Slog Comments

 

Comments (46) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Fnarf 1
The NRA is deliberately staking out the crazy extreme position to change the terms of the debate and move them rightward. They are a stalking horse for opponents of even the slightest gun control supported by the overwhelming majority of the public (and even NRA members).

The NRA is deliberately Manichean in this way, casting the debate in terms of only two options, total freedom from regulation vs. total confiscation. They are a totalitarian organization. That's what they do. They're the bad guy. They enjoy playing that role and are very effective in it.

This thread will quickly be filled with both full-on NRA supporters spewing garbage about "we guard our money, why not our kids?" as well as others promoting a variety of half-baked control ideas that they know will never be enacted. This allows them to say "but I DO support sensible gun control, but you folks want to take everything" while resting safe in the knowledge that those mild gun control measures are still politically impossible. These people are pretending to be on the side of moderation but they carry the NRA's water.

The same goes for anyone saying "well, it's about mental illness" or proposing "mental health checks". It's all a cover for unregulated gun absolutism.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on December 22, 2012 at 11:30 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 2
I was never in the military, but I've heard a few folks say that soldiers aren't allowed to go around armed on base most of the time. If true, then this particular post has no point to make.
Posted by Matt from Denver on December 22, 2012 at 11:30 AM · Report this
seatackled 3
As I recall, it was a woman in her sixties, unarmed, who stopped Jared Loughner as he tried to reload. There was some "good guy" with a gun, but he was useless, coming out from behind something once the shooting had stopped, ready to fire, and he admitted that he had come really close to shooting one of the guys who had helped the 60+-year-old woman.
Posted by seatackled on December 22, 2012 at 11:31 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 4
@ Fnarf, no one is taking the idea of placing armed guards in every school seriously. They may very well have jumped the shark with that one. It's not going to reframe shit.
Posted by Matt from Denver on December 22, 2012 at 11:35 AM · Report this
5
Obviously Ft. Hood needs more guns.
Posted by Salutati on December 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM · Report this
6
Charles- thank you for all of your posts! The logical extension of the absolute right to have arms (as opposed to the right to protect your household from unreasonable government occupation of your property), is simply to give guns to everyone! After all if it's a right, just give them away! To everyone! Won't that make everyone feel really safe then!
Posted by pat L on December 22, 2012 at 11:45 AM · Report this
7
"A single gunman killed 13 people and wounded 29 others on the military base."

People on military bases are not usually armed.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 8
The gun profit fat cats see your children's lives as a small price to pay for their luxurious lifestyles. The politicians see your children's lives as small price to pay so they can keep their jobs. That leaves it to you to protect your children's lives with laws. And laws will only be changed if we put our foot down and demand action.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on December 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM · Report this
seatackled 9
@7

And why do you suppose the military doesn't have its personnel carrying firearms 24/7?
Posted by seatackled on December 22, 2012 at 12:01 PM · Report this
Charles Mudede 10
@9, exactly. fucking exactly. but the base does have armed guards.
Posted by Charles Mudede on December 22, 2012 at 12:05 PM · Report this
NotSean 11
@1 You speak the truth.

I've been considering that discepenacy between the NRA membership and the NRA lobbying.

The members should somehow be shown how their organization's leadership does not represent their interests.

Why does my FIL - a rifle/shotgun hunter, who stores his three weapons and modest volume of homemade ammo safely in a gun locker, in a locked room - why should he want to be in a club with Ted Nugent ratatat-tat types and the Bushmaster fantasy blood-lusters? Why does he think that's good company?

Posted by NotSean on December 22, 2012 at 12:17 PM · Report this
12
@10
Because the military does not limit their troops to older, wiser and non-drunk people.
The military takes a lot of young people without much experience and allows them to buy alcohol. Not a good mix for guns.
The military (in the USofA) has even more stringent gun control regulations than most of the civilian areas. Extending to knives, bows and arrows and so on.
Why don't you take the time to go talk to some of the people at Joint Base Lewis-McChord?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 22, 2012 at 12:23 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 13
@12

Now you're just making shit up without even a lame Wikipedia link.

The military follows the same drinking age rules as the states. They don't let you drink under 21. Why would they have a particular problem with alcohol and guns that the rest of America doesn't have?

And where the hell are you getting this stuff about older, wiser gun owners? Like the 60 year old who dropped a loaded gun, round in the chamber, safety off, in a movie theater? YESTERDAY. Had your NRA memory wipe already?

Let's review:
1. The armed cop like at Columbine High school can't protect you.
2. The armed MPs on a base can't protect you.
3. Young soldiers are too stupid and too drunk to have guns. They can't protect you.
4. Old men are just too addle brained to have gun. They can't protect you.

Who does that leave?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on December 22, 2012 at 12:36 PM · Report this
14
Yawn, its just the same old tired Dirty Harry yarn the NRA has been spinning for years. "Every good guy gun owner out there is a fast enough and has the eagle eye aim to draw their gun shoot and kill in one shot a bad guy gunman who already has his weapon out and is shooting."

In NRA land a good guy gunman can out draw a speeding bullet. Its a fantasy that makes them feel macho and you'll never talk them out of it;
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on December 22, 2012 at 1:34 PM · Report this
15
@10
So, Charles, are you going to interview any of the troops at Joint Base Lewis-McChord?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on December 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM · Report this
Dr_Awesome 16
Fnarf and NotSean (especially NotSean): That's pretty much how my future Father-In-Law and Brother-In-Law have described to me the NRA and their membership in it. They don't really know where the money they contribute goes, or what it does.

HOWEVER: They know sure-as-shit that every liberal everywhere is trying to take all their guns away and would do so right now without the NRA to stop them.

Why, Future-Brother-In-Law told me as much. He believes there is a bill on Obama's desk that would make every gun he owns illegal -- and this was four years ago he said this.

So most ordinary NRA members don't believe the leadership fully represents them. But the alternative is worse, far worse to them, so they put up with the NRA's crazy leadership and lobbying.
Posted by Dr_Awesome on December 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM · Report this
17
@13: If only the first person with a gun would have stopped the killer before he went on a rampage at the school. Oh wait, the first person he killed was his mom.
Posted by Drew2u on December 22, 2012 at 2:51 PM · Report this
Skye Blu 18
It is obvious- only women can or should be allowed to have guns.
Tell me one woman who went on a shooting rampage, just one and I'll be quiet- otherwise the rest of you STFU!!
Posted by Skye Blu on December 22, 2012 at 2:55 PM · Report this
Posted by seatackled on December 22, 2012 at 3:12 PM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 20
@18 Aileen Wuornos.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on December 22, 2012 at 3:21 PM · Report this
Skye Blu 21
@20 Aileen doesn't count- serial killer is not the same as mass murderer.
And I take it back- only one female shooter still means women are more trustworthy than men with regards to firearms.
STFU!!!
Posted by Skye Blu on December 22, 2012 at 3:42 PM · Report this
Phoebe in Wallingford 22
@18: Nancy Larza, by proxy
Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford on December 22, 2012 at 3:56 PM · Report this
Skye Blu 23
@22- so is Hitler's mother responsible for the Holocost by-proxy?
Posted by Skye Blu on December 22, 2012 at 4:58 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 24
Why Charles want's us disarmed:

file:///Victims_of_the_Vumba_Massacre,_1978.jpg">File:Victims_of_the_Vumba_Massacre,_1978…">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/file:///Victim…">File:Victim…

White Rhodesians raped and stabbed to death by communist guerrillas loyal to his fathers political party.

The more you know.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on December 22, 2012 at 5:18 PM · Report this
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on December 22, 2012 at 5:20 PM · Report this
Fnarf 26
@23, Hitler's mother didn't have a house full of Zyklon B.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on December 22, 2012 at 5:24 PM · Report this
Fnarf 27
@4, people on Slog are taking this idea seriously. Lots of people are taking this seriously. Half of the Washington State legislature is taking this seriously. No, it won't get passed into law, but it helps ensure that the debate stays focused on "oh my God what a kook" and not "let's do this thing right".
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on December 22, 2012 at 5:27 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 28
@ 27, if they're going "oh my god what a kook," that will have a neutralizing effect upon the NRA. It won't neutralize the NRA, but they have just diminished their own power.

The most shocking thing about their suggestion was their utter lack of preparation this shows. Despite the near-routine nature of mass murders, it never occurred to them that they might suddenly find one so revolting that nearly the whole nation is rising up to say "enough!" One in which children were targeted for slaughter. The NRA has been effective in the past by being prepared, but even though school massacres by high power rifle have already happened (even here in the USA, even since the NRA became powerful), this caught them flatfooted. That's why they were silent for a week. That's why this universally ridiculed* idea is getting no traction. That's why those very same legislators are not now calling press conferences to affirm their support for Second Amendment rights.

It's obviously too early to know for sure, but I think the entire debate has just turned a corner, and for once the NRA is going to be on the defense.

That doesn't mean that we're suddenly going to get the gun control movement's dream slate of legislation passed, or even half-assed regulation out of this. But gun control was dead for years, and now it's being talked about like I've haven't seen in decades. That's a major shift.

* Except for the hardcore gun nuts, of course. But despite your broadbrush condemnation of all gun owners everywhere, that describes a very small part of our population.
Posted by Matt from Denver on December 22, 2012 at 7:36 PM · Report this
Charles Mudede 29
15) i plan to visit or at least talk to base people about this. i think it's a splendid idea.
Posted by Charles Mudede on December 22, 2012 at 7:41 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 30
@ 18/21/23:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Sa…

There's your one woman who went on a shooting rampage.
Posted by Matt from Denver on December 22, 2012 at 7:42 PM · Report this
31
Yes, most folks are unarmed at military installations unless they are 1) Training 2) Drilling 3) Standing Watch. However, no one is thinking that someone is going to fire at you or shoot you while you're shopping at the Army PX or Navy Exchange!
Posted by gman5541 on December 23, 2012 at 2:19 AM · Report this
32
Libtards like Chuck Dick are so naive and make the stupidest arguments based on their naive fantasies. Soldiers are not allowed to carry weapons on base, dipshit.
Posted by Mudede Is Naive Or Stupid on December 23, 2012 at 8:12 AM · Report this
33
The perfect experiment would be if an armed shooter shot up a gun show. All those Dirty Harry types would have to decide. Will I duck and hide or do I feel lucky?
Posted by pb1025 on December 23, 2012 at 8:19 AM · Report this
34
# 32, Really? I think you should take a look at the difference between "off duty" and "on duty" military personnel. If you are not a veteran you should shut your pie hole. If you are a veteran you are a complete idiot or a liar. When I was "on duty" I carried a loaded .45 caliber Colt. No I was not an M.P.
Posted by Proud Veteran on December 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM · Report this
35
The reason they will not shoot up a gun show is that they would be cut down and they know it.

Same reason they do not open fire in a police precinct or gun store or gun range or anywhere else they believe that there will be armed resistance.
Posted by Desert War Dog on December 23, 2012 at 3:35 PM · Report this
36
You anti-gun nuts are the ones who owe the apology. Thanks to your efforts military bases have been gun free zones since the 90's.
Posted by 2nd Amendment rules on December 23, 2012 at 4:26 PM · Report this
37
It's about time someone interviewed JBLM, our local "rogue base" about problems with violence. Also, bank robbery and pimping children.
Posted by tiktok on December 23, 2012 at 5:32 PM · Report this
38
I think there is a widespread misunderstanding about how most armed civilians would respond in the event they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time during a shooting. I conceal carry. I am fully aware of the ramifications of discharging a firearm in public, of the potential harm I could do, of the possible serious legal consequences of killing another human being, of the potential for leaving my family fatherless, whilst rotting in jail because a jury was unable or unwilling to see the necessity of my action, even if that person is completely deranged or evil. Unless my immediate family was in dire jeopardy under imminent threat of death, where I felt drawing my firearm was the only option left it is likely my pistol would remain in the holster.
Posted by reasonablegunowner on December 24, 2012 at 8:48 AM · Report this
39
Got news for the people who think that this armed guard thing will not fly. It is already in progress.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/new-jersey-to…

New Jersey town placing armed guards in schools
'This is not such a major change, we're not putting in SWAT teams'
Published: 4 hours ago

(NBCNEWYORK) — On the same day the National Rifle Association spoke publicly for the first time since last week’s elementary school massacre in Connecticut, one local school district announced plans to place armed police officers in every school. [This had been decided independently and prior to the NRA's announcement.]

The mayor of Marlboro Township in New Jersey said Friday there would be armed security guards at the district’s nine schools starting in January.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/new-jersey-to…

See complete article via the link above.
Posted by Varn on December 24, 2012 at 1:25 PM · Report this
40
Got news for the people who think that this armed guard thing will not fly. It is already in progress.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/new-jersey-to…

New Jersey town placing armed guards in schools
'This is not such a major change, we're not putting in SWAT teams'
Published: 4 hours ago

(NBCNEWYORK) — On the same day the National Rifle Association spoke publicly for the first time since last week’s elementary school massacre in Connecticut, one local school district announced plans to place armed police officers in every school. [This had been decided independently and prior to the NRA's announcement.]

The mayor of Marlboro Township in New Jersey said Friday there would be armed security guards at the district’s nine schools starting in January.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/new-jersey-to…

See complete article via the link above.
Posted by Varn on December 24, 2012 at 1:33 PM · Report this
41
you talk through an orifice in your body that the good lord didn't intend for you to speek through.
Posted by wilmar on December 29, 2012 at 4:27 PM · Report this
42
I am a gun owner but not a "gun nut". Like most gun owners I can say I am in favor of limitations being placed on purchases. Yes there should be a background check ALWAYS. There should be a bar on people who have serious mental issues from buying guns, people who own guns and irresponsibly allow them into the hands of people who should not have them should be held accountable etc.. I also don't think I advocate armed teachers or that kind of thing, but this article is very flawed. More specifically:

1) The shooting at Ft Hood took place in a gun free zone.

The Army prohibits soldiers from carrying personal firearms inside Fort Hood and other bases. They want to reduce casual violence among the soldiers. Military weapons are used only for training or by base security, and personal weapons were kept locked away by the provost marshal.[29] Specialist Jerry Richard, a soldier working at the Readiness Center, said he felt this policy left the soldiers vulnerable to violent assaults: "Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can't even defend yourself."[118] Jacob Sullum, an opponent of gun control, described the base as a "gun-free zone.

2) Virginia Tech did in fact have police on campus but the shooter specifically chose a building away from that which ALSO was a gun free zone. It took them time to get there. About 3 minutes to arrive and then 5 minutes before they entered the building by shooting the lock out that the shooter put on the door.

3) Columbine did have a police officer there but a couple facts a) "A Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy, Neil Gardner, was assigned to the high school as a full-time uniformed and armed school resource officer. Gardner usually ate lunch with students in the cafeteria, but on April 20 he was eating lunch in his patrol car at the northwest corner of the campus, watching students in the Smokers' Pit in Clement Park" b) "Harris, at the West Entrance, immediately fired his rifle at Gardner, who was sixty yards away. Gardner returned fire with his service pistol. He was not wearing his prescription eyeglasses, and was unable to hit the shooters."

So in other words, the deputy was not at his post, he was in his squad car eating lunch. When he did arrive, he wasn't wearing his glasses and was therefore unable to hit the shooters.

None of these facts make the massacres any less horrific, nor do they make the NRA any less rabid in its methods, but I think it is important to be in full possession of the facts.

More...
Posted by Mike789 on January 12, 2013 at 12:35 AM · Report this
43
You've sighted 3 examples of where armed individuals were unable to stop a mass shooting. Three is not statistically relevant. There are dozens if not hundreds of shooters stopped by armed individuals in modern history. They weren't mass shooting because the shooters were stopped.
Posted by thumped5000 on January 12, 2013 at 8:13 AM · Report this
44
Using your logic -

If one person dies wearing a seat belt then seat belts are completely ineffective.

Posted by Thomp5000 on January 12, 2013 at 9:06 AM · Report this
45
So you have no answers, just put down an idea that might, might stop some of it. You're part of the problem.
Posted by fohi1971 on January 12, 2013 at 10:26 AM · Report this
46
The only people on a military base with loaded weapons are: The MPs and DOD Police, MPI Agents & CID Agents; anyone with the rare duty of payroll / cashier assignment; and those assigned to guard sensitive areas like SCIFs (look it up). Even in training and qualifications the weapons and ammo are transported separately and not put together until the soldier is ready to fire the weapon. Even in most combat zones weapons are unloaded once back in contonement or the FOB (look it up) leaving the security to those that have the duty that day. No one in the processing center had armed weapons except the terrorist. DOD Police responding to 911 calls shot the terrorist. Columbine the armed deputy & unarmed security guard was assigned to watch the smoke pit next to the school to watch for truants that may not return to the open campus. Hearing bombs explode, these 2 were the 1st on the scene, exchanged gun fire with 1 killer who went into the packed cafeteria to kill more while these 2 coordinated the response and evacuated many students to safety. Virg Tech the killer lured the Campus PD & SWAT team into pursuing the boyfriend of a girl he shot in the AM and in the afternoon he locked from the inside the doors to a bldg and began shooting. Campus POs broke in the bldg & as they did so the killer killed himself. SO all 3 references are BS in relation to school security. There have been NO mass shooting in schools where they have armed SROs (look it up) that are assigned properly, Columbine as stated why, the only exception. So CHARLES MUDEDE is a fool or a liar. Plus: FBI and other finger print background checks did not EVER cross reference with national security investigations. EVER. The has been a commission to investigate this shooting and obama & holder did their best to cover it all up & call it Workplace Violence and not TERRORISM, printed 1/15/2010. Been napping a while have you Charles....
More...
Posted by TheCpt on January 13, 2013 at 11:27 PM · Report this

Add a comment