Today’s shooting at a Navy Yard in Washington DC constitutes yet another to have taken place within a gun free zone. With several people dead and more injured, questions over the disarming of citizens are once again sure to be raised.
As is the case at most military bases, personnel are forbidden from carrying their own personal firearms. Under a ruling enacted by The Clinton Administration, there must be “a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region” before military personnel “may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection.”
This was the reason that the Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan was able to go on a rampage for a full ten minutes in 2009, without being stopped.
It's true that most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones, but the suggestion that deranged shooters choose those places for their gun-free status is false. These killers usually go to the place of their grievance. In some cases they go there because the aliens who live in the attic told them to.
The Loughner shooting proves this desperate theory wrong. Not only did he choose a venue that was not a gun-free zone, he killed with impunity until he ran out of bullets and was stopped by an unarmed bystander.
"It's true that most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones, but the suggestion that deranged shooters choose those places for their gun-free status is false."
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with you on your assertion that shooters willfully choose gun free zones to go on their shooting binge. I think the more accurate answer is simply, "we don't really know". Most of these shooters are killed either by police or themselves, and the ones caught alive are outwardly bug-nuts to the point that anything they do share has to be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism. From the VERY early reports of the Navy Yard assailant, if he had bought his weapons at an FFL, he would have passed with no problem.
The Loughner shooting in itself doesn't prove the theory wrong. Anytime you deal with humans, you cant count on anything being 100%.
We currently don't have anyway of determining ahead of time which particular person, or type of person is going to commit one of these acts.
So if we cant prevent them ahead of time, how do we minimize the damage when it does happen. The gun free zone thing all by itself isn't working very well. The school in Newtown even had an electronic door that somehow a single man was able to defeat. I'm not surprised since there were only unarmed people guarding the door. The Army (the US one at least) teaches that an obstacle that isn't covered by fire isn't really an obstacle.
The answer is what I've been saying all along. By making gun ownership more difficult we would deprive the worst of the worst of the easy availability they now enjoy. The truly responsible and fit gun owners will continue to arm themselves.
DeleteDo I have to go through the list of your proposals again? Few if any would be allowed to own guns legally under your system.
DeleteThat's not true, Greg. You say that because you don't give a fuck about telling the truth. You don't believe it, but for argument's sake you keep repeating it.
DeleteUnder my rules, about half the present gun owners would continue to own guns, unless of course, the hidden criminals make up nearly all your number.
Since you insisted:
DeleteYou have proposed medical tests, including eye exams, for gun owners. You want a tribunal of the local police chief, a psychiatrist, and some bureaucrat to decide if a person gets to own a firearm. You want a registry of firearms, and you want police checks on private homes to verify the presence--stored in safes bolted to the structure and thus impossible in most apartments--of those guns within three months and then yearly. You want psychiatric exams for gun owners. You want background checks on buying ammunition. You want it to be a crime to own ammunition that doesn't match the registered firearms that a person owns. You want bans on many classes of firearms. You want to limit magazine capacity. You want people to have to prove need to own a gun. You want a person to prove need to carry a gun. You cry foul just about every time a person uses a firearm in self-defense. You call hunting and even target shooting sick.
That's a sample. Now will you please admit that you are lying about "about half"?
No Greg. About half would comply. Wouldn't you, I mean, if you had to.
DeleteGun-free Zones = abattoir
ReplyDeleteJL was an aberration.
orlin sellers
overly simplistic and self-serving observation. Any place is an abattoir when someone like this decides to shoot up the joint.
DeleteSimplistic. Ah, yes. So refreshing after reading 5,000 word posts by Pooch that translate into gibberish, mumbo jumbo and gobbledygook.
Deleteorlin seller
As I've said to you before, a gun-free zone offers a high probability that the wacko will face no immediate opposition. Would-be mass killers could be stopped before they harm anyone or at least after many fewer innocents are hurt if the people they target could shoot back.
ReplyDeleteThese wackos typically are cowards. They collapse upon meeting determined opposition. Now we don't yet know if this incident in D.C. was an act of terrorism or just some nut. Terrorists often take more convincing to bring them to a halt. Either way, if someone's shooting at me, I want the ability to respond effectively. A gun-free zone brings us back to that DHS training film that advises the use of a stapler in the last resort.
And how do we stoop the loons who should not have guns? OH, that's right, you think everyone should have a gun, no matter how looney they are. Well you have your wish, you are allowed a gun and you are as looney as they come.
DeleteWrong again. If someone is too dangerous to be allowed to have a gun, that person ought to be in prison or a hospital. But unless we violate more rights than that expressed in the Second Amendment, we can't identify dangerous people until they do something wrong.
Delete"If someone is too dangerous to be allowed to have a gun, that person ought to be in prison or a hospital."
ReplyDeleteAnd how do we know that unless we check? But you think just asking those questions is a violation of rights. Sorry, but all constitutional rights have limitations and qualifications. I think you are afraid because you might flunk such an inquiry.