Navy Yard Shooting

[MrSplitshot]

This particular (very tragic) situation has to take some wind out of the sails of those who say more guns and more armed people are the answer.

I'm not making a stand on either side, but he was in an area that required security clearance and had armed guards (not just armed civilians) and not only was he able to do this, but he also apparently ended up using some of the guards' weapons to continue shooting. If the argument is that more guns will help prevent these tragedies, then he definitely put a dent in that stand.

The gun control debate is one in which neither side has me very convinced that they have a good solution.

These crazed shooters have the element of surprise in their favor, always. Every person in the building could have been wearing a pistol and he would have still been able to take up a position and kill some immediately, strictly because only HE knew when and where and how it was going to go down. He had the element of surprise.

You think you couldn't walk into a bank right now with a gun under your jacket and shoot two armed guards before they knew what was going on? Of course you could. You are controlling when and where the game starts, so you have the upper hand.

The difference, to me, is that once the bullets start flying from a madman...and once the crowd knows what's going on...even if the armed guards were the first ones targeted and lose...more guns in the crowd could most definitely make it STOP sooner before more lives are lost. If there were several people in the crowd with guns, you can't tell me that someone wouldn't have been able to get to the guy and get him on the ground sooner.

Instead, while we are waiting for the authorities to respond, arrive, assess, and enter...more people are being killed as the guy makes his way through the building looking for more people to shoot.

I realize and respect the argument that more guns in the crowd can mean more innocent bystanders shot, crossfire, confusion when the police arrive, etc, etc, etc...I get it. But, more guns in the crowd increases the odds that a good guy takes out the bad guy sooner. Without them, the madman controls the situation longer. As long as he's in control, he can kill as many unarmed people as he can reach.

I love and respect law enforcement officers, but in those first 5-10 minutes after a madman opens fire in my office building, there is nobody to look out for me but ME. If I have a firearm, I have greatly increased my chances of survival. Otherwise, I'm just hiding under a desk with a paperweight in my right hand and hoping the guy doesn't pick my office. I aint going out like that.

[mhall]

Splitshot that is as good as it can be explained..

[DJD]

I try and have faith on not having any new crazy gun laws but the more this happens the easier its going to be to get something crazy passed. I honestly don't want anything new passed since it will do very little to help the problem of nut jobs and usually punishes or adds red tape to legal tax paying citizens.

i wish they would just take areas and use them as beta sites for gun control measures. Maybe Chicago? Pass another 100 laws on gun control in a city with plenty of laws and see how it works after 10 years or so and then let's talk.