Hopalong
Man of Many Nicknames
The more I think about this, the more I realize that, as much as I loathe the idea, this is one horrible crime that we can genuinely use to our advantage instead of the gun control zealots using it to theirs. Here's why:
1. The shooter started off with only a shotgun. One of the rules that even the most devout gun control fanatic will always follow is that you don't mess with hunters. Ever. Shotguns are their bread and butter. At best, the shooter used some kind of tactical shotgun, but it's still just a shotgun. There can be no push to ban/restrict rifles or handguns unless you want to start about disarming cops and the military.
2. The shooter passed a NICS check to get said shotgun. I've been saying for years that we don't need more background checks, we need better ones. This guy had several gun-related arrests on his records, but no convictions. That shouldn't be enough to prohibit him out of hand (innocent until proven guilty and all), but maybe it should have raised a red flag to warrant some further investigation. And that's assuming that the arrests were even in the NICS database in the first place. Even ignoring that, it proves that bad people can still pass a background check so they're not a "cure-all" for gun-related violence.
3. The shooting happened within not one, but two "Gun Free Zones". This one speaks for itself. All they do is create target boxes. This one had the benefit of a secure perimeter so the shooter had longer to shoot, maim, and kill before being stopped.
4. It took armed responders seven minutes to respond to one of the most important military facilities in the country. If they take that long to respond to such a high value asset, what are the odds that they'll reply more quickly to a school, movie theater, etc.? Pretty slim. I watched Olympus Has Fallen recently, and while I wasn't overly impressed with the movie, it kind of foreshadowed this event: attacking a "secure" facility with speed and daring and accomplishing you goals before a complacent, unexpecting armed response arrives.
Bad people are going to do bad things. Nothing can stop that. We can't disarm everyone since that violates our constitutional rights. We can't afford to pay armed security to be everywhere because that violates our wallets. This all points to one conclusion:
Let The People carry their own guns if they choose to so they can protect themselves.
Let the Feinsteins and Bloombergs bring on their attempts at gun control. This one is on our terms, this one happened when playing by their rules. Finally, this one we can use to our benefit.
1. The shooter started off with only a shotgun. One of the rules that even the most devout gun control fanatic will always follow is that you don't mess with hunters. Ever. Shotguns are their bread and butter. At best, the shooter used some kind of tactical shotgun, but it's still just a shotgun. There can be no push to ban/restrict rifles or handguns unless you want to start about disarming cops and the military.
2. The shooter passed a NICS check to get said shotgun. I've been saying for years that we don't need more background checks, we need better ones. This guy had several gun-related arrests on his records, but no convictions. That shouldn't be enough to prohibit him out of hand (innocent until proven guilty and all), but maybe it should have raised a red flag to warrant some further investigation. And that's assuming that the arrests were even in the NICS database in the first place. Even ignoring that, it proves that bad people can still pass a background check so they're not a "cure-all" for gun-related violence.
3. The shooting happened within not one, but two "Gun Free Zones". This one speaks for itself. All they do is create target boxes. This one had the benefit of a secure perimeter so the shooter had longer to shoot, maim, and kill before being stopped.
4. It took armed responders seven minutes to respond to one of the most important military facilities in the country. If they take that long to respond to such a high value asset, what are the odds that they'll reply more quickly to a school, movie theater, etc.? Pretty slim. I watched Olympus Has Fallen recently, and while I wasn't overly impressed with the movie, it kind of foreshadowed this event: attacking a "secure" facility with speed and daring and accomplishing you goals before a complacent, unexpecting armed response arrives.
Bad people are going to do bad things. Nothing can stop that. We can't disarm everyone since that violates our constitutional rights. We can't afford to pay armed security to be everywhere because that violates our wallets. This all points to one conclusion:
Let The People carry their own guns if they choose to so they can protect themselves.
Let the Feinsteins and Bloombergs bring on their attempts at gun control. This one is on our terms, this one happened when playing by their rules. Finally, this one we can use to our benefit.
