Mass Shooting El Paso...

[Sparko]

Yes, and I was armed while walking around a base.

as a cop. Nobody else is armed in public, unless they are in training.

Make an amendment to the Constitution to overrule the 2nd Amendment. Wouldn't be the first time we got rid of a previous amendment.

Except that will never happen. Why propose unworkable solutions?

[demi-conservative]

Stop speaking in broken English, and The Washington Post is wrong. As a member of Security Forces, I was armed at all times while (in uniform) on the military base, and armories are typically not very far away.

Yes, you are military police. Not so many, often far away when firing starts.

"but police are armed, is enough!!!!'

*point goes whoosh at satellite height over head of yours*

[Teallaura]

Yikes. That just sounds insane to me. And I don't think unilateral mass destruction via nuclear armaments is a particularly good example for keeping the peace at Walmart through escalated armed resistance. Maybe if citizens were allowed to carry around tactical nuclear catapults à la video games like Fallout, but in the real world, it seems to me that'd be...impractical. And anyways, if mental illness is the big problem behind mass shootings (as has been argued for in the last couple incidences), the amount of armed civilians hanging out at Starbucks and day cares probably isn't going to factor much into the shooter's equations. In the same manner, if the rate of gun violence in the US is mostly due to gang warfare, ensuring more people are armed doesn't seem like much of a counter-measure.

I'm not a fan of this theory but MAD actually did work. And we still rely on the deterrent effect of having a military and an armament capable of inflicting horrendous damage in response. I'm of the opinion that has we not had MAD to begin with, we never would have seen any efforts towards disarmament and SALT would never have occurred.

I think Sparky over estimates the deterrent effect of concealed carry - and you underestimate it. Would it stop a determined shooter? No, but it might send him after a softer target. Would the average crook decide not to risk it? Very probably - but that again, just makes them look for more advantageous opportunities - like late night, no customers present, et cetera.

[Sparko]

Yes, you are like military police. Not so many, often far away when firing starts.

"but police are armed, is enough!!!!'

*point goes whoosh at satellite height over head of yours*

Please stop with the phony Russian accent. Nobody believes you are Russian or even a non-native English speaker. In fact, before your return, your English was much better.

So just give up the stupid game. Your posts are nearly impossible to read.

[Sparko]

I'm not a fan of this theory but MAD actually did work. And we still rely on the deterrent effect of having a military and an armament capable of inflicting horrendous damage in response. I'm of the opinion that has we not had MAD to begin with, we never would have seen any efforts towards disarmament and SALT would never have occurred.

I think Sparky over estimates the deterrent effect of concealed carry - and you underestimate it. Would it stop a determined shooter? No, but it might send him after a softer target. Would the average crook decide not to risk it? Very probably - but that again, just makes them look for more advantageous opportunities - like late night, no customers present, et cetera.

I agree with all of that. I know my "solution" is simplistic and has holes. But as a general idea, more guns would probably actually stop mass public shooting.

I think if we had a rash of mass shooting attempts that were quickly foiled by armed citizens, these morons would stop trying to copycat the last guy. Sure they might try something else, but right now we are seeing every one of these events spur on several more.

[Adrift]

as a cop. Nobody else is armed in public, unless they are in training.

How big do you think a military base is? Even on very large bases like Ramstein, we had more than enough Security Forces, and other armed personal patrolling the gates and streets that a gunman in his right mind would have thought twice before open-firing. And I'm not just talking about carrying an M9 either. I carried, at the very least, a loaded M-16 with me at almost all times while in uniform. And again, armories are typically close by. You can arm a couple dozen people in no time flat. That's sort of the point of a military base. The fact that one of the worst shootings ever happened on a military base should tell people that soft targets aren't that big of a concern for a nut. I feel like I'm in bizarro land seeing people attempt to argue to the contrary having actually served, and knowing exactly what to expect on a military base.

Except that will never happen.

I know.

Why propose unworkable solutions?

Hope springs eternal.

[Teallaura]

I think they target churches and schools because that's where a lot of people are. I don't think it has much to do with whether or not the people there are armed. Heck, one of the worst mass shootings was on a military base (Ft. Hood).

Hood is a very poor counter example - most of the people on base weren't armed because they weren't supposed to be. And the shooter worked there and knew that perfectly well.

We haven't tried my idea yet, which is banning all guns except for police and military, but that's unlikely to happen in a nation so devoted to weapons.

Your idea requires a constitutional amendment making it practically impossible at the present time. It's also grossly unfair to rural citizens for whom police protection may be more than 30 minutes away.

Personally, I prefer a world minus any firearms. I don't allow people to bring their guns into my home - but I also don't tell them they can't have their guns in their own homes (granted, if they have them laying about foolishly, I'm never visiting again). There are sensible regulations that should be in place and some we need to add. But the 'ban 'em all' position is counter productive - it's the reason gun proponents balk at any and all new gun control, even if they agree in principle.

[Sparko]

How big do you think a military base is? Even on very large bases like Ramstein, we had more than enough Security Forces, and other armed personal patrolling the gates and streets that a gunman in his right mind would have thought twice before open-firing. And I'm not just talking about carrying an M9 either. I carried, at the very least, a loaded M-16 with me at almost all times while in uniform. And again, armories are typically close by. You can arm a couple dozen people in no time flat. That's sort of the point of a military base. The fact that one of the worst shootings ever happened on a military base should tell people that soft targets aren't that big of a concern for a nut. I feel like I'm in bizarro land seeing people attempt to argue to the contrary having actually served, and knowing exactly what to expect on a military base.

Fort Hood is pretty damn big - I think it's the largest Army base in the US. And so are many of the other US bases (very large). They are basically small towns. Heck some of them are actually larger than the towns that surround them. A gunman could walk into the PX or commissary and shoot a dozen people before the MPs got there, just like in a walmart on the outside.

[Adrift]

I'm not a fan of this theory but MAD actually did work. And we still rely on the deterrent effect of having a military and an armament capable of inflicting horrendous damage in response. I'm of the opinion that has we not had MAD to begin with, we never would have seen any efforts towards disarmament and SALT would never have occurred.

I think it's a very silly point to compare Mutually Assured Destruction on a local level. We're not talking nuclear powered military's here, we're talking armed civilians.

I think Sparky over estimates the deterrent effect of concealed carry - and you underestimate it. Would it stop a determined shooter? No, but it might send him after a softer target. Would the average crook decide not to risk it? Very probably - but that again, just makes them look for more advantageous opportunities - like late night, no customers present, et cetera.

Most homicides are not committed by your average crook, they're committed in gang warfare where the other side is often expected to be armed.

[Adrift]

Hood is a very poor counter example - most of the people on base weren't armed because they weren't supposed to be. And the shooter worked there and knew that perfectly well.

I guarantee you that there were plenty of armed people on the base in relatively close proximity, and that others could have been armed fairly quickly.

Your idea requires a constitutional amendment making it practically impossible at the present time. It's also grossly unfair to rural citizens for whom police protection may be more than 30 minutes away.

I think it's worth the risk.

Personally, I prefer a world minus any firearms. I don't allow people to bring their guns into my home - but I also don't tell them they can't have their guns in their own homes (granted, if they have them laying about foolishly, I'm never visiting again). There are sensible regulations that should be in place and some we need to add. But the 'ban 'em all' position is counter productive - it's the reason gun proponents balk at any and all new gun control, even if they agree in principle.

Yes, I know that's your view, and I also understand that it's a reason gun proponents balk. I think an all or nothing approach is the only practical measure though.

[Sparko]

I think it's a very silly point to compare Mutually Assured Destruction on a local level. We're not talking nuclear powered military's here, we're talking armed civilians.

well sure, we aren't talking MAD, but the principal is the same whether on a national level or a personal level: Someone who want to use force against someone else is less likely to try if that other person has an equal or superior force. Most criminals and even insane shooters want to maximize their power over others, they are not looking for a fair fight. They want soft targets.

Most homicides are not committed by your average crook, they're committed in gang warfare where the other side is often expected to be armed.

They don't go to war like in the movies. They wait till they can gang up on a single member of the rival gang, or catch them at home, or some such. They also are looking for the overwhelming advantage.

[Teallaura]

It is ALWAYS wise to assume a gun (even with an orange tip) is real -- even though we "knew" it was a toy, we acted no differently than if it had been a real gun. Thanks for the opportunity to clear that up.

Daddy taught me a few things about guns: They are always real. They always work. And they are always, ALWAYS loaded.

Daddy also wore out the backside of any kid that pointed a toy gun at a person (my parents ran a kindergarten). You could play with them - but never, ever point one at anyone. See the above.


But, in a way, it's also sad. The orange tip came about because an officer, in the dark, saw a gun pointed his way and fired, killing a small kid. It was a toy but the officer couldn't have known it. But, if it had had an orange tip, could the officer take that risk in the same circumstances? I don't think so - I think the measure to prevent a repeat tragedy probably wouldn't work in the same circumstances - although I still think it's a good idea in general.

[Teallaura]

I think it's a very silly point to compare Mutually Assured Destruction on a local level. We're not talking nuclear powered military's here, we're talking armed civilians.

You brought it up.

Most homicides are not committed by your average crook, they're committed in gang warfare where the other side is often expected to be armed.

Which wouldn't be an issue for an average citizen.

This, however, WOULD be a good reason to look at interstate regulation.

[Teallaura]

I guarantee you that there were plenty of armed people on the base in relatively close proximity, and that others could have been armed fairly quickly.

No, there weren't. Would be now, probably - but their regulations were pretty strict back then. That was one of the findings after the massacre - and the fact that no one killed the shooter argues against this.

I think it's worth the risk.

Er, that's rather nasty.

Yes, I know that's your view, and I also understand that it's a reason gun proponents balk. I think an all or nothing approach is the only practical measure though.

It's completely impractical, though - what good is a measure that can't be implemented?

[Adrift]

Fort Hood is pretty damn big - I think it's the largest Army base in the US. And so are many of the other US bases (very large). They are basically small towns. Heck some of them are actually larger than the towns that surround them. A gunman could walk into the PX or commissary and shoot a dozen people before the MPs got there, just like in a walmart on the outside.

I was stationed on Ramstein Airbase, which I believe is the second largest after Fort Hood. Trust me when I say that there are plenty of armed security forces just about everywhere on that base, and a couple armories within close proximity. And you're right, an armed gunman could walk into a PX or commissary and shoot a dozen people before the MPs get there. That's my point. Even in a heavily armed place like a military base you can kill many people before anyone can respond. Wackjobs are looking for places where there's a lot of people. A military base is the last place you'd go if you're also concerned about armed resistance, so that's not really what they're concerned about.