Of course they went there. The very next day.
From the couch of the stupid, Elizabeth Hasselback lamented that ““ you have our soldiers not being able to arm themselves . . . if they do have a weapon, they are to register it within five days of purchase. . . then that must be stored away in these lockers so that it cannot be carried on their person, therefore leaving them vulnerable.”
Doocy then pointed to the current Democratic president by quoting a conservative blogger: “Gateway Pundit, which is a way right-leaning blog, what they write this morning is, ‘The Obama administration is responsible for this mass shooting. They witnessed this before, they didn’t learn a thing. Gun-free zones are death zones. It is time to stand up to the lunacy.’”
Agreed.
You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both.
It’s more than a little nonsensical to forbid our troops from being under arms while on base, especially after the 1st Fort Hood shooting.
That being said, I don’t think it would have changed this particular situation that much and I’m not especially fond of jumping on a tragedy that quickly irrespective of which side is doing it.
And that being said, this is really same old, same old. We didn’t properly secure a crazy person and people died as a result.
LikeLike
Of course it’s same old . . . and Fort Hood is city sized and really cannot be secured no matter what. That said though,, the active military defends the no weapons on base policy pretty vigorously. It’s not new and I have no doubt it’s not frivolous – they had reasons for putting it in place.
LikeLike
No, it’s not particularly new and it’s not frivolous. I think it’s not wise though. Of course, it’s complex because the policy in actual question involves private weapons on base and not issues sidearms, which can only be worn when orders require it (oversimplification).
LikeLike
I shudder to think what would happen when a crazy person starts shooting in a place where evveryone has guns. Circular firing squad.
LikeLike
Far less than likely amidst the military, where we’re taught the use of firearms in combat settings, Moe.
Again though, this is a failure of dealing with crazies before they turn violent, not so much a failure of what to do after they do. Prevention before cure as it were.
LikeLike
If only that were possible. Even if we had brilliant and comprehensive policies to identify and treat the mentally ill, you know as well as I that the sociopath slips right through . . .just like 9/11 with the US security agencies and FBI having ‘eyes on’ some of the hijackers, they couldn’t stop them. Assassins usually manage to assassinate.
LikeLike
Sociopaths, yes. The much more common, though still very rare, spree killer, no. The latter can be prevented by more aggressive quarantining of the crazies and those with potential issues.
LikeLike
That does not seem likely. Circular firing squad? So everyone else is shooting at one another and not just at the original shooter? You are speaking of experienced people. I don’t think so.
LikeLike
I do think so, having witnessed and, yes, even experienced rage. When emotions flare and threats fly, instinct takes over. Here’s an example that did involve professionals and came close anyway. Apologies – you might get a beginning commercial.
LikeLike
Sorry, wrong link. Please try this one.
LikeLike
You have taken two situations that are totally different and compared them. In the Fort Hood mass shooting there was one gunman out of control and no one else armed. The question is whether everyone else being armed would have resulted in someone killing the original shooter or every one else shooting one another.
I believe the former would have happened.
LikeLike
Both of the recent mass-killings at Ft. Hood took place in administrative settings filled with people going about their business. The notion that having everybody carry loaded weapons all the time as a defense against that every few years just seems absurd to me. Moe’s right, it would be circular firing squad time. It makes about as much sense as having teachers pack heat as they herd the kiddies around.
LikeLike
In other words, given proper training – an admitted issue w/ your teachers example – a damn fine and wise idea. Not as good as heightened security with more trained responders in the soft target areas.
LikeLike
No, you are twisting my meaning. Arming teachers was just an extreme example of the absurdity. But yes on trained responders and yes on sensible gun control.
LikeLike
It’s easy enough to train some subset of the admin staff – secondary MOS ring a bell? – to be armed responders. It’s harder, but not impossible to do that for anyone, including teachers – though I have my doubts on the last one, given their average ideology and their current, extensive skill requirements.
As for “sensible” gun control – That’s a Leftist fiction if you mean anything more than what’s been on the books for decades and decades.
As Moe put it, sociopaths will always slip through the cracks in the system and, as you put it, mass-killings happen rarely and restricting Constituional rights as a defense against that every few years just seems absurd.
LikeLike
Military building and the military have no weapons? Kind of makes no sense. Unlike a school setting, all military people are supposed to be trained handling a weapon. I would agree with Jonolan in this instance.
LikeLike
Hi JT. On one instance I might agree with jonolan – having a few ‘designated responders’ who ‘carry’ maybe makes sense. Maybe.
LikeLike
A few in each soft area, Moe, and some training for rest in how not to interfere with firing lanes and sight pictures.
Yeah, they trained me in Close Fire Drill and that does color my perception – training causes bias – but I do understand the issue.
LikeLike