Taking A Gun From Someone Didn’t Prevent Them From Getting A Gun

The internet is full of news stories dealing with the shooting at a Nashville Waffle House late last night. The story I will be using as a source is from Fox News. The person responsible for the shooting had been arrested near the White House last year, and the police had taken his guns away. He was not legally allowed to have access to guns. This is an example of the fact that people with nefarious goals that choose to use guns as their weapon of choice will find a way to get access to a gun. Waffle House is a gun free zone, so the only way to stop a shooter is to physically take him down. Thank God there was someone in the Waffle House that was able to do that. It would have been much easier for a person with concealed carry to end the shooting.

The article reports:

“Reinking (the shooter) was charged with unlawful entry after crossing an exterior security barrier near the White House Complex,” the Secret Service told Fox News of his arrest last summer. “Information regarding the arrest was provided to our law enforcement partners, including the FBI, at the time of arrest to ensure all appropriate authorities were aware of the circumstances surrounding Reinking’s arrest.”

In May 2016, law enforcement officials in Tazewell County, Illinois, said they encountered the suspect, who was “delusional.” Reinking claimed Swift (singer Taylor Swift) had been stalking him, and that “everyone including his own family and the police” had been involved, a police report obtained by Fox News stated.

Reinking who relatives claimed had been having delusions since August 2014, said Swift had hacked his Netflix account and told him to meet her at a Dairy Queen, according to the report.

The article reports the words of the hero who ended the shooting spree:

“I figured if I was going to die, [the gunman] was going to have to work for it,” James Shaw Jr. said of the incident at the news conference. He had entered the restaurant just two minutes ahead of the gunman.

“He shot through that door; I’m pretty sure he grazed my arm. At that time I made up my mind … that he was going to have to work to kill me. When the gun jammed or whatever happened, I hit him with the swivel door,” Shaw said.

Shaw said he managed to get one hand on the gun and grab it, then threw it over a countertop and took the shooter with him outside before the suspect ran away — a situation Shaw said “worked out in my favor.”

I have no idea how old James Shaw Jr. is or what his future plans are, but I hope he will be flooded with college acceptances and scholarships in the near future–he is truly a hero.

Security Means Having Force Available

Unfortunately school shootings seem to be happening more frequently than they used to (or at least we are hearing about them more often). Former Vice-President Joe Biden introduced a bill in Congress in 1990 that ““prohibits any person from knowingly possessing a firearm … at a place the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” That was the bill that made schools gun-free zones. A gun-free zone is a place where a shooter will have no opposition for at least five minutes until the police arrive. That is not a reliable plan to protect the students. That point was illustrated this morning in a school in Maryland.

The Daily Caller is reporting today:

The Great Mills High School student who injured two others Tuesday morning was reportedly stopped by the school’s “armed” resource officer.

According to WUSA9’s Peggy Fox, St. Mary’s County Sheriff Tim Cameron updated reporters after the incident had been contained.

Cameron stated that three students were injured in the incident, including the shooter himself, who was taken down by an armed school resource officer.

The SRO reportedly responded without hesitation and exchanged gunshots with the suspect before disarming him. He was not injured in the exchange.

This was a case where an armed, trained, person on the site ended the incident. Every school needs someone on site who is armed, trained, and willing to engage a person shooting at students. If teachers want to fill that role, that is fine, but if not, an extra security person is needed. The fact that there are armed people in the school may deter some shooters from attempting to shoot students. At least, putting an armed person on the site will increase the students’ safety.

Keeping Politics Out Of Our Military

Unfortunately, we are a stage in our country where everything is political. I don’t know exactly how or when we got here or how to get our of here, but here is where we are. It was refreshing today on Fox News Sunday to hear Senator Kaine say that decisions about guns on military bases should be made by the military in order to avoid politics playing a part in the decision.

The Washington Times reported today:

“I trust the military leadership on this. I don’t live on a military base, and I don’t serve in the military,” the Virginia Democrat said on “Fox News Sunday.” “For those of us in Congress to say ‘here’s what they should do,’ I worry that it would be a little political rather than really about safety or security.”

The article also reported:

Rep. Steve Stockman, Texas Republican, is pushing “The Safe Military Bases Act,” which would allow base personnel to arm themselves.

Fellow Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, argued Sunday that, at the very least, senior military leadership on base ought to be able to carry weapons.

There are a few things to consider here. If senior military leadership had been armed, would the shooter have been brought down sooner? But there is something else to consider. Fort Hood is a gun-free zone. The shooter knew that when he opened fire he would be the only gunman in the room (at least for a short time). Had the shooter known that someone in the room might be armed, would he have taken the chance? The guards at the gate cannot reasonably be expected to search every vehicle or person who comes on base for a gun–the lines getting on to the base would be endless if that were attempted. Obviously, not everyone respects a gun-free zone, so I would suggest creating the possibility that someone in any given area of the base would be armed and prepared to shoot back in case of an attack. It is noteworthy that most of the mass killings we have seen have occurred in gun-free zones, where the killer knew that there would be no opposition. I think we need to create at least some potential opposition.

Enhanced by Zemanta