Saturday, April 5, 2014
Colonel Jack Jacobs vs. Professor John Lott
I must admit, John Lott came off better than the Colonel.
Jack Jacobs was indeed guilty of hyperbole. No one is talking about arming everyone on base or even every soldier. I'm afraid the Congressional Medal of Honor recipient took a winning argument and blew it.
The point is very simple. Arming people on military bases would increase the incidents of this type. And John Lott's suggestion that the shooter took advantage of the gun-free zone is false. This guy Ivan Lopez, like so many of them, went to the place of his grievance, unconcerned with the gun-free status of that place. Reports have been coming out that he'd been arguing with someone prior to the shooting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The entire video is here:
ReplyDeletehttp://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/04/media-matters-tpm-and-others-have-field-day-about-over-cprcs-interview-on-msnbc-gun-free-zones-on-military-bases/
Media Matters left off about four minutes of the discussion. The question is if there were combat veterans with guns at the base, would Lopez still have picked that place to engage in his attack.
Yes, that's always the question after a mass shooting at a gun-free zone. As I have pointed out repeatedly, most of these people go to the place of their grievance, regardless of its gun-free status. Lopez had argued with someone prior to the attack, according to some reports.
DeleteBut gun-free zones just about guarantee that the person targeted will be unarmed. That's the point.
DeleteNo, Greg, that's not THE point, it's one of the points. The other one is completely bogus, that gun free zones attract mass shooters.
DeleteUnsurprising that you miss the point we keep making, Mikeb.
DeleteOh, there's another point too. The more places we allow guns, the more places are going to see shootings - you know the ones done by you law abiding gun owners who suddenly stop being law abiding.
DeleteDo not call that scumtard Lott "professor". He is no professor. He is a liar, a cheat, and a faker.
ReplyDeleteArming good people who are trained to use weapons would result in a "terrible tragedy"? Oh, please. We see that disarmed victims have little chance. We also see cases where a good person using a gun stops a mass shooter. These wackos are cowards. When they meet with armed opposition, they kill themselves. The colonel's claim that no responsible commander would allow all soldiers to be armed is strange. Police commanders tell their officers to be armed. Soldiers are trained to be armed. But, of course, people who need to control others would never feel comfortable allowing those whom they control to have weapons.
ReplyDeleteAnd Mikeb, once again, you're exposing your fear of good citizens. You really do believe that everyone is just a hair trigger away from violent outbursts, whether they're gun owners or not. How you can stand to live around people is a mystery to me.
Not everyone, Greg. But a certain percentage of you are unfit and dangerous. The lower the qualifications and standards are, the higher that percentage is.
DeleteYet whenever you're offered the chance to come up with numbers, you just guess.
DeleteSpeaking of Professor Lott, I imagine he'll find much more joy in this news than the anti-self-defense fanatics will:
ReplyDeleteIn July of 2013, Illinois became the last state in the union to enact a concealed carry law. In January of this year, the state began accepting applications for permits. This week, Chicago police announced that the city’s first quarter murder rate was the lowest since 1958.
Personally, I'm pretty skeptical that there's a connection, but if it helps put the anti-"shall issue" nitwits on the defensive, that's good enough for me.
"This guy Ivan Lopez, like so many of them, went to the place of his grievance, unconcerned with the gun-free status of that place. Reports have been coming out that he'd been arguing with someone prior to the shooting."
ReplyDeleteI'll talk about the debate on the video in my next comment, but Mike I wanted to comment on your assertion. first, so far, we really have no idea as to whether he even planned to do a mass shooting. There may be some point where we find that out, but so far everyone is guessing. In this case, I happen to agree with you, that he did not pick the location because privately owned weapons are prohibited.
However, guns being prohibited certainly didn't help the situation. As you also rightly said, the people who commit such acts are unconcerned with the rules prohibiting weapons also.
There were armed military police there. They stopped the killer. Allowing soldiers on the base to be armed would create more problems than it would cure. We'd have more frequent incidents like this. Nothing could be more obvious.
DeleteExcept, Mikeb, that obvious counts for nothing. You have to have facts and logic.
DeleteDoes allowing police officers to be armed at their desk create more problems?
DeleteDidn't you ask me the same question on another thread?
DeleteYeah but, you hadn't answered at the time. When you did you deflected and compared police to other citizens with CCWs and not to soldiers. So why is it ok for trained police to carry at the station, and not ok for trained soldiers to carry at the base?
DeleteThe guy is a wacko and even if everyone was armed it would not have changed his mind. Just as being in a heavily armed post in a war zone (Iraq) did not stop that wacko from attacking and killing. The wackos will start using bombs instead of guns knowing all are armed, and killing even more. The idea that if everyone is armed will stop all this carnage, or all the wackos, is wacko. Jacobs is right and is much more reputable on the subject than some academic. One example, GC claims to be a professor, and we know what a dishonest extremest he is.
ReplyDeleteNow for my comment on the interview. Let me start by looking at his record, the Colonel has two big brass ones and I'd have every confidence in him as a combat leader. I'm not going to go into it here, but I'd invite you to take a peek at his bio, no matter what his politics, he rates being listened to. I also took some personal enjoyment hearing him put Lott in his place when he tried to interrupt.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_H._Jacobs
My first thoughts on the suggestion is the sheer logistical challenges of requiring everyone to carry. I know mike and any others who have spent any time in the military will understand just the time involved in drawing weapons, maintenance, and turning them back in. Perhaps MPs have a different procedure in light of their day to day operations and 24 hour coverage.
Perhaps there would be something doable in the area of issuing to say leaders, say squad size and above. I don't see any way the military is going to buy off on soldiers carrying their personal weapons during duty hours.
As for the weapons free policy on military bases, that is something that can be changed. I'm not sure that will realistically address the danger of mass shootings either. Military bases are havens of very law abiding people. So much so, that they have very low staffing in law enforcement resources. Many post entrances are manned by civilian security forces and often patrol inside is also provided. Many post MP units have been tasked overseas for missions in combat zones dealing with insurgencies.
There has been one of these events in a combat zone. In 2003 during the invasion of Iraq, a Sergeant tossed grenades into tents of sleeping soldiers and then shot some as they escaped the tents, killing two and injuring 14.
"Former Sergeant Hasan Karim Akbar (born Mark Fidel Kools on April 21, 1971) threw four hand grenades into three tents in which other members of the 101st Airborne Division were sleeping, and fired his rifle at fellow soldiers in the ensuing chaos. Army Captain Christopher S. Seifert was fatally shot in the back, and Air Force Major Gregory L. Stone was killed by a grenade. Fourteen other soldiers were wounded by Akbar, mostly from grenade shrapnel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_Akbar_case
The Ft. Hood shooting brought back some memories of my own experience with a shooting on a military-mandated "self-defense-free zone" back in 1995.
ReplyDeleteFull story at JPFO.
Wow, fascinating.
DeleteKurt, too bad you weren't allowed to carry a gun while running PT. You could have been the hero and that would have made a wonderful story for JPFO.
DeleteI harbor no delusions of being "hero" material.
DeleteColonels count for naught when compared to Real Americans that is conservatives.
ReplyDeleteWhere is Laci chiming in to say that soldiers are the modern militia (the only subject of the right) and are having their right to keep and bear arms violated?
ReplyDelete