The Folly of Universal Armament - Why More Guns Wouldn't Have Prevented Fort Hood

can you site how many time a licensed person carrying a concealed weapon shot someone that was not justified? or how many time at all?

Did you now that the Texas Concealed Carry Law came about after the 1983 Caline Tx shooting at a lube's restaurant?

A Lady there lost her mother and father in that mass shooting and after so she push for the Concealed Carry Law and it passed.

look up mass shooting and tell me how many ended quickly with minimal death and who ended it. I can guaranty you that most of the shore one were stopped but people with gun that were on scene.

If only carrying concealed could stop the slaughter of the English language...

If only carrying concealed could stop the slaughter of the English language...

Amen.

teaching forcrumbs...Yes I agree! That is why I speak ENGLISH...not American! And it is a real sad situation that you have to teach for crumbs..I think teachers should make as good a living as all of these high wage do nothing twits in the Executive boardrooms. You job is way,way more important than paying people to stick one in us so they can live like kings.

Do you know what the second amendment is even for?

Do you know what the second amendment is even for?

No one does... People may interpret it many number of ways. Courts also do the same. You don't know what it's for any more than the Supreme Court or the Appellate Courts do. There has been debate over the exact meaning of it since it was written.

There is debate because those who oppose it want to fined ways around it. our founding father the ones how wrote it, stated its meaning many times. its also written in plan English, they just need to read it for whats written.

but here is a like that site both sides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

If you look at history and current laws of the time this amendment had a few uses. Self defence, Hunting food, prevent foreign invasion, and keeping the government in check. As the colonies rebelled against England, England placed and embargo against the colonies to reduce the number of gun here to prevent a revolt.

those who oppose the second admendment probably don't have the best interest of the people in minedbut use it as a safety issue to gain support.

I believe that certain restriction should be in place but i don't thing any outright ban or restriction should be in place on law abiding citizens.

How would the population defend them self from a lying and corrupt government that meas to tax you into poverty and put you in jail for disagreeing with them and taking every thing you own.
You can't, as far as I now unless you can vote them out before they do too much damage.

I thank God that has never had to happen and hope it never does, but if the government does not fear the people who will they?

kingland

At some point a technological solution will up the ante on this ongoing wild west show we call America. Some sort of device that immediately knocks everyone out (with sound, perhaps) as soon as a gunshot is detected. This will likely make 2nd Amendment zealots cringe with fear.

And then, of course, someone will figure out how to disable the device, or circumvent it with a high-tech silencer (which the government can outlaw, since technically a silencer is not protected by the 2nd Amendment).

And on and on it goes.

I don't understand your point kingland, why would you want such a device? Lets say it can knock everyone out after the first shot, that doesn't help whoever got shot first. Also if an assailant was prepared for such a device now everyone in his vacinity is unconscious and they still have the gun...not a good situation. I agree with your technology race, the taser was supposed to replace lethal force against a suspect but you can defeat one by wearing a metal mesh shirt.

I'm all for concealed carry if there is a decent set of qualifications one must have to obtain the permit. However, I think the people that say "if only there were more guns" or that say "he was just a psyco" are merely trying to explain this tragedy in a simple terms as possible. It makes it far easier to cope if you can say "well it won't happen to me because I carry a gun" or "it won't happen to me because I don't know of any crazy people". The simple answer is rarely the best one.

How would the population defend them self from a lying and corrupt government that meas to tax you into poverty and put you in jail for disagreeing with them and taking every thing you own.
You can't, as far as I now unless you can vote them out before they do too much damage.

Give me a break... An armed populace could basically do what is being in Iraq right now. Incur significant loss of life and hold the much more powerful opposing force at bay. The problem is, both the government and the populace, in the case of a revolt in this country, would have home field advantage. A revolt, with this armed populace would accomplish nothing.

The founders did not have the foresight to imagine a mechanized army with WMDs and other high explosives. There is no protection in terms of armaments from what is today's US military. If you think an armed uprising would stand a chance against the US military on it's own turf, you're bat @!$%# crazy.

If you look at history and current laws of the time this amendment had a few uses. Self defence, Hunting food, prevent foreign invasion, and keeping the government in check.

Actually, I've never seen an argument that justified the Second Amendment based on self-defense or hunting. I've seen arguments justifying gun ownership separately based on the Second Amendment and self-defense/hunting, but not the two causally linked.

The founders did not have the foresight to imagine a mechanized army with WMDs and other high explosives. There is no protection in terms of armaments from what is today's US military. If you think an armed uprising would stand a chance against the US military on it's own turf, you're bat @!$%# crazy.

Indeed, it's especially curiously among the assault-weapons ban critics, as if upgrading from a Winchester to an AR-15 would help against home-turf mobilization of the US military.

Times have changed, but Civil Wars don't seem to arouse a lot of restraint anywhere else in the world so I see no reason to presume that we'd see anything different here.

My only problem with this line of reasoning is that, Goddess forbid, there was another civil war in America, would those fighting the government force do better without guns? Yes, a rifle isn't going to stop a tank but I'd still rather have than a rock and harsh language.

Agreed.

I should make an article about that. "Liberal and rightwinger agree on Newsvine."

Killfile

It’s the same reason that on a U S Navy ship the captain has armed guards around the clock, someone might want to through him over boar, there are armed guards on a base but they are the MP’s and are at the gate/s as a rule.

Military officers especially top brass have been threatened throughout military history and that is basically the reason for not allowing it except in a combat zone.

Maybe we should be glad these "trained military personnel" aren't generally armed. According to the Boston Globe, May 3, 2009:

Another major cause of accidents are so-called negligent discharges - or accidental gunshots - which the Marine Corps report said increased every year between 2004 and 2008, including those involving "more senior, highly trained personnel." More than 180 troops have died from accidental gunshot wounds since the invasion, most recently two Marines in Anbar Province who died within the past two weeks, according to the Pentagon.

Meanwhile, the CDC reports that during the 4 years 2002-06, there were 3,572 unintentional firearms deaths in the US. In order to determine their standard rate of deaths per 100,000, the CDC divides the number of deaths by the sum of the population for the 4 years (1,464,753,210) and multiplies by 100,000. That works out to a rate of 0.24 unintentional firearms deaths per 100,000 population for general US public.

Using that same method, 180 accidental gunshot deaths in the military in Iraq between 2004-08, and an estimated summed population of 720,000 (180,000 x 4 years) multiplied by 100,000 computes to a rate of 25 accidental gunshot deaths per 100,000 population for our combat forces.

That means that the presence of guns among trained personnel in a situation where everyone is armed led to 100 times greater rate of death than in an untrained, incompletely armed public.

Actually, there were accounts of a second or third shooter early on, because everyone was in the same cammies and two guys were trying to return fire and/or trying to get some guns.

The advantage we have in the civilian world is that we aren't all wearing the same clothes, so rather than the suspect being one out of a crowd, it will be the guy in blue jean shorts and a striped T-shirt.

dixienc1

“While the article was very well written I don't agree with the premise at all. We're talking about trained military personnel here. NOT average everyday citizens.”

That’s true, but were they experienced in a combat situation? There is a big difference, all the training in the world will not prepare you for a gunman on a safe haven like an in country military base, it is not something they would ever expect and the only people that are repaired for that are those who are trained to expect the unexpected, a combat soldier.

They were not in a combat zone, and they were no in a hostile environment, even police officers train for such a thing on our streets and they get surprised every day buy such as this, someone with a gun may have stopped some of it but not that much, you are talking about a very short time span, before the first shot was heard the person was down and unless he was walking around and picking his targets he was shooting at random which means this more than likely took place in less than 5 minutes.

By the time someone ducked, looked and spotted it was almost over and that would go for a combat zone as well, you can’t return fire until you know at who and where you are shooting

I agree with dixie.

If trained soldiers were all well armed, then the damage would have been a lot less. Remember Beruit, our soldiers were not allowed to have bullets in their guns due to political correctness for the region.

I also remember being in Israel at one of the torurist attractions. There were 2 young people walking romantically down the alley. And both had uzzis strapped to their backs. I felt much safer seeing that than otherwise.

I will take my chance that I will be fast enough or conscious enough to save an unarmed peaceful, law abiding person like you.

Is that acceptable or should I let the poor victim of society or whatever else is troubling them be allowed to kill in their vain attempt to cure them self?

"laws - either allowing or prohibiting the carrying of firearms - can do little to protect us."

I disected this one earlier and I can't agree that's entirely false although I carry myself. Laws prohibiting the carying of firearms do NOTHING to pretect us for sure. They simply take one method of self defense away. Laws allowing the carry of firearms however, still do little to protect us and here's why.

In a defensive shooting, we (the ones who carry for defense) are always at a disadvantage in that we must draw last. The likelihood that you will beable to return fire and defend yourself is not great. None the less, better than to have the liklihood be zero.

I will take my chance that I will be fast enough or conscious enough to save an unarmed peaceful, law abiding person like you.

It scares me when people with the hero mentality carry. They call it 'self' defense for a reason. If you are going to defend someone other than your self, that person had better be worth going to prison or dying for IMHO. Otherwise you run the risk of getting into a situation you don't know enough about. This is how people legitimize the 'chaos theory' and the scenario of people shooting at who they THINK is the perpetrator and shooting people defending themselves instead, causing more harm than good in an already bad situation.

If a guy is not pointing a gun at me or someone close to me, I'm getting myself out out. You defend you, I'll defend me.

I had a good laugh when I read “It scares me when people with the hero mentality carry.'

That is a sign of a vivid, but twisted imagination. Still I guess I might quality for “hero” status in some people’s books when I went back to our aircraft on the LZ under fire to retrieve one of my soldiers or the time I performed first aid to a teenager trapped in a car lying in a ditch leaking gas. I would not call it "hero mentality" like some; I prefer to think of it as my duty to others rather than being a selfish, self-centered intellectual coward as opposed to risking my life.

In so far as worrying about a legal outcome, you can worry all you want. I will take my chances after killing an assailant and swearing every time they had the gun pointed at me! I can sleep easy with that as opposed to living the rest of my life remembering how some sociopath kill innocent lives while I worried about my own a$$. Trying to rationalize the situation for too long will get you and others killed.

Allot of truth in "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

I think you misunderstood what I meant by the 'hero mentality'. First of all you're right, we do have a duty to do what we can to help those in trouble around us. The 'hero mentality' is this preconceived notion that some who carry CCW have they are going to be the hero if a mass shooting were to ever occur and take down the shooter. Or stop a robbery in progress if they ever happen to walk in on one. These are people who wouldn't necessarily be sure they had all the facts before they tried playing hero. If I had the ability to put them through a dozen simulated situations, I'd almost bet that they would almost always take out the wrong guy if they did anything at all. I'm not talking about rendering first aid, or retrieving a fellow soldier. Those are commendable acts of heroism sure but not those of the 'hero mentality'. Those are acts of people with a human mentality.

Well sorry gone for a day: So there could have been a worse outcome??? It is hard to imagine a scenario where one guy with a gun shooting a room full of unarmed people could be made worse. UH OH pop quiz!!!! You are in a room with a crazed gunman who is shooting everyone the gun swings around to wear you and your family are huddled in a corner. You are suddenly looking down the barrel. You hear your kids scream your wife cries out" Do something!" This moment of terror frozen in time....

If there was one thing below on the list you could have at that moment what would it be? Which item would you choose as you and your family are moments from death.

A. Clean underwear so you would not be embarrassed when you arrived @ the ER or Morgue.

B. A Lollipop because you feel like a sucker.

C. A band-aid for your impending boo boo

D. A Sig Sauer P-226 in .40 cal so that you could take out the person about to kill you and your family

I believe a great deal of that killing after Katrina was racially motivated, however thinly it might have been disguised.

The largest mass murder by gun in the US is ... by police in New Orleans after Katrina.

Source, please?

Hi SchmittyJ. Thanks for asking. I am glad you are interested in looking into this further. I only have time for provide a few right now (sorry for that), but the information is not too hard to find and if you want more I can provide, but not right away (I am on deadline). On murders in New Orleans:

1) Solnit, Rebecca, 21 December 2008, http://www.truthout.org/122208A

2) Article on killing vigilante admits killing 38: http://btx3.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/the-katrina-murders-still-ignored-by-police/. Transcript of admission of guilt attached.

3) “Wading toward home”, New York Times Magazine, October 9, 2005.

4) “When the Levees Broke”, Spike Lee Documentary, testimony of Donnell Herrington

5) Davis, Mike, Poor Black and Left Behind, www.tomdispatch.com/post1849/mike_davis_on_the_political_sidelining_of_blacks,

6) Yearwood, Lennox, “March Demands Accountability of Gretna Police”, Louisiana Weekly, November 7, 2005

7) Tompson, AC, in “The Nation”,January 5, 2009. (video on CNN: http://www.nationinstitute.org/p/video/thompson_cnn

8) Conviction of man for vigilante killing of five youths: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AAQMF00&show_article=1

On the broader subject of the behavior of individuals in the wake of disaster, I would recommend Rebecca Solnit’s A Paradise Built in Hell

Also, Schmitty -- please be more careful when you extract from a post. I think I was clear in my original post that the police committed very FEW murders after Kartina relative to vigilantes and fearful individuals. The cause of the murder was a combination of fear based on an unrealistics understanding of how people behave in disasters coupled with ready access to guns. Fear + Guns is a dangerous combination.

You were clear...

The extraction wasn't careless... I was asking about your assertion as to murders by law enforcement. The ellipsis, by its definition, is intentional... and indicated my lack of interest in the remainder of your statement.

But the articles you posted deal with vigilante groups... not law enforcement. Re. the Gretna incident, none of those articles described an instance of law enforcement murder. While their actions were deplorable and disgusting, the articles do not accuse law enforcement of any acts of murder.

Additionally, it's a rather spurious article indeed when the writer quotes their own previously written articles to warrant their claims...

as it is, fundamentally, a states rights issue as well as a gun rights issue. I'd expect more dissent than we're seeing.

Not really... the 10th Amendment clearly provides for the 2nd Amendment's power in Illinois:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the 2nd Amendment, in its interpretation by the Supreme Court, is delegated to the U.S., the power to limit the right to bear arms would not be reserved to the State of Illinois.

Exactly schmitty. States are basically given a sliding scale for gun laws. They must comply with the 2nd ammendment's assurance of the people's right to bear arms, and they also must comply with federal restrictions on things such as machine guns. Anywhere between the two is fine.

I bet people would be singing a different song if Illinois decided to ban freedom of press.

You don't seem to understand how constitutional law works.

The First Amendment's provisions have been incorporated upon the states via the 14th amendment. The Second Amendment has not.

The Bill of Rights was designed to limit the power of the national government. It was not designed to curtail the states. Over the years, the Court has determined that some of its provisions should be enforced upon states as well. This is called incorporation. The 2nd Amendment has not--to date--been thusly applied.

State and local gun control legislation does not, therefore, violate the 2nd Amendment whereas the exact same measures at the national level might.

The 14th Amendment?! The one that defines citizenship, and provides for their Constitutional rights? That 14th Amendment?

The Bill of Rights was designed to limit the power of the national government. It was not designed to curtail the states.

Clearly, but as the 10th Amendment clearly provides that the States retain the powers not vested to the Government, which the 2nd Amendment does... please explain how the 14th Amendment has any bearing on this matter...

Yeah. That 14th Amendment.

Clearly, but as the 10th Amendment clearly provides that the States retain the powers not vested to the Government, which the 2nd Amendment does...

This sentence doesn't even make sense.

There are numerous Constitutional Law texts that explain this issue. Reading one rather than repeatedly making incorrect assertions would seem to be in order.

But then I'm just a Political Science professor. What the hell do I know?

Kill:

I read her profile... that's why I asked for an explanation. :-D

Courts:

My point was that, the 10th Amendment states, in lay terms, that any powers not reserved for the federal government is granted to the states. The right to keep and bear arms is granted to the Federal Government, and therefore not the states.

A good friend of mine is a Constitutional Law lawyer who works for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and we have long conversations about this kind of thing. Since I'm not a law scholar, I'm always looking for more information about these topics.

The right to keep and bear arms is granted to the Federal Government, and therefore not the states.

Not quite. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the national government.

The states, on the other hand, are not bound by the same restriction.

Check out the above link. It's not a bad explanation.

The right to keep and bear arms.... is granted to the Federal Government? What?

Actually, my bad... it's granted to the people. Unlike the 1st Amendment, there is no language which is limited (i.e. "Congress shall make no law"). It simply states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it doesn't say by who.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Doesn't say "by the national government"...

Courts:

Under current SCOTUS definitions, that would include infringement by the States, which is why they are hearing the suits in Chicago and D.C. to begin with... from my understanding.

This would all be a lot easier if you would do some research before making assertions that have no basis in anything but your own opinion. These are basic foundations of constitutional law.

The Bill of Rights was designed ONLY to limit the national government. Its provisions are not enforced upon the states unless so incorporated by the Court--and the Court has never done so for the 2nd amendment.

The DC question was easy--DC is under the governance of the national government. The law was obviously unconstitutional. The Chicago question is more difficult. Under the past 200+ yeas of judicial interpretation, states and localities are not limited by the 2nd Amendment. If the Court were to decide otherwise, it would be setting a new precedent and overturning more than a century of judicial reasoning.

Under current SCOTUS definitions, that would include infringement by the States, which is why they are hearing the suits in Chicago and D.C. to begin with... from my understanding.

Your understanding is wrong. In 1876 the Court rejected the position that states and localities were limited by the 2nd Amendment.

In 1876 the Court rejected the position that states and localities were limited by the 2nd Amendment.

SCOTUS positions change, especially during the course of 100+ years... why then are they agreeing to hear the Chicago case?

The SCOTUS has generally upheld that states and localities may limit gun ownership to suit their needs, unless it interferes with the spirit of the law. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the decision on this case is.

SCOTUS positions change, especially during the course of 100+ years

They can but this one hasn't.

I don't know why they granted cert in the Chicago case. Perhaps they're going to overturn the 1876 precedent. Or perhaps they're going to uphold the 1876 precedent and distinguish between that and the DC case.

We have no way of knowing one way or the other. And we probably won't, even once the decision of the Court is released.

But none of that matters because the fact remains that everything you have been saying about the Second Amendment is incorrect. So far you've belittled the idea of incorporation, denied basic facts about constitutional law, and made incorrect assertions about "current SCOTUS definitions."

We haven't been talking about what might be based on hypothetical decisions that may or may not be made by the Supreme Court. We're talking about what is. And at this time, states and localities are not bound by the terms of the Second Amendment.

So far you've belittled the idea of incorporation, denied basic facts about constitutional law, and made incorrect assertions about "current SCOTUS definitions."

Belittled?! lol... "incorporation is stupid!" Where the hell did I say anything along the lines of "belittling" incorporation? I read your article on the 14th Amendment and I see how it pertains to the granting of citizenship rights... and thus how it hasn't been done so for gun bearing, yet. Again... how is that "belittling"?

And which basic facts have I "denied," or made incorrect assertions about? The SCOTUS did, in fact, make a decision stating that the D.C. handgun ban did violate the spirit of the law, and thus overturned it. Given that, and the push for D.C. statehood, it isn't a far stretch to see how this could be applied to laws regarding states limiting the 2nd Amendment.

might be based on hypothetical decisions that may or may not be made by the Supreme Court.

Well, while it's hypothetical at this point, since they have agreed to hear the case in February, a decision will be made... not "may or may not."

We're talking about what is. And at this time, states and localities are not bound by the terms of the Second Amendment.

Yes... but since they will be hearing the case in February, it isn't outrageous to wonder what will be decided.

The 14th Amendment?! The one that defines citizenship, and provides for their Constitutional rights? That 14th Amendment?

Gee. Sorry. That sounded belittling to me. My mistake.

The SCOTUS did, in fact, make a decision stating that the D.C. handgun ban did violate the spirit of the law, and thus overturned it. Given that, and the push for D.C. statehood, it isn't a far stretch to see how this could be applied to laws regarding states limiting the 2nd Amendment.

The DC gun case changed absolutely nothing about judicial precedent relative to the 2nd Amendment. The only people who think that the case was significant or groundbreaking are those who don't understand the framework of the Bill of Rights and its application within American federalism.

Furthermore, the notion of DC statehood has nothing to do with the Court's decision. The fact of the matter is that DC is not a state. To assert that the "DC statehood movement" indicates that the Court is ready to incorporate the 2nd Amendment upon the states is a gross exaggeration with no foundation.

Well, while it's hypothetical at this point, since they have agreed to hear the case in February, a decision will be made... not "may or may not."

Not necessarily. There is no way of knowing at this time what case facts the Court will choose to consider or upon which they will choose to rule. You have no idea what the Court will or will not decide and thus any speculation until such time as the decision of the Court is made public is nothing but pointless hypothesizing.

You have no idea what the Court will or will not decide and thus any speculation until such time...

Um, that's not what I said... I made no speculation about what they will decide... I simply stated that a decision will be made. You said a decision "may or may not be made," if they're hearing the case, one will be made.

The fact of the matter is that DC is not a state. To assert that the "DC statehood movement" indicates that the Court is ready to incorporate the 2nd Amendment upon the states is a gross exaggeration with no foundation.

No crap? Really? Of course D.C. isn't a state... otherwise there would be no statehood movement. And I made no assertion whatsoever as to the Court's "readiness" to do anything. If I were to make an assertion of that sort, I would simply need point at the fact that they are hearing gun ban cases and assertstate that they are ready to make gun ban decisions.

You are right in stating that their statehood had no bearing on the decision... but the fact remains that they were willing to hear a court case regarding American citizens' arms-bearing rights. And the fact that they have agreed to hear the Chicago case indicates that they continue this interest, as it pertains to states.

You are right in stating that their statehood had no bearing on the decision... but the fact remains that they were willing to hear a court case regarding American citizens' arms-bearing rights.

Because the law in question unequivocably violated the Constitution.

And lack of statehood had very much to do with the decision. The fact that DC is not a state explains the Court's decision and means that their decision was in keeping with precedent.

Your original assertions about "current SCOTUS definitions" regarding the influence of the 2nd Amendment upon states and localities was wrong. That may change. But to think that the DC serves as precedent for the Chicago case ignores the issues of incorporation and federalism.

But to think that the DC serves as precedent for the Chicago case ignores the issues of incorporation and federalism.

I didn't say that it serves as a legal precedent... did I?

I merely pointed out that it could serve as a possible indicator for the feel of the Court... again, we'll have to wait until the decision on the case in February is announced.

Because the law in question unequivocably violated the Constitution.

If the Constitution gives the states the authority to control the use/sale etc of firearms then no court is going to change that. That change would require/changing or ammending the Constitution...

He could have target people off the base, he could have target even his own Mosque. Think what would have happen if the Major destory his own Mosque with his own IED. This country could have gone up in flames.

Huh?! Why the hell would he have done that?

And additionally, an Army psychiatrist has about as much "access to a host of heavy duty weapons that could be found on base" as you do... that is, not much at all.

Um, repost?

See: #10.5 - Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:57 AM EST