Friday, April 4, 2014
Fascinating Discussion on the Fort Hood Shooting
Retired Colonel and true hero, Medal of Honor recipient, Jack H. Jacobs said allowing concealed carry on military bases is a ridiculous idea. He said if we did that we'd see a lot more incidents like this one.
Perhaps my number 4 gun control law would have prevented this one as well as the Nadal one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"4. Three day waiting period for all first purchases."
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking this must be a typo Mike, since I'm not seeing rule 4 being germain to either shooting, since Hasan bought his firearm in July and practiced with it weekly until the shooting in November. I haven't seen anything about when Spc Lopez bought his firearm, though he had only been on post for a couple of months.
Yeah, you're probably right.
DeletePerhaps my number 4 gun control law would have prevented this one as well as the Nadal one.
ReplyDeletePerhaps. In the same sense that perhaps Elvis is alive, and made them commit their atrocities.
Do you think the idea of soldiers being armed is ridiculous?
ReplyDeleteYes, because if they were we'd have three of these incidents every year instead of every 5 years.
DeleteDo you also think the idea of police officers being armed while at the station is ridiculous?
DeleteNo, because the required training and screening for police is much closer to adequate, although in many cases not quite, than that required for civilian gun ownership and carry.
DeleteI thought we were talking about military carry, not civilian.
DeleteBut we were talking about trained soldiers carrying on base, which you called ridiculous. How is that different than trained officers carrying at the station, or taking their guns home (since many soldiers also live on base)?
DeleteThey're 18 and 19 years old, that's why? The training they've received in order to be cannon fodder in Iraq and Afghanistan does not translate into the maturity to safely carry guns every day. These guys love to drink and get rowdy, they love to rough-house with each other. On military bases, young soldiers are effectively civilians. That's where they live and work. The more guns you put in a situation like that, the more incidents of misuse of those guns you'll have.
Delete"The training they've received in order to be cannon fodder in Iraq and Afghanistan does not translate into the maturity to safely carry guns every day."
DeleteMike, the contradiction you just spoke is amazing. First you're saying that apparently while we can trust them to carry automatic weapons and explosives 24/7 on a base in a combat zone where the stress is arguably higher than on a post in the US, but once they get into the US, suddenly they aren't mature enough?
Plus, I believe, if memory serves, that the age to legally drink alcohol is 21. If drinking while carrying is a concern, then we can apply something that you always insist on, constrain them by law by setting rules for carrying while intoxicated, like they do in Minnesota. And carrying during the duty day shouldn't be an issue because the military already has rules for that, namely being drunk on duty.
Oh, so it's just the 18 and 19 year olds who shouldn't be allowed to carry? The officers, career military people, or basically anyone far enough into their enlistment to be old enough to be a cop (young 20s), are fine to carry? Or will that result in more shootings too?
DeleteThis discussion took a turn when TS asked about cops. My understanding is that cops carry guns in order to perform their jobs. Soldiers carrying on base would be like civilians carrying, that is to say, it would create more problems than it fixes.
DeleteRather than asking a loaded question, which I know you don't like, I'm going to make a statement on what I know your position to be: you disagree with your co-blogger Laci when he says the second amendment is a right that belongs to soldiers. Instead you say there is no right at all- it means nothing, mere surplusage (another point where you and Laci disagree as he has repeated often that the constitution has no surplusage).
DeleteMike,
DeleteThe comparison to civilian carry might be pertinent to carry when they're off duty--to which I would ask, why not allow them to carry around their residence and while going about their business if they would be able to do so off base.
Meanwhile, while they're on duty, the comparison to cops is appropriate, I believe. I still can't figure out why we wouldn't want to have active duty soldiers, who are on duty, carrying at least a side arm. If nothing else, it provides depth of coverage and protection of the base, both from the occasional shooter like this, and from any attempted terrorist attack. It's a military base--it stores dangerous materials, probably some classified stuff, etc.--I'd expect to see men with guns going about their business, ready to protect what needs protecting.
TS, your petty attempt to find disagreement between me and my co-blogger is just another pathetic personal attack. Don't you have anything better?
DeleteTS, your petty attempt to find disagreement between me and my co-blogger is just another pathetic personal attack.
DeleteAlready forgotten your numerous laughable attempts to drive wedges between me and other gun rights advocates here, Mikeb?
I don't think I've done that, but apparently you do and apparently you found it wrong in some way. So, why is the petty personal attack TS has made OK with you? That sounds like hypocrisy.
DeleteHmm . . . "apparently [I] found it wrong in some way"? I believe what I called it is "laughable." I enjoy laughter, and have no objection to you being amusing (albeit unintentionally). By all means, keep it up.
DeleteNo hypocrisy on my part.
Oh, and pointing out that you have expressed one interpretation of the Second Amendment, and Laci has expressed a different, incompatible, one, just doesn't qualify, I'm afraid, as a "petty personal attack."
Mass shooters typically plan these things out weeks or months in advance. How would making them wait three days prevent anything?
ReplyDeleteLopez had an argument with somebody. That's not planning weeks or months in advance.
DeleteHe bought the gun from a licensed dealer. That means that either he planned the attack or that he was carrying an already purchased gun illegally. Either way, a waiting period would not have changed anything but the date of the attack.
DeleteMost killings are a crime of passion and are not planned. Waiting periods wold prevent gun murders.
DeleteGiven the reports about the shooter, seems your # 1 would have helped.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds right.
DeleteYour #4 law is only if #1 is not in affect, right? You don't seriously believe someone could complete step 1 in less than three days, right?
ReplyDeleteThe waiting period for first purchases wouldn't start until the may issue process is completed, obviously.
DeleteThe waiting period would be as long as it takes the system to properly process criminal and mental health background checks. I would imagine that would take longer than 3 days, and I'm ok with that.
DeleteOh, good, so it will never happen.
DeleteBut what's the point of that? They obviously had a long wait between deciding to get a gun and then taking a written test, shooting test, interview with a shrink, eye test, and then the local police finally getting to their name in a stack of applications. That's your "cooling off period"- and it will be closer to three years than three days.
DeleteAnother extremist response. There is a difference between 3 days and never. To shorten that time we would need enough personnel to process all the applications. Gee, a job creating program that would increase safety in our society.
DeleteAnonymous, are you unaware that waiting periods were proposed because at the time, there was no widespread Internet and most records were on paper?
Delete"There is a difference between 3 days and never. To shorten that time we would need enough personnel to process all the applications."
DeleteAllowing the government unlimited time to "process" permits opens up the possibility of abuse in the permit system. That is why most gun laws recently written stipulate time limits on time allowed for the government to act. And if the government cant come up with a valid reason to deny in that period, then it defaults to being approved, as it should.
Some states, like Maryland, take the process to great heights of intrusion and delay as was documented in a series of articles written by Emily Miller of the Washington Post. I'd invite you to take a look if you've a mind.
"To shorten that time we would need enough personnel to process all the applications. Gee, a job creating program that would increase safety in our society."
DeleteThere doesn't have to be a waiting period problem, if you are willing to pay taxes to hire the people needed to process claims in a timely manner, which Republicans especially, are unwilling to do.
We have a responsibility to develop a workforce able to adhere to our laws in a timely manner. If we don't give that workforce the tools to do their jobs in a timely manner, that's our selfish fault.
Just like we don't tax ourselves enough to pay our bills and then end up with an 18 trillion dollar debt. That's our selfish fault.
No, I am not unaware of that GC. Gee, how did we process government documents before the computer? You always insult when you have no rational response.
DeleteTS, you have a good point. My rule number 1 would make the waiting period unnecessary. I didn't understand what you meant before.
DeleteYou got it, we're on the same page now.
DeleteSS said,
Delete" And if the government cant come up with a valid reason to deny in that period, then it defaults to being approved, as it should."
As I said, that's bogus garbage, if you won't give the government the tools to do the job the law requires. If you want them to do the checks in 3 days, then you have an obligation to give them the resources to do the job in the time you state in the law. It's dishonest to claim anything else.