We don’t yet know if it was one gunman or more, whether it was terrorism or a disgruntled nutjob, but we do know that the left has jumped on another mass shooting as an obvious reason we must DO SOMETHING!
Damn the details, for the love of God pass some legislation, man!
After all, if a gunman can shoot up a military base… that pretty well ends the argument that we could solve this if only victims were armed, right? I mean, this happened on a military base.
Of course, what those using that argument forget is one of the first acts of President Clinton was to disarm our service people on military bases.
That’s why this event, like Nidal Hassan’s “workplace violence” episode at Ft Hood, took place in yet another “gun free zone”. You’d have more chance of getting return fire at a McDonald’s in Texas than at a military base.
So like in so many other cases, the battle cry is to try and eliminate guns, not eliminate the obvious problem we created when we implemented “gun free zones”… which have failed magnificently. We use guns to guard the president, our banks, our bloody sporting events, but we create these mythical gun free zones and refuse to acknowledge that they are like shooting fish in a barrel when someone decides to go on a spree.
That is an inconvenient fact that the anti-gun crowd keeps trying to gloss over and ignore. Gun free zones do not work. Period. The never have, they never will.
And for the record, those who say arming MORE people in response to the issue will return us to “the wild wild west” might want to note that though our violent crime rate in heavily gun-controlled areas is the highest in the nation (DC, Chicago, etc)… and the violent crime rate in our nation as a whole is actually higher than it was during the late 1800s, AKA “the wild wild west”.
But don’t tell that to a gun-control advocate. They find facts horribly inconvenient, as those seldom support their theses.