“Sometimes, "more guns" is in fact the right answer. I am a conservative and a defender of the 2nd Amendment right to own weapons, and there are no doubt cases in which citizens who live and work in dangerous areas can make themselves safer through responsible gun ownership.”

There is actually zero data in support of this guys view. In fact, I think he is an idiot masquerading as a conservative.

His view only makes sense if you believe the sole purpose of gun ownership to to take out an active shooter? Or defend yourself against a known threat like a high crime neighborhood?

What if, as John Lott’s data suggests we are all safer when criminals, and domestic terrorists , know that no matter where they go, they are likely to encounter armed resistance? When they don’t know, who in any given location, has a gun?

Don’t set up no gun zones, and don’t advertise the fact that you are proud to be a sitting duck. Hope is not a plan.

I don’t often carry concealed. And certainly not loaded. I do keep a gun and a loaded magazine in my vehicle, and nearly everyone I know does the same.
And I do this for the same reasons I have medical insurance and property insurance. Just another part of being a responsible adult. Like having a working fire extinguisher on hand.

I can't say I think more guns is the answer, but I can say Tom Nichols is not just a font of conventional wisdom, he is the high priestess of conventional wisdom, and his message is how we should all worship at the feet of the highly degreed experts, why, they are our best and brightest!

According to Tom, the sun will set at 6:03 pm tomorrow night in Los Angeles and rise at 7:11 am the next morning.

Count on it!

Every disaster brings out human irrationality. When there's a plane crash, we fear flying; when a rare disease emerges, we fear we will be infected. And when there's a mass shooting in a church, we think we should bring more guns into churches. Or at least some people think so. This is a completely irrational response to the tragedy in Texas this week, but it's being pushed by people for whom "more guns" is always the right answer to gun violence.

And the lunatics on the left, taking it to the other extreme, think we should ban them all.

I think what we need to do is recognize that sometimes there is nothing to do. Synagogue shootings aren't happening every day, every week, every month or even every year. We need to recognize that such instances are abbertions, not the norm, and that fluke occurrences happen.

If it sounds radical to suggest that there's nothing to be done about this, I would point out that automobile accidents are a daily occurrence, yet there's no movement to ban all cars.

The LA Times makes a subtle “Appeal to authority” argument in the headline of the opinion piece. While it is true that Mr. Nichols is a a professor at the Naval War College, located on bucolic Aquidneck Island, in beautiful Newport, Rhode Island (a summer resort town which is an excellent vacation selection) his expertise in firearms and self-defense is unclear. He is, however, a noted NeverTrumper, and has, since 2016, consistently opposed whatever the President advocated. I suggest, based of personal experience, when you work on a military installation in a semi-rural location, where you pass through gates manned by armed guards and have to go through security when entering major buildings, your attitude about (or any need for) carrying a personal firearm is different than if you will be in a public gathering of a group who are consistently threatened with physical violence.

On subjects within his expertise (he’s authored seven books), Prof. Nichols is a scholar whose opinions carry considerable weight. However, his opinion on domestic political issues appear more influenced by his dislike of DJT than sound analysis or a solid factual basis.

On a per captia basis, violence against Jews is higher than any other ethnic or racial group (approximately three times that of violence against blacks). This is more disturbing since one cannot readily identify whether someone is Jewish, so it appears that attackers are stalking Jews to attack. Accordingly, there is more reason for having armed security and being trained and armed for self-defense, rather than less. So, I disagree with Mr. Nichols.

Wfjag: On a per captia basis, violence against Jews is higher than any other ethnic or racial group (approximately three times that of violence against blacks).

I realize you qualified your statement by making it about racial and ethnic groups, but the LGBT community is still the most frequently victimized by hate crimes.

Nichols says, "...civilians who think they're going to be saviors at the next church shooting are more likely to get in the way of trained law enforcement personnel than they are to be of any help..."

To support this he links to a silly commentary about a shooting at a Walmart in Colorado.

Armed civilians didn't get in the way of trained law enforcement during the Walmart shooting because there was no trained law enforcement present during the shooting.

And why does Nichols refer to "church shooting"? It was at the church shooting in Texas that the psycho was shot and chased down by an armed civilian former NRA firearms instructor with an AR-15 and another civilian with a pickup truck. And it was a church security volunteer who shot and stopped the psycho who shot nine killing four at New Life Church in Colorado Springs and Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada.

In those church shootings, as in the Walmart shooting, there was no trained law enforcement present during the shootings to be gotten in the way of. Unfortunately during the church shooting in Charleston there was no armed civilian present to get in the way of the shooter.

As for difficulty police had trying to identify the shooter amid the chaos on the surveillance video during the subsequent investigation, I suppose it would be easier if the shooter was the only one left standing.

I'm pretty sure Tom Nichols is a liberal because he said, "I am a conservative..." before expressing his liberal point of view. Conservatives don't need to say "I am a conservative" before expressing their point of view because what they say speaks for itself.

Patrick: "...but the LGBT community is still the most frequently victimized by hate crimes."

As a conservative Christian I, like other conservative Christians I know, wouldn't feel threatened if more peaceful LGBT people acquired self defense skills and carried weapons. I would feel less threatened, believing that they would contribute to the overall suppression of ass-hole-ish violence against innocent people.

Patrick: "...I would point out that automobile accidents are a daily occurrence, yet there's no movement to ban all cars."

There may not be a widely recognized movement, but I wouldn't bet that there isn't somewhere, at some level, a desire. Banning all cars would surely reduce the number of fatal car accidents. It would also have other authoritarian advantages not related to car wrecks. But trying to ban all cars wouldn't be politically feasible at this point in time. Maybe it could be done incrementally.

Start by focusing a lot of attention on mass-casualty incidents, like charter bus crashes, li---------mo crashes, plane crashes, train wrecks, duck-boat sinkings. Put the blame on private ownership of vehicles with high-capacity passenger compartments.

Point out that only the government should operate high-capacity vehicles like transit buses and passenger trains. Use "research" to support replacing private charter transportation with safer alternatives - like Uber caravans. Have the vice president on a talk show give advice on personal transportation: "You don't need a high-capacity SUV to drop the kids off at soccer practice... they're big, they're hard to handle, the acceleration is too hard... Buy a Yugo! Buy a Yugo!"

Eventually ban all private, non-commercial vehicles capable of holding more than ten passengers. Ban vehicles whose design or ornamentation suggest high-performance, power or speed: racy stripes, spoilers, sporty wheels. Little by little, step by step, eventually ban private ownership of motorized transportation.

What if, as John Lott’s data suggests we are all safer when criminals, and domestic terrorists , know that no matter where they go, they are likely to encounter armed resistance? When they don’t know, who in any given location, has a gun?

Isab at October 28, 2018 11:14 PM

I was at an active shooter class recently and was discussing with the instructor, a police officer from the local precinct, the types of calls most often done in our neighborhood: transplants calling about a man with a gun. North Carolina is an open-carry state.

The conversation moved to open vs. concealed carry. The instructor advocated getting a concealed carry license over open carry, saying with open carry, the criminal knows who to target first. With enough concealed carry permits in the city, his argument ran, criminals would never know if a given crowd was armed and would have to think twice before committing violent acts upon said crowd. That's the logic behind the proposal to arm teachers - not that Mrs. Smith, geriatric English teacher, will morph into Rambo, but that anyone targeting a school will not know if there will be armed resistance and from whom it will come - creating uncertainty.

A bad idea?
Where does this idiot think the millions of carry permits are being used?
Guns are already out there, self-important but naive fellow - except where fools like you have insisted on “gun-free” zones: modern shooting ranges packed with defenseless people.

It looks like everything that needed to be said has been said. Nickols' argument is unpersuasive.

Besides, civilians who think they're going to be saviors at the next church shooting are more likely to get in the way of trained law enforcement personnel than they are to be of any help as a backup posse.

Considering that by the time they arrive they're either too late or in the case of the Parkland shootings, the officer was already there, safely tucked away from the violence.

What Tom "I am an EXPERT! RESPECT ME!" Nichols fails to get, and what Sixclaws hits at is something I've said for quite a while: if you're on scene when the fecal matter hits the fan, you are a first responder.

There is exactly one incident that I know of in recent memory where a LEO was on scene at the time of the attack: the Ohio State car ramming/knife attack. And the only reason he was on scene was to check out a report of a gas leak nearby.

Nichols is showing his contempt for guns and gun owners, deriding them as wannabe Rambos instead of conscientious citizens concerned about crime and safety. It’s “clingers” and “deplorables” all over again.

Patrick Says:

"I think what we need to do is recognize that sometimes there is nothing to do."

I think that what we need to recognize is that sometimes people do nothing when they presume that it is only other people being impacted.

I think we also need to recognize that there was one instance in recent history where the NRA and conservative government (Governor Roland Regan to be precise) decided that gun control was necessary and warranted to solve a percieved gun problem.

This was the Mulford act signed into law in 1967 in response to the Black Panthers open carrying loaded firearms in public with legal permits.

The law made it illegal to carry loaded weapons in public.

Governor Roland Regan at the time had the following things to say about the act:

First, that there was "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons"

Second, that such a law "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."

Now all of a sudden when we have a rash of people shooting up black churches, synagogues, mosks, and schools any and all gun regulation is a huge burden on honest citizens... and *more* loaded weapons on the streets is the answer.

It's almost as if there is a huge double standard in gun control laws when the victims aren't white christians... and the people holding the threatening firearms aren't white christians.

Go figure.

Conan,

Gun control will work no hardship on the honest citizen.

Does that position show contempt for guns and gun owners?

If so take it up with the ghost of Ronald Regan.

Not sure why I typed his name wrong twice as Roland... too bad it offers an amusing error to an otherwise serious post.

I also screwed up his last name lol... well I am sure given the quality of the posters on this blog those typos will be overlooked.

After all, this place is well known for focusing on substance over triviality.

In the words of my pacifist-leaning 74 year old mom, who now Carrie's and has since the concert shooting in europe: "I'll be damned if I'll sit helpless for hours, watching people be systematically murdered.".

Do I think I'll ever use my gun? No. I'd never pull it, or let it be known I have it, unless I absolutely was going to use it. Which is almost certainly never. But if that one super rare, horrible situation happens, I will not be helpless. I abhor helplessness in every form.

First, that there was "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons"

I wonder which parts of the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed Ronnie didn't understand and needed to have explained to him? Here's a reason: because I can and it is my right.

Yes, lots of people in positions of political power misunderstand the Constitution as written and pass unconstitutional laws. For instance, see the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Keep in mind that's a mere 10 years after the ratification of the Constitution.

No protesting the government? No immigrants allowed in? No freedom of the press. Lawmakers jailed? Is this the story of the Soviet Union during the Cold War?

No. It describes the United States in 1798 after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/19e.asp

Nichols writes: "Besides, civilians who think they're going to be saviors at the next church shooting are more likely to get in the way of trained law enforcement personnel than they are to be of any help as a backup posse." There is a big flaw in this reasoning: It only applies when law enforcement officers ARE ON THE SCENE. The problem is that it takes seconds to launch such an attack and it will be completed before police arrive. UNTIL POLICE ARRIVE, the victims are at the mercy of the shooter, unless they have the means to resist.

"And when there's a mass shooting in a church, we think we should bring more guns into churches"

If you only think about keeping your family and friends safe from evil losers after there's an incident, you aren't very serious about the value of life.

I wasn't always an atheist. I attended churches for many years, and was armed in church just about all my adult life. The smallest church I was a member of was also probably the most armed and most safe. People just carried because it's what responsible people do. Without a looming threat.

Since the LA Times appeals to authority by quoting a Naval War College graduate, I'll use a little Naval authority of my own. In a book called "Fleet Tactics: Theory and Practice", author Wayne P. Hughes wrote that in a Naval engagement, other things being equal, the side that can attack effectively first likely wins the battle. Something akin to this is at work in these mass shooting scenarios: a criminal launches an attack upon an unprepared and unsuspecting group, and inflicts massive casualties; this why the type of weapon used is almost irrelevant - AR15, shotgun, pistol. But that is as far as the analogy goes. An analogy to warfare in such a situation is relatively weak, but if one does make such comparisons, a mass shooting is more akin to a land operation. And on land -- due to the impact of terrain, including buildings, etc, the victim has more opportunities to blunt the effect of a surprise attack by prior preparation. The most effective way to counter a mass shooting is to deny the shooter access to the building in the first place. But once he is in, it is another matter. Mr. Nichols is a Naval War College professor, but I'll appeal to my own authority as an Infantry officer, and state as follows: Once the attacker has penetrated the facility, the only effective way to stop him is to have the present ability to meet force with force, and as a practical matter this means having immediate access to a firearm. The shooter can inflict infinite carnage in the time between launching his attack and the arrival of the police. Furthermore, if unchallenged, the attacker has the chance to improvise a defensive position and engage the police at advantage when they do arrive. If there is to be hope of curbing the damage before the police arrive, and of preventing the attacker from successfully engaging the police, then the victims must have immediate access to firearms at the moment of attack. The truth of this demonstrated by how we equip our combat troops in theater. EVERYONE in Afghanistan, down to and including the doctors, clerks, is armed. In the old days they might have had pistols but now they often have M4 carbines. They aren't expected to hunker down and await the quick reaction force. They are expected to resist an attack inside the FOB. I don't blame the victims in this or any shooting. But I do say that they should have the right and opportunity to prepare to meet an attack with force, and if they are capable, they should consider doing so. The only way to answer violence is to meet force with force.

Ken R: "I would feel less threatened, believing that they would contribute to the overall suppression of ass-hole-ish violence against innocent people."

You said it!

One more time.

Meanwhile, put the flag at half-staff. Make the shooter famous. Show the next overmedicated psychotic just what to do.

Jeanne Assam: The Forgotten Woman Who Stopped a Church Shooting-Truth!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/jeanne-assam-the-forgotten-woman-who-stopped-a-church-shooting/

Gun control will work no hardship on the honest citizen.

Does that position show contempt for guns and gun owners?

Artemis at October 29, 2018 7:37 AM

Artie,

Reading comprehension - put is on your list and pick some up the next time you're at the store.

I never mentioned gun control. By invoking it, you're not rebutting my point, at all.

My point was that Nichols is displaying a poorly-masked contempt for the concealed carry advocates that he seems to regard as his social and intellectual inferiors with his ill-informed and unsubstantiated "...civilians who think they're going to be saviors at the next church shooting are more likely to get in the way of trained law enforcement personnel than they are to be of any help as a backup posse." Reagan's position on gun control had nothing to do with that and citing it was not illustrative of anything.

In addition, you seem to think that by invoking Reagan, you've somehow scored points - in a debate no one but you is having.

Ronald Reagan was known for having changed many of his views since 1967; and even since 1987. He was, after all, at one time a registered Democrat.

He was also a "proud member of the NRA" and described his opposition to gun control as president thusly, "I was against a lot of the ridiculous things that were proposed with regard to gun control."

Reagan favored what he saw as sensible limits on gun ownership, ones that he felt did not infringe upon the citizenry's overall right to bear arms - waiting periods and background checks. I think you'll find most gun owners and gun advocacy groups, like the NRA, favor background checks and are only lukewarm in their opposition to waiting periods.

The idea that restricting gun ownership will reduce or eliminate mass killings is naive. It's not the guns, it's the people.

Guns capable of killing lots of people have been around for more than a hundred of years. The first "rapid-fire cannon" was invented in 1862 by Richard Gatling. The first machine gun was invented by Hiram Maxim in 1884. The first semi-automatic pistol was invented in 1891. The Thompson sub-machine gun was available to the general public by 1917.

Mass shootings of unarmed civilians are a relatively new phenomenon - even "Machine Gun" Kelly and John Dillinger, enthusiastic users of the Thompson in their criminal endeavors, did not engage in the random mass slaughter of unarmed civilians.

Taking away guns will not slow down the crazies, who will just switch to other weapons - as they have in Europe.

The worst school massacre in US history was carried out with dynamite in 1927 and killed 44, 38 of them students.

We need a better sense of history; while mass shootings are relatively new, mass killings are not. The 1910 bombing of the Los Angeles Times killed 21. 1919 saw a rash of bombings across the country conducted by Galleanist anarchists and targeting public officials and offices. The building at 23 Wall Street in New York City still bears the scars of the 1920 bombing that killed 38.

The FBI was originally created as the Department of Justice Division of Investigations to combat the spread of anarchist-inspired violence after the assassination of William McKinley in 1901 by anarchist, Leon Czolgosz.

Note the date of the op-ed piece: 11/08/2017.