The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[thombergeron]

A Clinton-era policy allows only military police and civilian police to carry firearms anytime on a military base unless there is a credible and specific threat in the area. There should be armed security at military bases because they are high profile targets.

I was active duty in 1992 when DoD Directive 5210.56 was issued, i.e., prior to the Clinton Administration.

5210.56 authorizes military and civilian law enforcement to carry loaded firearms at DoD facilities; not just police, but also investigative agencies such as the Naval Investigative Command and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, both of which maintain personnel at the Washington Navy Yard. Also security, both military and civilian. Also intelligence personnel, of which there are many at the Navy Yard, particularly in Building 197 where the shootings took place.

Also, ANY PERSONNEL DEMONSTRATING A NEED TO CARRY A FIREARM FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION.

No, the irony here is that we've had another mass shooting in a federally controlled gun-free zone, and that anti-gun bigots like you will demand (yet again) that the federal government further attempt to control firearms for the masses across 50 states when they have once again demonstrated their inability to control their use on federally run and very secure facilities.

It’s simply bizarre that an allegedly thinking person would attempt to characterize a U.S. military base as a “gun-free zone.” Anyone who has ever been within sight of a DoD facility knows this is nonsense. The very first thing you will encounter is armed personnel. Indeed, it appears that the first fatality yesterday morning was an armed security guard. There are MANY DoD personnel authorized to carry firearms on base. But I guess in the latest mouthbreather version of reality, any facility in which less than 100% of personnel are packing is a “gun-free zone.”

And yet, less than 24 hours later, the gun nuts are out in force, fronting the plainly absurd notion that this never would have happened if Clinton hadn’t disarmed the military.

So really, Bob, who’s dancing on graves here? Who’s misrepresenting the facts in a ham-handed attempt to score political points?

[Ben]

Chris Rock on BULLET control... and how a bullet should cost $5,000 --

[Ben]

Author and radio host Thom Hartmann:

[fred41]

It's almost like you get off on dancing on the graves of the dead (who are not even buried yet) while spouting your ignorance.

Statements like this are bullshit Bob. Bullshit.
I've read Trish's opinions in this section for a long time now. She's never written anything to give credence to this type of claim. Never.

It wasn't right.

[Ben]

Trauma Surgeon Dr. Janis Orlowski to Piers Morgan: 'We Can't Have One Mass Shooting After Another'

[notdrunk]

So really, Bob, who’s dancing on graves here? Who’s misrepresenting the facts in a ham-handed attempt to score political points?

Oops, Bush instead of Clinton. Meh, I was 99.9% right. No point of CAPS because you do know that I had underlined "anytime" and mentioned specific threats (which includes personal).

Both sides are using people's deaths for political purposes...From Good 'o Brady:

In recent years we've experienced mass shootings in a supermarket parking lot, an army base, a movie theater, a temple, shopping malls, universities, high schools, elementary schools, and now a naval facility, and after every one the corporate gun lobby's friends in Congress obstructed the will of the American people and stood in the way of sensible solutions to gun violence. Americans deserve better than this.

While it is too early to know what policies might have prevented this latest tragedy, we do know that policies that present a real opportunity to save lives sit stalled in Congress, policies that could prevent many of the dozens of deaths that result every day from gun violence. As long as our leaders in Congress ignore the will of the people and do not listen to those voices, we will hold them accountable. We hope Congress will listen to the voice of the people and take up legislation that will create a safer America."

But, it is only the "gun nuts" that are doing it!

[broncofan]

Oops, Bush instead of Clinton. Meh, I was 99.9% right. No point of CAPS because you do know that I had underlined "anytime" and mentioned specific threats (which includes personal).

Yeah, if only we got to determine the manner in which people correct us when we get the facts wrong. What a wonderful world that would be.

I'm waiting for more information to come out about the shooter. As Stavros said, whatever your views on the legality of owning assault rifles generally, better background checks are essential.

[trish]

I was active duty in 1992 when DoD Directive 5210.56 was issued, i.e., prior to the Clinton Administration.

5210.56 authorizes military and civilian law enforcement to carry loaded firearms at DoD facilities; not just police, but also investigative agencies such as the Naval Investigative Command and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, both of which maintain personnel at the Washington Navy Yard. Also security, both military and civilian. Also intelligence personnel, of which there are many at the Navy Yard, particularly in Building 197 where the shootings took place.

Also, ANY PERSONNEL DEMONSTRATING A NEED TO CARRY A FIREARM FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION.



It’s simply bizarre that an allegedly thinking person would attempt to characterize a U.S. military base as a “gun-free zone.” Anyone who has ever been within sight of a DoD facility knows this is nonsense. The very first thing you will encounter is armed personnel. Indeed, it appears that the first fatality yesterday morning was an armed security guard. There are MANY DoD personnel authorized to carry firearms on base. But I guess in the latest mouthbreather version of reality, any facility in which less than 100% of personnel are packing is a “gun-free zone.”

And yet, less than 24 hours later, the gun nuts are out in force, fronting the plainly absurd notion that this never would have happened if Clinton hadn’t disarmed the military.

So really, Bob, who’s dancing on graves here? Who’s misrepresenting the facts in a ham-handed attempt to score political points?

Great post. Worth repeating.
And thank you Fred. Good to have an antidote to some of the poison people spit at you around here.

A pair of internationally known researcher (Wodarz and Komarova) who specialize in epidemiological-mathematical modeling, have recently proposed a preliminary set of mathematical models of the dependence of gun violence on the availability of firearms in the U.S. You can download in PDF form at the link below, or just read it online there.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0071606

It got a favorable review in Nature (which is how I came across it).
It's a fair and interesting analysis with some surprising (to me) twists. The preliminary conclusions though are not surprising: given the current state of affairs, tighter controls on the availability of firearms in the U.S. will reduce gun related homicides. The paper says nothing about gun related accidental deaths and suicides .

[thombergeron]

Oops, Bush instead of Clinton. Meh, I was 99.9% right. No point of CAPS because you do know that I had underlined "anytime" and mentioned specific threats (which includes personal).

You’ll forgive my impatience with your inexactitude, but my work is in health science, where being 99.9% right means somebody died.

But moreover…

A Clinton-era policy allows only military police and civilian police to carry firearms anytime on a military base unless there is a credible and specific threat in the area.

This is not 0.1% untrue. Stating that “only” police have blanket authority to carry on base renders your statement entirely untrue. As I pointed out by referring directly to the policy document, numerous categories of DoD personnel are authorized to carry on base and ANY personnel can make a personal-protection appeal.

But really, the issue is not that you, personally, are incorrect. It’s that you are participating in a large-scale organized effort to misinform the public. You and your mouthbreather buddy bobvela didn’t come up with the “Clinton-era policy makes military bases gun-free zones” argument on your own. You got your cut-and-paste orders from various right-wing dittohead sources like this

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...itary-gun-free

and this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3067936/posts

and this

http://communities.washingtontimes.c...-not-want-hav/

and this

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/09/16...ed-them-to-be/

and this

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/09/...se-order-83587

and this

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/cl.../#.UjnmxWSiccg

The gun lobby is trying desperately to get out in front of this since it directly disproves Wayne LaPierre’s ridiculous assertion that “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” In both the Navy Yard on Monday and in Ft. Hood in 2009, the unavoidable truth is that the good guy with a gun got shot. Indeed, the only way to avoid that truth is by lying or deluding yourself into thinking that there are no armed personnel on U.S. military bases. Because Clinton.

Both sides are using people's deaths for political purposes...From Good 'o Brady

I’m afraid I have no idea who “Good 'o Brady” is, and you haven’t linked to a source. I do note, however, that the two paragraphs you’ve quoted contain no misstatements of fact, in stark contrast to gun nuts’ current line of argument, which is based, in its entirety, on falsehoods.

[broncofan]

I am not sure who good o' Brady is either. I hope he's not implying that the guy who has exploited gun tragedies is James Brady, the former Reagan press secretary who was shot in the head and left paralyzed by Hinckley.

Shouldn't someone who was shot by a maniac with a firearm and left paralyzed be allowed to speak with passion and candor about gun policy without being accused of exploiting tragedies? He was after all the bona fide victim of one. But of course, that would be assuming he's talking about James Brady, and he might not be.