posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 11:34 PM
If I may..........
I have three obvious things to point out about this Navy shooting that fly in the face of the standard gun lobby arguments.
1. The shooter bought his shotgun legally. This is directly against the belief we always hear that"criminals don't buy guns legally".
Up to this point this man was NOT a criminal. He was never convicted of anything that would be considered criminal. However, he did have a history
with the law, and in each case he was arrested but not charged, so not convicted, so nothing went on his record to prevent him from getting a license
to buy a gun. Ok, even so, I'll give you, that's 1 out of how many, Yeah....odds are pretty astronomical against it happening.
2. In spite of having armed security forces on base, the shooter was still able to kill a dozen people. Once again this is directly opposite of what
the gun lobby constantly tells us, that criminals don't attack places where people are known to have guns.
People at military bases in the U.S. are NOT allowed to carry their side arms on base. The district of Columbia (D.C.) is one of the strictest gun
free zones in the country. Only security is allowed that privilege. In this particular case, the shooter (AFAIK) killed the first guard with the
shotgun, then took his 9 mm pistol. Then, entered the building and began shooting the occupants (unarmed workers gathered in the cafeteria) from a 4th
floor overlook. It took approx 10 minutes for the armed security forces to arrive and "neutralize the suspect". Ten WHOLE minutes of him shooting at
an unarmed opposition.
3. How many times have we been told that if more people carried guns no one wouldn't get massacred because all the patriotic gun fanatics would shoot
the shooter first?
That's zero for three for the gun myths.
That still stands. He was neutralized by trained forces with guns, ONCE they were on the scene. Imagine how much sooner it would have been if some of
the trained military personnel in the building were allowed to carry their side arms? More than likely less killing of innocents would have occurred
(but that's just a supposition on my part).
edit on 9/17/2013 by Krakatoa because: Added clarification