Fort Hood gun store again linked to base rampage

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Why not just wall off Texas altogether?

We lets dem hippies in Texas because they have the best weed.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Preliminary crime statistics for 2011 released today by the FBI show a 4 percent decrease in violent crime–a continuation of a long-term downward trend nationwide.

Right at the beginning. Violent crime is going down and has been for a long time. Why do guns get the credit suddenly?

In fact, I can't find anywhere in your source that actually DOES credit the guns for the decrease in crime. Where does it say that?

You won't find much of a link between firearm ownership and crime. IMO one of the more creditable links to crime rates is lead petrol.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why not just wall off Texas altogether?

Too many boring parts of Texas, and actually a few really nice spots. No, we need to centralize the action for our viewing pleasure.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

You won't find much of a link between firearm ownership and crime.

And yet, a few here will keep repeating that there is one.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

And yet, a few here will keep repeating that there is one.

A = gun owner

B = violent crime committer

C = bullets

D = trigger

'A' inserts 'C' into clip on way to convenience store

'B' attempts to hold up convenience store at gunpoint with 'A' present and 'B' and 'C' in tow

'A' holds weapon with two-handed grip pointed center mass at 'B'

'B' quickly turns

'A' pulls 'D'

'B' falls to floor dead on arrival

Basic math

[lostinblue 1,989]

"With just two exceptions, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns."

Fort Hood attack: My son, our soldiers, are defenseless, sitting ducks

By John Lott

Published April 03, 2014

FoxNews.com

Facebook422 Twitter176 Gplus0

• 

  Staff Sgt. John Robertson waits in a parking lot outside of the Fort Hood military base for updates on April 2, 2014.ap

Next

The Obama administration hasn’t learned anything from the massacres at Fort Hood in 2009 or the Washington Navy Yard last year.

For all my research on how to stop or prevent mass public shootings and all the victims at these attacks that I have talked to over the years, the attack this week at Fort Hood was different.

My son Ryan, who is stationed at Fort Hood and recently back from a tour in Afghanistan, was just two blocks from the attack and could hear the shots.

Ironically, my son is a concealed handgun permit holder. He can carry a concealed handgun whenever he is off the Fort Hood base so that he can protect himself and others. But on the base he and his fellow soldiers are defenseless.

However, as was true in the 2009 attack at Fort Hood by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, soldiers, like my son, are banned from having weapons on base unless they have “a credible and specific threat against [military] personnel [exists] in that region.”

Yes, there are military police and they guard the entrances, but, like police generally, they can’t be everywhere all the time.

Thus during the Navy Yard or Fort Hood shootings, the unarmed JAG officers, marines, and soldiers could do nothing but cower as the shooter fired round after round.

Apparently, it took 15 minutes for the military police to arrive on the scene, and no one blames them. But 15 minutes is simply too long.

Ironically, my son is a concealed handgun permit holder. He can carry a concealed handgun whenever he is off the Fort Hood base so that he can protect himself and others. But on the base he and his fellow soldiers are defenseless.

Good soldiers obey the rules against carrying guns. But instead of making places safer, disarming them leaves them sitting ducks while those who want to do harm seek out venues where they don’t have to worry about victims defending themselves. With just two exceptions, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns.

And there is a long track record of armed Americans saving lives with weapons. From shootings at schools that were stopped before police arrived in such places as Pearl, Miss., and Edinboro, Pa., and at colleges like the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. Or attacks in busy downtowns such as Memphis; churches such as the New Life Church in Colorado Springs; at a malls in Portland and Salt Lake City; or at an apartment building in Oklahoma.

More than 11 million Americans can legally carry concealed handguns. They are next to us in restaurants, movie theaters and stores. Permit holders are law abiding, committing even the most trivial firearms violations at a rate of hundredths of 1%.

American police understand this. Last year, PoliceOne, the largest organization of police officers in the U.S. with 450,000 members, asked its members: “What would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public?” Their most frequent answer, with 30 percent support, was “more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians.”

If civilians can be trusted with guns, surely military personnel can be trusted.

Yet the government doesn’t seem to see the problem with the current setup. On March 18th the Department of Defense released its report on last fall’s Washington Navy Yard shooting, but the report focused solely on how mental illness of the assailant went unreported.

Clearly there were mistakes. The Navy did not properly report multiple troublesome incidents during Alexis’ active duty service. The government did not tell his employer about any of these problems. When the private contractor noticed a couple instances of psychological instability, they thought that they were aberrations, not part of a pattern and didn’t report these back to the government.

However, it would be foolish to believe that all potential mass shooters will be identified in advance. Even with better reporting practices, many will slip through the cracks.

Besides, it is always much easier in hindsight to realize that people had mental health issues. In addition, mentally ill employees are not the only threat to military bases. Determined terrorists pose a serious threat, too.

What should be done if the screening for mental illness fails? Or when there is a terrorist plot?

Armed soldiers would provide the best last line of defense.

Additionally, the bans on them carrying show that the concerns of gun control advocates have nothing to do with people not being trained. These people are trained, but gun control advocates still want areas to be “gun-free.”

We trust these people in combat situations, but somehow we can’t trust them at other times?

With a son being near this attack, it convinces me more than ever that we need to trust soldiers to carry weapons on bases. That would provide another line of defense against any attacks and not leave our soldiers as sitting ducks.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/03/fort-hood-attack-my-son-our-soldiers-are-defenseless-sitting-ducks/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They'll bring Lott and Kleck back.

And here he is - as predicted. John Lott.

Gary Kleck was already delivered.

It's always those two: Lott and Kleck. Hilarious!

Edited April 4, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

And here he is - as predicted. John Lott.

Gary Kleck was already delivered.

It's always those two: Lott and Kleck. Hilarious!

What kills me is, according to all these folks, shootings never took place before 2009. Before Obama, not a single person was the victim of a mass shooting.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What kills me is, according to all these folks, shootings never took place before 2009. Before Obama, not a single person was the victim of a mass shooting.

Since reality doesn't support their views, they decided to divorce themselves from her.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

While the libs wring their hands and call for discussions, and shrinks, and #######-al-is-sis about how to fix the problem of terrorism and violent crime, more and more Americans are choosing to arm themselves to provide the only realistic solution.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

While the libs wring their hands and call for discussions, and shrinks, and #######-al-is-sis about how to fix the problem of terrorism and violent crime, more and more Americans are choosing to arm themselves to provide the only realistic solution.

Yet, less and less people own guns.

Math is hard!

Edited April 4, 2014 by Harpa Timsah

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

While the libs wring their hands and call for discussions, and shrinks, and #######-al-is-sis about how to fix the problem of terrorism and violent crime, more and more Americans are choosing to arm themselves to provide the only realistic solution.

So, do you think that arming everyone in Chicago, Baltimore and Oakland is the solution to violent crime?

[LibCampFireClub 635]

So, do you think that arming everyone in Chicago, Baltimore and Oakland is the solution to violent crime?

I think anyone who wants to own a gun and is able to successfully pass the background check and concealed weapons permit should do so. The more criminals who can be shot while attacking law abiding citizens the better.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Yet, less and less people own guns.

Math is hard!

I think he was getting at more and more people are arming themselves outside the home - i.e. CCW.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I think anyone who wants to own a gun and is able to successfully pass the background check and concealed weapons permit should do so. The more criminals who can be shot while attacking law abiding citizens the better.

And what about the kids? The 7 year old selling lemonade in front of her yard? The 2 year old shot through her front door while she's sleeping on the couch? The teenage kids being shot while taking out the trash?