The Post Navy Yard Gun Control Debate is on Our Terms

[Tyeraxus]

The problem is that we have established our nation's justice system on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and we have standards of justice and evidence that take us to the lengths that we'd rather free a thousand guilty men than see one innocent unjustly punished. And yet, as the antis are so fond of pointing out, every single person is a law-abiding citizen until suddenly they aren't anymore. We hope that the initial crime is small, with few if any victims, and they are caught and punished appropriately, but we can't be certain of that - statistics and sociology tell us that there will be some people whose first crimes, or first provable crimes, are crimes of epic proportions.

I hate to sound cold, but given that mass shootings are statistically rare, they truly are the price of freedom. The only real way to prevent them is to completely disarm the entire nation, even the police (because recent events have shown us that police can have their firearms taken from them and used against innocents), completely seal the borders, and put together a police state that would make Stalin drool. God help us all, that's where the antis would take us, whether they know it or not.

 

[fav453]

You have stated my feelings on this perfectly. The true solution isn't a place I want to live. The risk is the price of freedom.

 

[Zibner]

Lots of talk on what went wrong on protecting the Navy yard, if they had it better protected he would have just gone somewhere else and done it. What went wrong is when someone hears voices it's time to put them on the list and collect the firearms, knifes and pressure cookers. Or else we just live with this happening every once in a while..

 

[Zibner]

Have to admit having employees caring guns and responding to a shooter could be interesting. A cube farm would look like a wack-a-mole game, people popping up for a shot. Police would have to use a bull horn and tell them that the shooter was shot 10 minutes ago you can stop shooting now.

 

[kcbrown]

That's a good argument, but the logical conclusion is that any examination of mental health is ineffective, and therefore unsupportable. I don't think that will survive in a national debate.

No, examination of mental health is effective for the specific case I outlined. But what it means is that to deny someone acquisition of a firearm, you'd have to identify that the person really did meet the criteria in question, and to do it properly (since it's an enumerated Constitutional right we're talking about here), you'd have to do it in front of a court of law as well.

You may be right about that argument not surviving in a national debate. But nothing prevents the national debate from arriving at an illogical (and thus incorrect) conclusion, either. The debate will go as it will. Failing to make logical and airtight arguments based on the evidence will not help. It has to be done, even if those arguments are dismissed out of hand.

I will say this: failure to heed those arguments in the national debate will result in something that is at a minimum useless, and more likely harmful. That's because the real world doesn't give a crap about what people think. It is what it is. Logic and evidence show us what the real world really is. If we're determined to bury our collective heads in the sand when presented with what the real world is like, then we deserve the inevitable smackdown that the real world is going to give us.

 

[kcbrown]

Have to admit having employees caring guns and responding to a shooter could be interesting. A cube farm would look like a wack-a-mole game, people popping up for a shot. Police would have to use a bull horn and tell them that the shooter was shot 10 minutes ago you can stop shooting now.

If that's really how it would go, then you should be able to point out examples to that effect.

I'm skeptical.

Once the bad guy has been taken down, the good guys holster their weapons, and are suddenly no longer a threat. In fact, they'll almost certainly take extra steps to make that plain, such as raising their hands.

The difference between the bad guys and the good guys is that the good guys don't want to shoot, whilst the bad guys do. That dynamic doesn't suddenly change in the circumstances where the good guys find themselves forced to shoot.

 

[Zibner]

I was looking at it were you don't know who the shooter is could be someone you know or a stranger. You have your handgun out, your moving and encounter someone doing the same thing there is no challenge and response is this the shooter? What do you do?

 

[Brooklyn]

I was looking at it were you don't know who the shooter is could be someone you know or a stranger. You have your handgun out, your moving and encounter someone doing the same thing there is no challenge and response is this the shooter? What do you do?

Really. Well then don't help, please. Here is a tip. You don't move. The shooter will move. They have to you see, they are aggressing. You and you fellows are not.

When the shooter engages you respond. Or you just get dead. Your choice.

Understand? The defenders will take a defensive posture. The attacker will take an offensive posture. The attacker will get the first mover advantage, and the defender will need to play catch up. but will have the advantage generally of superior numbers, especially if they have any training..You are going to get trained right?

Here's another tip. --- the attacker will not be everywhere at once. The initial victims will not have much of a chance -- but the shots will give others the chance to organize a co-ordinated defense -- get it defense .. since the attacker is not there yet they will know its not one of them ...

Think 'shelter in place drill with teeth' to repel an assault.

 

[kcbrown]

Really. Well then don't help, please. Here is a tip. You don't move. The shooter will move. They have to you see, they are aggressing. You and you fellows are not.

When the shooter engages you respond. Or you just get dead. Your choice.

Yep. But you need to be clear by "move" here. Merely changing position while the gun is in a low-ready position is not itself indication of aggression. In fact, that's what I'd expect the good guys to do as well. It's what they do with their firearm that counts.

 

[Brooklyn]

Yep. But you need to be clear by "move" here. Merely changing position while the gun is in a low-ready position is not itself indication of aggression. In fact, that's what I'd expect the good guys to do as well. It's what they do with their firearm that counts.

True. My op plan is stay put and defend. In bound teams are not far away --we need to hold out and not become a target. The good guys could be crack teams or the mall security guard.. so they may not see how neatly you are indexing the slide at low ready.. lots to think about.. and you may not be as relaxed as you think and your body may alert may be misinterpreted as a pre- attack indicator.

Of course the situation needs to be assessed and reassessed continually.

If I think it necessary to move or even aggress a target it will be because I think its the best option at the time-- not the default one....

Consider also that if you are a lone defender of many it may not be the best option to do search in any case, as you leave the group undefended.

 

[Zibner]

Really. Well then don't help, please. Here is a tip. You don't move. The shooter will move. They have to you see, they are aggressing. You and you fellows are not.

When the shooter engages you respond. Or you just get dead. Your choice.

Understand? The defenders will take a defensive posture. The attacker will take an offensive posture. The attacker will get the first mover advantage, and the defender will need to play catch up. but will have the advantage generally of superior numbers, especially if they have any training..You are going to get trained right?

Here's another tip. --- the attacker will not be everywhere at once. The initial victims will not have much of a chance -- but the shots will give others the chance to organize a co-ordinated defense -- get it defense .. since the attacker is not there yet they will know its not one of them ...

Think 'shelter in place drill with teeth' to repel an assault.

I'm confused your first line says "Then don't help..." but then later you say "You don't move..." which is it? If your planning on not moving and staying in your cube (I'm guessing in a good defensive position like under your desk in the corner) how do you react to individuals running by or running in your cube? And if the shooter goes down the hall cube by cube shooting people do you wait your turn and catch him by surprise be cause he wasn't expecting someone with a gun in a defensive position?

I guess when I thought of good guys with guns it was to insure your escape maybe insure you and your close coworkers escape or maybe going camando and stopping the shooter I didn't figure the defensive, don't move wait it out scenario. Interesting if it works for you...

 

[Zibner]

Yep. But you need to be clear by "move" here. Merely changing position while the gun is in a low-ready position is not itself indication of aggression. In fact, that's what I'd expect the good guys to do as well. It's what they do with their firearm that counts.

Got to figure whatever training you have the shooter has or at least knows of.

 

[kcbrown]

Got to figure whatever training you have the shooter has or at least knows of.

Of course. But that isn't going to change the dynamics any. If he raises his firearm at you, you start moving and raise yours in an to hit him before he hits you. But you do not initiate force. The bad guy does that.

And that's why the end result won't be a shooting spree like you think it will -- because the good guys know that they will not be initiating force. The only person who will be doing that is the bad guy.

Yes, that puts the good guys at a disadvantage. It may even mean that the bad guy gets away through sufficient stealth. But that's the nature of the real world itself -- evil is baked into its fabric, so evil has an inherent advantage in the real world. We good guys just have to deal with it as best we can.

 

[EL1227]

Politcial correctness meets cold hard fact

Townhall.com has two commentaries today that hit the nail on the head.

Deadly Combination: Political Correctness in a Gun-Free Zone

On Dorner, Hassan, and Alexis ...

Did Dorner benefit from the LAPD's quest for "diversity''? Did political correctness and fear of being accused of "profiling" allow Alexis, Hassan and Dorner to skate through?

Finally, the Navy Yard, like Fort Hood, has a no-gun rule. A 1993 military policy change under President Bill Clinton effectively prohibited guns on military bases. Only military police posted at entry or other security points are armed.

Rather than a poster child for more gun control, Alexis looks like a case study of how political correctness -- in a gun-free zone -- can get people killed.

Idiots Against Guns

Alexis in Navy Yard, as well as Holmes in Aurora, Harris at Columbine, and many other mass shooters, were crazies. They each had serious mental problems.

Did they turn violent because they were naturally psychotic, or were they twisted by the side effects of the powerful anti-depressant drugs they were taking?

Could their rampages have been prevented by better medical care, better ways to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, more armed guards in public places, or by ending the gun-free zones that attract young men bent on mass murder?

I don't know if any of these common-sense methods would prevent or reduce future mass shootings. The Idiots Against Guns in government and the mainstream media obviously don't know, either.

But they don't want to find out. For them it's always the gun {an AR15} that's to blame -- even when it doesn't exist.

So the solution ISN'T gun control and IS really about commone sense ... But that is something that is un-common among the liberal elite and political left.

 

[kohburn]

I hate to sound cold, but given that mass shootings are statistically rare, they truly are the price of freedom. The only real way to prevent them is to completely disarm the entire nation, even the police (because recent events have shown us that police can have their firearms taken from them and used against innocents), completely seal the borders, and put together a police state that would make Stalin drool. God help us all, that's where the antis would take us, whether they know it or not.

even that won't stop it. people can still make firearms, there will still be black market, and there would just be a lot more knife attacks. you can see examples of those in china.

 

[danb]

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.

Make no mistake about it though, letting more good people carry guns is a reactive solution. We need to look at proactive solutions that get at the socioeconomic and mental health causes of gun-related violence. Letting the people defend themselves will not eradicate gun-related violence. It's only part of the solution.

Never forget that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...1b22-20a6-11e3-b73c-aab60bf735d0_story_1.html

While in the store, Alexis also inquired about buying a handgun, according to the store’s attorney. ...
In the long lead-up to Alexis’s spree, this was one time when he was denied something he wanted.

The reason was ... his out-of-state address. Federal law does not allow dealers to sell handguns directly to out-of-state residents, the gun shop’s attorney said. The gun would have had to be shipped to a licensed dealer in Alexis’s home state.

 

[Zibner]

Of course. But that isn't going to change the dynamics any. If he raises his firearm at you, you start moving and raise yours in an to hit him before he hits you. But you do not initiate force. The bad guy does that.

And that's why the end result won't be a shooting spree like you think it will -- because the good guys know that they will not be initiating force. The only person who will be doing that is the bad guy.

Yes, that puts the good guys at a disadvantage. It may even mean that the bad guy gets away through sufficient stealth. But that's the nature of the real world itself -- evil is baked into its fabric, so evil has an inherent advantage in the real world. We good guys just have to deal with it as best we can.

Wife has a new Rhino so I was looking at a you tube video where someone could hit 6 independent targets in less than three seconds and the same target six times in 1.3 seconds. There is no time to react for the white hat, the shooter is firing at anything that moves while the white hat has to evaluate his target it’s Joe from two cubes over, has Joe gone postal and should I shoot him, is Joe holding a stapler or a gun?

 

[Brooklyn]

I'm confused your first line says "Then don't help..." but then later you say "You don't move..." which is it? If your planning on not moving and staying in your cube (I'm guessing in a good defensive position like under your desk in the corner) how do you react to individuals running by or running in your cube? And if the shooter goes down the hall cube by cube shooting people do you wait your turn and catch him by surprise be cause he wasn't expecting someone with a gun in a defensive position?

I guess when I thought of good guys with guns it was to insure your escape maybe insure you and your close coworkers escape or maybe going camando and stopping the shooter I didn't figure the defensive, don't move wait it out scenario. Interesting if it works for you...

I mean don't help if you do not understand the dynamics. You will not be an asset in that event. Get some training. Or not. By know kcbrown has elaborated further and I agree.

You job is to survive not to go commando. Read the sitation correctly and you can prevent loss of life. Do something stupid not do much. Ever wonder why the response teams train?

Go get some training.... me I have plenty to.learn and I know it.
That's why I think it though before acting. That's why I will be in training again soon.

 

[Brooklyn]

Wife has a new Rhino so I was looking at a you tube video where someone could hit 6 independent targets in less than three seconds and the same target six times in 1.3 seconds. There is no time to react for the white hat, the shooter is firing at anything that moves while the white hat has to evaluate his target it’s Joe from two cubes over, has Joe gone postal and should I shoot him, is Joe holding a stapler or a gun?

OK now I think you are putting us on.

I have work to do.
Goodbye.

 

[kcbrown]

Wife has a new Rhino so I was looking at a you tube video where someone could hit 6 independent targets in less than three seconds and the same target six times in 1.3 seconds. There is no time to react for the white hat, the shooter is firing at anything that moves while the white hat has to evaluate his target it’s Joe from two cubes over, has Joe gone postal and should I shoot him, is Joe holding a stapler or a gun?

You're the good guy. You do whatever you have to do in order to ensure you don't take an innocent life (more precisely, to minimize the loss of innocent life. Sometimes that means taking the shot when you otherwise wouldn't, but that's not the case here). That means holding your fire until you're sure that your target is the bad guy and that your life or the life of another is in imminent danger.

Yeah, that means that if the bad guy is a very fast and very accurate shot, he's more likely to prevail even against multiple good guys. The good guys operate under rules. The bad guys don't. That means the bad guys have flexibility the good guys don't have. Advantage: bad guys.

This is the real world, not some fantasyland. Here, in the real world, it is easier for evil to prevail than for good to. But that does not relieve the good guys of their burden.