I’ve had two people say something to the effect of “it’s hard to believe this massacre could happen on an Army base where everyone is a soldier and there are so many guns around,” meaning that lots of people should have been able to defend themselves.

Obviously, these people haven’t spent a lot of time on base.

I don’t know the regs for Fort Hood, but military bases are often pretty “gun free” in the sense that personnel aren’t issued weapons and generally not allowed to carry unless it’s part of their duties. So pretty much just MPs. It’s not like all the 11B infantrymen are walking around in armor with a loaded M4.

I thought I had posted about some new rules a while back that were trying to control personal weapons off base, also, but I can’t find it right now.

Suffice it to say that the personnel on Fort Hood had no real chance to defend themselves against Nidal Malik Hasan, a lifelong Muslim who reportedly gave an “Allahu Akbar!” shout-out before opening fire.

Will we be seeing the Bradys and other anti-gun groups trying to spin this as some sort of evidence that more guns won’t make anyone safer? Probably.

What?

Even though police say they have not yet determined what weapon was used, Ralph Fascitelli, president of Washington CeaseFire, says he plans to cite [police officer Timothy] Brenton’s murder when lobbying for the bill in the next legislative session.

“Maybe this particular [police victim] wasn’t killed with an assault weapon, but the next one maybe will be,” Fascitelli says, adding that police safety was a key reason that automatic weapons were banned decades ago and that the International Association of Police Chiefs supports a ban on military-style semiautomatic weapons today.

Based on “the next one maybe will be”, this guy is going to take it to the state government. Must be nice to not need any proof or any evidence or even any case to back you up.

NRA, others take aim at gun ban in Seattle parks

Four gun-rights organizations, including the National Rifle Association, are suing the city of Seattle and Mayor Greg Nickels over the new ban on guns in city parks.

They were joined by five individuals, including two Department of Corrections workers who say they need to carry their personal weapons in city parks to protect themselves against criminals.

“The city is acting illegally in putting a ban into effect,” said Alan Gottlieb, with the Second Amendment Foundation, and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court. “Lots of people in Seattle need firearms for self-protection.”

The story is discussed (term used loosely) at a site called Slog:

The insistence of this form of stupidity, gun rights, is like the backside of a proud water buffalo.

And the conversation (term used loosely) continues in the comments:

Let’s legalize guns in schools too, right? Legalize guns in courthouses, jails, and bars too, am I right? After all, a #2 pencil can kill someone too, right? And let’s legalize poison gas and explosives, since it’s the people killing other people, not the poison gas.

Pro-gun rights arguments are so leotarded.

That guy’s user name is i heart hunting accidents. No, I didn’t make that up.

Here’s another good one:

I failed to mention my respect for the second amendment despite personal sentiments. I just don’t respect the white man’s burden blubbering, tea-baggers who carry them.

But at least someone has a solution:

I think any law-abiding citizen should be able own and carry guns, but I also think that guns should be much more strictly regulated.

“But.”

Here are the proposals to incorporate that “but”:

Buying and selling of guns should be tightly regulated. All transfers of ownership should be registered with the state, even when between private parties. Perhaps a gun can be “scanned” out of one license holders inventory, and scanned into another. Obviously close the gun show loophole too.

All guns should be inventoried every two years. Since each transfer of a gun would have to be registered with the state, we would theoretically know who had every gun in the state.

Mass. man planned terror attacks on US malls

The three men often discussed their desire to participate in “violent jihad against American interests” and talked about “their desire to die on the battlefield,” prosecutors said. But when they were unable to join terror groups in Iraq, Yemen and Pakistan, they found inspiration in the Washington-area sniper shootings and turned their interests to domestic terror pursuits while they plotted the attack on shopping malls, authorities said.

And get this:

Mehanna had “multiple conversations about obtaining automatic weapons and randomly shooting people in shopping malls,” Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Loucks said. Prosecutors would not say which malls had been targeted.

Loucks said the men justified attacks because U.S. civilians pay taxes to support the U.S. government and because they are “nonbelievers.”

The mall plan was abandoned after the men failed to track down automatic weapons, Loucks said.

We’re all told how simple it is for just anyone to pick up assault weapons at gun shows. We’re all told how automatic weapons are flowing over the border and fueling the drug war in Mexico. We’re all told these things over and over by government officials, the media, and activists.

Yet three wannabe terrorists were unable to arm themselves with automatic weapons.

Orange County, Florida:

An Orange County man caught two burglars breaking into his house, so he pulled out his gun and shot them both Tuesday night. One of the burglars was killed and the other is in critical condition.

The deceased burglar was identified as 17-year-old Brandon Martinez.

The dead burglar pointed a gun at the homeowner and ran at him, so the homeowner fired. The 17-year-old will be included in the total number of kids reported killed by firearms in 2009.

Links Between Brady & MAIG Established

Why the Confusion on Assault Weapons?

Seems that the antis think the only way they can win is to lie. As usual.

After reading some of the comments on today’s earlier post and musings at other places, here are a couple more thoughts:

For the record, I don’t disapprove of the tool. As usual with guns and other tools, it’s the person who I’m not entirely certain about.

Here’s how I see it:

Best Case Scenario: A few people get a little educated about a few gun laws and a few voters (and maybe even a couple of politicians) realize that many Americans in general and some gun owners in particular are very serious about today’s issues.

Worst Case Scenario: Some nut job or agent provocateur does something very very bad. It could even be some sort of honest mistake. Very very bad shift in public opinion in the wake of the tragedy is followed by very very bad legislation. You know that a lot of gun grabbers are wild with anticipation over exactly this sort of thing.

The actual result is likely to be somewhere in between, which means that the upside will be barely noticeable.

Sure, points will have been made. Those points will be remembered for about three minutes, unless it’s a point good for the anti-gun crowd, in which case the point will be remembered forever and ever as a basic truth about guns. Like the basic truth about how guns are twice as likely to kill a family member as an intruder in a home defense situation and the basic truth about how no one needs a semi-automatic assault weapon for anything except killing people.

The media will decide how the story is told. For those that think the media is dead and a wonderful new age is here, look at who’s in the White House today and look at how he got there. It wasn’t Kos who put him there.

For what it’s worth, I also think it probably wouldn’t be constructive to carry swords, pitchforks, axes, spiked clubs, or baseball bats at these events.

UPDATE: Sebastian has a very good round-up of links on this issue and some good commentary. I weighed in in the comments section and don’t have time to rail on at length here, so go read.

Here’s one snippet:

As often happens in debates of important issues, arguing against one extreme position gives the impression that the arguer holds the other extreme position. That is not the case. If I don’t think it’s GREAT that people are doing this, it doesn’t mean I (or Sebastian, for that matter) think it’s TERRIBLE.

Over the years Murdoc’s been in countless debates like this. For the record, because those who disagree with my opinion on this seem to be insisting otherwise, Murdoc fully supports Open Carry.

I’ve not chimed in about the recent news coverage of folks in crowds at political events who are open carrying, in part because I’m not exactly sure what I think of the issue.

On the one hand, what these folks are doing is legal and I think it’s important that others realize that fact. I also like the idea that a point can be made and the message that gun owners think gun issues matter can be sent.

On the other hand, the message received by 90% of the population will be “these guys are whackos” and will probably do more harm than good to the cause of protecting the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that the message will be that because of the media is not really relevant.

Sighted at Phonix VFW Event (Scott Wong/The Arizona Republic)

And, don’t you know, the militias are gearing up again and everything. Again, this is the media at work, but don’t let hopes for fairness or expectations of accuracy cloud your thinking when it comes to the media.

Here’s the most recent story:

A man, who decided not to give his name, was walking around the pro-health care reform rally at Third and Washington streets, with a pistol on his hip and an AR-15 (a semi-automatic assault weapon) on a strap over his shoulder.

“Because I can do it,” he said when asked why he was armed. “In Arizona, I still have some freedoms.”

Sure, you can. That’s not the same as sure, you should.

I guess I’m giving these folks the benefit of the doubt and taking them at face value. I don’t necessarily agree that what they’re doing is going to help gun owners, but I also don’t think that shutting them down (even if that were possible) is a good idea.

One thing I expect, though, is that this story is going to continue to grow legs. There will be more and more sightings and more and more news reports. Soon, if they haven’t already, activists in the anti-gun camp are going to start showing up with guns for their own purposes.

At some point, there’s going to be a situation of some sort or other.

I just think there’s so little to be gained and so much to be potentially lost here that open carrying at these sorts of things is just probably a bad idea.

I realize that not everyone, and maybe not even most people, will agree with Murdoc on this.

UPDATE: Confederate Yankee brings up a few good points:

I must say that I was impressed with how these open carry advocates conducted themselves. They coordinated their display with the Phoenix Police Department, who provided them with a liaison officer. They were also courteous to those around them, remaining calm and well-behaved (with the exception of the mysterious “other” rifle-carrying man that only one CNN employee seems to have seen)…

The armed protesters at events in Arizona and New Hampshire were never “at” Obama’s meetings. They were never inside of the security perimeter that the Secret Service establishes for Presidential appearances. They weren’t ever close.

The protester in New Hampshire who had a gun in a tactical drop-leg rig was on private property well away from the Obama appearance (I’ve heard estimates of ½ to ¾ mile away) and was never in direct line of sight of either the venue or the motorcade. He never remotely a threat to the President, nor did he intend to be.

Likewise, those open carry advocates at yesterday’s event in Arizona arranged for a police liaison the day before the event, and were constantly afforded security by the Phoenix Police Department and had at least one known Secret Service agent shadowing them to assure they were following the law. These citizens were never anywhere near the President, nor did they attempt to go anywhere near the Secret Service’s security perimeter that cordoned off the event and the building in which it was held.

Go read the whole thing.

Via Instapundit, who has more.

The Defensive Handgun Blog looks at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence claim that the Heller decision calls for gun control via a renewed militia system.