Feinstein uses Navy Yard shooting to call for more gun control.

[zxcvbob]

A military base is for all intents and purposes, a "gun free" zone just like a school or theater. There is a hypothetical "minimum response time" from some sort of armed security, be it base police or MA's... assuming they get the location right, can get in, don't get in a traffic collision while responding, they're not ambushed on arrival, can actually find the shooter, oops multiple shooters, etc... and that's assuming there's only one "scene". How many shooting scenes on one base until response is overwhelmed and there's no more people to respond?

You left out "told to stand down by the Capitol Police watch commander"

[Wreck-n-Crew]

It's precisely the fact that mass shootings are virtually unpreventable combined with the guaranteed national publicity that accompanies them that has made them a focus of those who promote gun control.

With so few and so unpreventable some may wonder why they pursue it so feverishly.

Do they truly believe that we as humans have the power to make a perfect world according to their eyes? A Utopia where we all are Citizens who march and dance to the tune of "No Guns for Citizens = no mass shootings and no murder by gun"?

IMHO these people are whacked in the head and not that different from a cult.

Don't get me wrong, some see it as a political move for a police state and ultimate power, but for the ones who really think they are doing the "right thing" by traveling down that road really have some reality issues.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

That's not an AR-15. It's a Mini-14.

I stand corrected.
Never looked closely at it, just assumed they used the AR15 as with all the false reports of one being used in the Navy yard shooting.

[Tom Servo]

Never looked closely at it, just assumed they used the AR15 as with all the false reports of one being used in the Navy yard shooting.

Actually, I may be wrong. It could also be a full-auto AR-15 shotgun.

[raimius]

Originally Posted by SamNavy

I sincerely hope that a debate on this is ignited. I'm trusted with a top-secret clearance and to fly $100 million dollar aircraft, but even as an officer, I can't carry a side-arm to my desk job or when I go to the Exchange... rather, in a crisis, I've basically been trained to hide and call the police and wait for them to arrive (just like anybody else in a "gun free" workplace) while some psycho walks the cubicles executing my friends.

Any commander that authorized blanket CCW would be canned the first time some E-2 had an ND into his GOV truck.

Probable career ending outcomes outweigh possible life saving outcomes for most people.

(If you won "SecDef for the day" and instituted CCW rules, I'd be happy.)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...107.html?hp=r7

There's no stampede in the public to ban guns. The focus seems more on the mental illness relationship. Support for tougher gun laws is dropping.

Nice take on the same issue in the Washington Post by Charles Krauthammer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...tml?tid=pm_pop

[Evan Thomas]

Thanks for the link, Glenn -- that piece by Krauthammer is a good one. At least he gets that a big piece of the problem is that it's so easy these days for people, including police, to say "Not my job" when they encounter someone like Mr. Alexis. There's not much sense of compassion, or of what, for want of a better term, I'd call "neighborly responsibility" any more.

The other piece of the problem, of course, is money. Fixing the mental health system won't be cheap, while it costs little or nothing to pass more laws. I should say, "won't be cheap in the short term," though -- I suspect that in the longer term, the cost to society of treating mentally ill people would be a lot less than that of leaving them to fend for themselves...

But that's a very unfashionable point of view in a society based on individualism run amok.

[Jo6pak]

Feinstein would use a cold cup of coffee as an excuse to call for more gun "sensible" control

[Andy Blozinski]

There are issues I agree with and disagree with on every politician. Feinstein's no different. My respect for her did take a big dent, though, when she proudly and publicly displayed a list of proposed firearms to ban to protect the public after the Colorado shootings. The very last weapon on the list was the Ma Deuce belt fed machinegun. Because..it will make our schools so much safer to make sure no one carries that 100+ pound beast for a hip shooting massacre that even Hollywood knows has zero connection to practicality.

[Tom Servo]

Fixing the mental health system won't be cheap, while it costs little or nothing to pass more laws.

So does implementing minimum sentencing for gun-related crimes.

On one hand, the antis expect us to give up rights and possessions in order to comply with regulations that have been proven to have no effect. On the other, we present them with ideas that could have an effect, and they balk because of cost or logistics. It really calls their commitment to reducing violence into question.

Any program that aims to better treat mental illness is going to be expensive and difficult to implement. To take a page from the Biden/Feinstein playbook, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Perhaps it's time to pull the guilt & shame card on them.

[Evan Thomas]

I entirely agree, Tom.

"If it saves just one nut job" probably won't fly as a slogan, however.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Any program that aims to better treat mental illness is going to be expensive and difficult to implement.To take a page from the Biden/Feinstein playbook, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Perhaps it's time to pull the guilt & shame card on them.

I am with you, though I have no faith the Antis will have it.

Politicians like Feinstein and her Anti-gun Cohorts are politicians that are not just going to tell you what they really want and why as many of us already know. I also don't believe they will take a partial deal. I think they are content to use it politically until they can have it all.

[thallub]

President Clinton's executive order making bases gun free zones is responsible for the body count at the Navy Yard and Fort Hood.

Not exactly:

The DOD Directive dates from 25 February, 1992. It has been amended/ extended by every administration since.


From the DOD Directive:

POLICY
It is DoD Policy:
1. To limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD
military and civilian personnel. The authorization to carry
firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there
is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be
jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the
necessity to carry a firearm shall be made considering this
expectation weighed apainst the possible consequences of
accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. DoD personnel
regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be
armed. Procedures on authorization to carry and the carrying of
firearms are in enclosure 1.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...lintons-fault/

Some outlets are citing Army Regulation 190-14, a policy implemented in 1993 that changed policy regarding carrying firearms on the Army’s military bases, to cast blame on Clinton.

However, that policy specifically notes part of its purpose is aimed at implementing “applicable portions of Department of Defense Directive 5210.56,” which, as previously stated, was put into effect by Bush Sr.’s deputy secretary of defense:

Further, DoD spokesman Mark Wright told TheBlaze Army Regulation 190-14 would not apply to other bases under different branches of the military, including the site of Monday’s shooting, Washington Navy Yard.

“No, it would not apply,” he said Tuesday afternoon.