanted to tell Las Vegas it was safe, even if that’s a false sense of security,” the former profiler added. “So I think he’s trying to walk the fine line between being an investigator and being an elected official while the rest of America — and really the rest of the world — is saying, just like you’re saying, is one guy capable of this?”

Join the Discussion

Comments are currently closed.