Criminals, Especially Murderers, Aren't Deterred By Rules: Navy Yard Was A Gun-Free Zone
How naive is it to make a rule that a place is a "gun-free" zone and then expect that to be obeyed by people who would do others harm?
This is not adult thinking.
Judson Phillips writes in the Wash Times:
Why in God's name do we make our military people so vulnerable that they have to rely on the DC police today?Confusion swirled around the shootings at the Washington Naval Yard today. Was it one gunman or was it several? How did this gunman or gunmen get access to a secured military facility? How did one rifle and possibly one shotgun get onto a secured military facility?
The United States Navy is one of the most powerful military organizations in the world. The Navy's arsenal could wipe most nations off the face of the earth. It was the Navy that killed Osama Bin Laden.
So why was one of our most important Naval facilities so vulnerable?
It is because it was made a gun free zone.Like Washington D.C., one of the crime capitols of America, the Washington Navy Yard was a gun free zone. Translation: It was a target rich environment.
This analogy is very benign compared to yesterday's events, but I think it makes the point. My middle daughter is extremely OCD (diagnosed) with some bipolar thrown in for shits and giggles (also diagnosed). Anyway, when she was younger, she would go through the house at night at shut and lock evey window and door in the house, then check it again to make sure. We didn't have A/C so this was problematic in the summer time. One night as she was going through her routine, I stopped her and told her to leave the windows open because it was too hot to close the house up. She was very upset and was worried a bad person would try to get into the house while we were sleeping. I explained to her that closed windows and locks only kept honest people out. If a bad person wanted to get into the house, the flimsy window and lock weren't going to stop them. Same with gun free zones, if someone is intent on doing harm, the sign means nothing. I don't understand people who think the signs (or locks, or crosswalks) magically protect you.
sara at September 17, 2013 5:55 AM
Oh and in case anyone was wondering, I didn't get any sleep that night because my daughter laid awake all night, and came and got me at every sound she heard.
sara at September 17, 2013 5:57 AM
No word from the President yet on whether the killer could have been his son.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 17, 2013 7:04 AM
So the idea of a gun-free military base is the sort of thing that only a Western, leftist, post-modern government can come up with. If the DoD was smart (yeah, I know), they'd set it up like this: If you are in uniform, you can carry. If you are a civilian, and you have a valid permit in the state where the base is, you can carry on base on one condition: that in an emergency, you become part of a base militia. Set up a command structure and get the carrying civilians a bit of instruction and training. It couldn't hurt, and in a situation like yesterday, it could help.
Cousin Dave at September 17, 2013 9:24 AM
Personally, given the fact that this is a MILITARY base, with a heightened possibility of attack from any number of enemies, I believe that trained military personnel should not only be allowed, but required, to carry a weapon with them while on base, unless doing something that would make the weapon prone to accidental discharge. Civilian workers should be allowed to bring weapons onto the base and carry them also.
This incident simply proves, like Fort Hood, that professional security is simply not enough.
mpetrie98 at September 17, 2013 10:17 AM
Come on, guys, get real.
The War on Terrorism isn't really a "war" war.
If it was a war, our military would be armed in case of domestic attack.
They're not, because it isn't.
Now let's all buckle down and pay off the $3 Trillion the GAO estimates our little Iraq/Afghanistan adventure is costing us. Shouldn't take us more than two or three generations.
Not to worry. The bankers have loaned us the money at preferred rates!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 17, 2013 10:35 AM
Like Gog says. The banks can loans us the "free please stay in business" money they got from Obama at very low rates. So stop complaining and get a fast food job while they still exist.
Bob in Texas at September 17, 2013 11:26 AM
When I was in the military we carried loaded weapons whenever we carried money. There was a solider stationed in every bank on base, and in finance with a loaded M16.
The nanny mentality, and fear of an AD had not permeated American life back then.
Isab at September 17, 2013 12:15 PM
I work in a large call center for a national company. I don't know how many people work here, but the building covers at least 3 football fields and has 5 floors. There is a ridiculous little sign at the front door saying "All weapons prohibited".
I have my CCP and look at that every day as I walk in with my handgun in my purse and think "I'd rather be fired for having this then be killed for not having this."
If someone attacked us, there would be no where to hide and we are one of the closest departments to the front door. And the "security" guards are useless. If you don't take personal responsibility for your own security, you're screwed.
Esther at September 17, 2013 1:46 PM
"If you are a civilian, and you have a valid permit in the state where the base is, you can carry on base on one condition"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this man a security cleared contractor for the navy?
wtf at September 17, 2013 5:46 PM
And in the reserves at one point?
wtf at September 17, 2013 5:48 PM
I don't know when military bases became gun free zones. I'm curious to see some statistics of incidents pre and post gun free zone designations.
Goo at September 17, 2013 7:55 PM
Even back in the 80's bases were "gun free zones". But take it off for the D.C. yard it still wouldn't make a difference. D.C. is a gun free zone as well.
But meanwhile there are hundreds of diplomatic bodyguards carrying firearms. Why haven't there been more shootings of people by them?
Jim P. at September 17, 2013 9:28 PM
Even back in the 80's bases were "gun free zones". But take it off for the D.C. yard it still wouldn't make a difference. D.C. is a gun free zone as well.
But meanwhile there are hundreds of diplomatic bodyguards carrying firearms. Why haven't there been more shootings of people by them?
Posted by: Jim P. at September 17, 2013 9:28 PM
Maybe the Airforce bases. In the army we were allowed a personal side arm on duty or out in the field, and many officers had them.
It is my understanding that it was Clinton who disarmed the military in the 90's and started requiring all personal weapons on bases to be locked in the arms room.
At one point they backed off, as they went too far when they required people who had family quarters on base to keep their weapons in an arms room also, but the barracks were not secure, so they had an argument there. In Germany,the arms rooms were in the basement of the barracks, and the armorer would open it when you needed him to. I kept my guns at our apartment in town.
In 1986 I checked out 18 1911 pistols to take to the range and test for a competition we had coming up. It was easier than buying gas on base.
Isab at September 17, 2013 10:33 PM
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this man a security cleared contractor for the navy?"
That's my understanding. How the bleep he was able to hold a clearance with his repeated psychotic episodes and misconduct is a mystery to me. (No, wait, it's not a mystery at all...) However, having a clearance or not would have no bearing on whether he would have been allowed to have a weapon in base. Clearances have to do with information, not arms.
Cousin Dave at September 18, 2013 7:47 AM
When Snowden did his thing, it came out that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) contracted out background checks. It turns out that at least one of those contractors were doing...shall we say, a poor job. Signing off on checks that were never done, checks that were incomplete and/or shoddy.
If you had the right contractor, you could get a security clearance simply by having a pulse.
OPM had suspended that contractor, and was looking into suing them for breach. Allegedly the CIA does their own.
I remember back in the day when an NIS agent showed up at work to interview people who knew one of our graduate students who had applied for work requiring a clearance. I guess those days are long gone...or maybe NCIS will resume doing background checks for the Navy.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 18, 2013 8:20 AM
A shooting in a gun free zone?! WHAT?! NOOOOOOO... I don't believe it. But, that's impossible!
Sabrina at September 18, 2013 10:35 AM
Darth, the last time I was interviewed in relation to someone else's application was about four years ago. It was kind of awkward because the investigator had traveled to my work location without contacting me first, expecting to find me, but I was TDY that week. But we managed to arrange a secure telecon at my travel location and we got it done. Since then, I know of at least two people who put me down as references on their applications, and I was never contacted.
Cousin Dave at September 18, 2013 11:46 AM
No guns allowed, so rely on the police, who call in the SWAT team.
And then the ranking officer decides to ... send them home in the middle of the slaughter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/24153252
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 18, 2013 3:40 PM
Leave a comment