The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

BTW, I forgot to mention in my last post that death by firearm comprised about 7.7% of total homicides in Britain, compared with 68% in the U.S. If we are not going to attribute this to lower availability of guns, we must believe that Brits just prefer less efficient means of committing murder. And if we do recognize that gun control leads to less firearm deaths, but do not believe this would result in less total homicide, we must believe that there would be a perfect displacement of firearm deaths for other methods. How can you believe that?

Our national healthcare system (free at point of delivery) will not last much longer! We are racing, blindfolded, into a US system of wealthy-insured and sod-'em parts of society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Good set of posts, bronofan. Summary: If you value your life, it's much better to live in the U.K. Less chance of being killed plus a civilized heath care system. Guns may not be the cause of crime, but they do increase the chance of death or injury during the commission of a crime, whether you're the perp, the victim or a bystander. If you or others around you are carrying guns, your risk of death and injury is increased. If there is a gun in your home the risk of accidental death, injury and suicide are increased.

---

Ah, how the entrepreneurial sirens of the reefs do beckon the greedy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Thank you Stavros for doing the fact-checking. The lesson is that anything PaulClifford says that is counter to intuition and un-cited is likely to be false.

In the U.K, deaths caused by firearms are something like the 5th or 6th most common method of committing homicide. The other causes of death are strangulation, kicking and hitting, sharp objects, blunt objects etc.

It didn't occur to me how inefficient all these other methods of killing are until you actually see the other options spelled out. Would all 11,000 people who were killed by guns in the United States have been killed with one of these other methods if not by firearm? What about the individuals who were killed at some range?

And if a lower availability of firearms is not the cause of the U.K having a significantly smaller proportion of homicides committed with firearms, what is? Are Brits much better at strangulation? One would have to be a fool to look at these statistics, and not attribute the lower homicide rate in the U.K to the lower availability of firearms. According to a rough calculation firearm deaths are the cause of over 68% of U.S homicides. Are we to assume that if you lower this number, it just re-distributes homicides by method with no net change in total number? It stretches credulity.

---

I think that raw data on crime gives a general picture, as it is meant to do, but that when you drill down into the figures you often find, in the UK as in other countries, a high proportion of violent crime is committed between professional criminals, or in people engaged in criminal acts, of which drug dealing is possibly the most lethal. Other than that, crimes committed in the heat of the moment must count for a lot, particularly in domestic situations, where a knife or blunt object is a common weapon. Gang violence, which has been a problem in inner cities, also tends to be knife related in the UK. I have no way of knowing if more people would be killed by guns if they were easier to obtain than they are; it is assumed that this would be the case but having said that, criminals who need a gun don't seem to have a problem getting hold of one and some of the deranged men who have gone berserk and murdered their own families usually had a licence.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...homicide-rates

Everything you said makes sense Stavros. I am wondering though if in the U.S we have one expanded category of murder, one that usually is completed with firearm; that being situations between strangers (males with egos) that escalate into a shooting because one or both men are carrying.

Though we have a substantial number of drug related deaths they are a fairly modest percent overall (about 500/9000- apparently 5000 homicides are of causes unknown). And again, fewer than half of our homicides are committed in the course of felonies(2000/9000). I would guess that both of these categories are larger percentages of total homicides in Britain. There is of course a strong likelihood that many of the homicides whose cause is unknown are committed by career criminals, which is why authorities only have a body and cannot trace the origin.

It is possible that this category, other arguments, which comprises a fairly large percentage of homicides involves a lot of impulsive shootings just based on the sheer number of carriers of weapons and the potential for explosive situations. But these numbers and inferences are equivocal. As you say the numbers can only give a general picture.

*BTW these are 2008 numbers, but this was what I found;.

This story popped up on my Facebook feed. Self-defense?

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/child-3...winnett/nZTsr/

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...ry-guns-public

Comment no needed!

Yet another mass shooting, this time at a naval yard in DC. Ho hum. As the old song has it, "When will they ever learn?"


http://http://www.huffingtonpost.com...n_3934027.html

Perhaps we should arm all U.S. Naval officers. Oh wait! We already do that. :(

Terrorism? Sounds like it....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Perhaps we should arm all U.S. Naval officers. Oh wait! We already do that. :(

---

There is a policy about not being armed on base. Plus, apparently, the shooter used Biden's favorite gun and got the other firearms from shooting the security/police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

There is a policy about not being armed on base. Plus, apparently, the shooter used Biden's favorite gun and got the other firearms from shooting the security/police.

---

Doesn't your last sentence contradict your first? Ergo, arming the security...bad idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Doesn't your last sentence contradict your first? Ergo, arming the security...bad idea.

---

No, the last sentence doesn't contradict the first sentence. 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. For example, back in the 1970s and 1980s, the Red Army Faction in Germany had a habit to attack American military bases in Germany. Also, there was the Fort Hood shooting caused by that Islamic terrorist.

Sure it does. The base security was armed. The policy wasn't that nobody on base could be armed, but rather some people should not be armed and others should be armed. The irony is that the NRA recommends that schools hire armed security teams and yet we see that (if your account is correct) arming the security, even on a military base, was a bad idea.

A man with anger management issues and a record of incompetence has access to weapons of human destruction, and uses them -sadly not the first case, and it won't be the last either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Sure it does. The base security was armed. The policy wasn't that nobody on base could be armed, but rather some people should not be armed and others should be armed.

---

God you are thick headed, increasingly so as the facts once again demonstrate you do not know what you are talking about.

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.

Domestic military bases (foreign ones have their own rules depending on the situation), just like public schools, airports (beyond the screeners), court houses, prisons, federal buildings, etc... are all gun free zones by law for all those who are not explicitly granted the right to carry within (which is usually restricted to police & (some) security personal.

So yes... some people, a limited # on the base would have been armed... just like how a limited # of people are officially charged with being armed in your town... the police. In neither case can either group guarantee a nut isn't going to do harm, let alone shoot a cop or guard, take their weapon and move on with more mayhem (as it appears happened here).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

The irony is that the NRA recommends that schools hire armed security teams and yet we see that (if your account is correct) arming the security, even on a military base, was a bad idea.

---

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.

Besides, unlike on such a domestic base, beyond normal law enforcement, in the civilian population there at least exists the prospect of an armed civilian who may be at the right place & the right time to act... which oddly happens far more than you'd think.

Rather than getting off on this event... why not wait for the facts to come in and see how the system failed... rather than continue to make up facts and jump to conclusions?

[QUOTE=bobvela;1392061]



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.

/QUOTE]

Bobvela -maybe the issue here is not to try and 'control firearms for the masses across 50 states' but to take guns away from people who have shown they ought not to have them, because they are on medication, have a record of violence, uncontrollable rage etc -if this man had been deprived of his weapons following earlier incidents, he may still have been able to get hold of weapons illegaly, but it would at least have been harder for him to do so. Otherwise you are not going to stop these incidents from happening again, even if people in the location -shop, school, mall, cinema, are armed. Aren't most of the people who have committed these crimes shown to be nutters?

Quote:

---

God you are thick headed, increasingly so as the facts once again demonstrate you do not know what you are talking about.

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.

---

Thank you for your thoughtful invective.

Nevertheless, what I said was true: the base security was armed.
Yet people were killed (twelve at present count)
and if notdrunk's version of what went down is true two of the assailant's weapons were taken from security guards (though I haven't heard this last bit reported as yet).

I have no problem with the military having armed security on their bases. I do think it's expensive and unwise for public schools to employ armed security teams. This incident should invite us to question the efficacy an armed security as well.

No, the government will never be able to control crazed men out for vengeance for some imagined grievance. But we can make it more difficult for these guys to arm themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Thank you for your thoughtful invective.

Nevertheless, what I said was true: the base security was armed.
Yet people were killed (twelve at present count)
and if notdrunk's version of what went down is true two of the assailant's weapons were taken from security guards (though I haven't heard this last bit reported as yet).

I have no problem with the military having armed security on their bases. I do think it's expensive and unwise for public schools to employ armed security teams. This incident should invite us to question the efficacy an armed security as well.

No, the government will never be able to control crazed men out for vengeance for some imagined grievance. But we can make it more difficult for these guys to arm themselves.

---

CNN says that the police recovered a shotgun and two handguns. Sources told CNN that the handguns might be from security guards. The rifle being found is incorrect.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/nav...ain/index.html

On a side note, many schools already have an armed presence on their campuses but they are school resource officers.

Thanks for the update.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobvela

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?

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

Chris Rock on Gun Control - YouTube

Author and radio host Thom Hartmann:

More Guns Means More killings - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobvela

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.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUAxLmjqoMw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thombergeron

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:

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thombergeron

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

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…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

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.

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.

I'm sorry. I love the phrase anti-gun bigots. Bigots against firearms? The same guy who without any trace of irony calls the due process of George Zimmerman a public lynching believes that firearms are the victims of bigotry.

Tell us more Vela. Are people who want to ban smoking in public places anti-nicotine bigots? Are diabetics glucosophobes? Sorry to resort to mockery, but you Right-wingnuts are really good at developing phrases that are laughable on their face, self-discrediting, and a good filter for anyone with any semblance of intelligence.

And you guys should probably re-consider accusing James Brady (or his organization) of dancing on graves when he's a paraplegic. It sounds almost as bad as referring to the fair trial of a man who shot an African-American teen as a lynching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

And you guys should probably re-consider accusing James Brady (or his organization) of dancing on graves when he's a paraplegic. It sounds almost as bad as referring to the fair trial of a man who shot an African-American teen as a lynching.

---

Oh, good call. I was distracted by the "o'" and didn't pay attention to the "Brady" part. notdrunk was indeed quoting from a statement issued Monday by Dan Gross, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/?q=brad...g-at-navy-yard

But again, nothing factually incorrect in Gross's plea for common-sense gun regulations that are favored by a majority of the American people.

On the other hand, the assertion that U.S.military bases are "gun-free zones" because of Bill Clinton and the Democrats is a lie intended only to misinform and distract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thombergeron

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…



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.



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.

---

Again, my post mentions anytime. And, I mentioned an exemption. Furthermore, I never said they were no armed military personnel on military bases in my posts. DoD policy on carrying firearms is to limit and control the carrying of firearms by military personnel.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf

And, no I sourced the "Clinton-era" from a site that was unpolitical.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6770093_mil...earm-laws.html

I got it from another site too but I can't find the link anymore.

Anyway, they (i.e., Brady Campaign) are using the deaths to push their agenda like the NRA. You just happen to more likely to agree with their ideas for laws.

If you had the directive, it says on it the date of issuance, 1992. This should have clued you in to the fact that Clinton wasn't President since he was inaugurated in 1993.

It is really silly to be parsing this language. Right wing nutjobs frequently make the argument that if more people were carrying weapons, such atrocities would either be deterred or headed off in the earliest stages by heroes like you and Bobvela.

Certainly there was a high enough density of gun possession that this could have been a decent test case for this hare-brained proposition.

If a guy walks into a school, will every member of the faculty have a gun? Will the students have guns? I'm not sure how many people need to be strapping before you guys are convinced that the solution to gun violence is not more people who cannot read department of defense directives carrying guns.

Why was it even necessary to mention the President who issued the directive? Oh yes, to scapegoat him. Surely you mentioned Clinton for a reason. Now you know it was issued by his predecessor. Whatever conclusion you were driving at when you gratuitously mentioned Clinton you can still make with respect to Bush, can't you? Have at it hoss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

And, no I sourced the "Clinton-era" from a site that was unpolitical.

I got it from another site too but I can't find the link anymore

---

Are you sure it wasn't the Huffington Post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Anyway, they (i.e., Brady Campaign) are using the deaths to push their agenda like the NRA. You just happen to more likely to agree with their ideas for laws.

---

I think the specific point that I made was that there is a difference between stating one's policy preference and lying. Kind of speaks volumes that you are still unable to comprehend the distinction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

It is really silly to be parsing this language. Right wing nutjobs frequently make the argument that if more people were carrying weapons, such atrocities would either be deterred or headed off in the earliest stages by heroes like you and Bobvela.

Certainly there was a high enough density of gun possession that this could have been a decent test case for this hare-brained proposition.

If a guy walks into a school, will every member of the faculty have a gun? Will the students have guns? I'm not sure how many people need to be strapping before you guys are convinced that the solution to gun violence is not more people who cannot read department of defense directives carrying guns.

---

Thank you for making this point. You're absolutely right. The gun nuts are desperately trying to muddy the waters because they don't want a test case of the proposition that more guns equals less gun violence. And they don’t want a test case because this has already been tested and shown to be absurd.

At Ft. Hood in 2009, armed base police officers responded within 2-3 minutes. The first officer to encounter Nidal Hassan was Kimberly Munley. Hassan shot her three times, kicked her service weapon away, and continued his assault.

On August 24, 2012, Jeffrey Johnson shot and killed a former co-worker on 33rd Avenue in New York City. Two NYPD officers responded. When Johnson raised his weapon, the officers fired a total of 16 rounds, killing Johnson and injuring 9 bystanders. Johnson himself did not fire his weapon during the confrontation police. All of the casualties resulted from police fire.

On Monday, at the Washington Navy Yard, armed police officers were on scene within two minutes, and confronted Aaron Alexis fewer than seven minutes after the first shots were fired. Alexis continued to hold officers at bay for at least another 30 minutes.

Putting down an armed opponent is no small feat. Firefights are chaotic and messy. Bullets fly everywhere. The only people who think that bad guys with guns are easily stopped by good guys with guns are people who have never been shot at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobvela

Besides, unlike on such a domestic base, beyond normal law enforcement, in the civilian population there at least exists the prospect of an armed civilian who may be at the right place & the right time to act... which oddly happens far more than you'd think.

---

Actually, this virtually never happens. I’m willing to bet that you can’t come up with a single unambiguous case of an armed civilian stopping an armed assailant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thombergeron

I think the specific point that I made was that there is a difference between stating one's policy preference and lying. Kind of speaks volumes that you are still unable to comprehend the distinction.

---

Lying? Nope. The security at the Navy Yard was lacking. It has come out that only one security guard was able to respond to the shooting. The other six were stuck manning the gates. The fact is a "good guy" aka a police officer did ultimately stop him.

The LaPierre quote is from a speech calling for putting school resource officers (i.e., police officers) in all of the schools in this country to deter future mass shooters. Not just one police officer but multiple officers in a school. Or, at least train and certify individuals to become armed security guards in schools. Or, train and certify select teachers and staff to be armed.

Lofty goal but he wasn't pushing an idea that everybody should just be given a gun. Additionally, if a shooter is focused on an armed individual, it gives a chance for others to escape the madness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thombergeron

Actually, this virtually never happens. I’m willing to bet that you can’t come up with a single unambiguous case of an armed civilian stopping an armed assailant.

---

http://fox6now.com/2013/04/11/dierre...-aldi-robbery/

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...ed-3821108.php

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/7...162941656.html

http://articles.philly.com/1998-04-2...cience-teacher

Yes, there have been instances in which armed civilians stopped armed criminals and a mass shooter.

Quote:

---

It has come out that only one security guard was able to respond to the shooting.

---

Lovely turn of phrase, "It has come out that..."

That one guard must have had three firearms. The two confiscated by the intruder from security and the one he kept to shoot the intruder with, after thirty minutes of exchanging gunfire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Lying? Nope. The security at the Navy Yard was lacking. It has come out that only one security guard was able to respond to the shooting. The other six were stuck manning the gates. The fact is a "good guy" aka a police officer did ultimately stop him.

---

The first person Aaron Alexis shot was armed with a handgun. DC and park police officers were on scene within 2 minutes. SWAT entered Building 197 within 7 minutes. Aaron Alexis was not "stopped" for another 30 minutes. Is it your contention that the American public needs to be prepared to endure 30-minute firefights in populated areas in order to be "safe"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

The LaPierre quote is from a speech calling for putting school resource officers (i.e., police officers) in all of the schools in this country to deter future mass shooters. Not just one police officer but multiple officers in a school. Or, at least train and certify individuals to become armed security guards in schools. Or, train and certify select teachers and staff to be armed.

Lofty goal but he wasn't pushing an idea that everybody should just be given a gun. Additionally, if a shooter is focused on an armed individual, it gives a chance for others to escape the madness.

---

That's fine. But you, bobvela, and hordes of other mouthbreathers didn't even wait for the gunfire to die down before blaming Bill Clinton for turning military bases into "gun-free zones." Which is just a blatant lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

http://fox6now.com/2013/04/11/dierre...-aldi-robbery/

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...ed-3821108.php

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/7...162941656.html

http://articles.philly.com/1998-04-2...cience-teacher

Yes, there have been instances in which armed civilians stopped armed criminals and a mass shooter.

---

Is Andrew Wurst supposed to be the "mass shooter"? Andrew Wurst shot all four people he set out to shoot, ran out of ammunition, and left the scene. In what sense was he "stopped"?

The assailant in San Antonio was armed with a knife, and went ahead and stabbed the person he intended to stab. He was arrested, but again, not stopped.

The other two were robberies, so again, I'm not clear how they're relevant to the issue at hand. In the United States in 2013, if someone wants to obtain a firearm and shoot 1, 2, or 20 people, there's really nothing to stop them from doing that.