Let me start by saying that all of the victims of the Naval Yard shooting are in my thoughts and prayers this should never have happened. This incident has started me to really thinking about the issue of gun control and safe zones or gun free zones. At one point in time I was reconciled to accept more invasive background checks believing they might just help. I am now on the other side of this issue. Tighter checks will not work the Naval Yard shooting has proven this. An insane man carrying a military clearance shows me that we really need to evaluate all areas of our gun control policies.
No. 1 - We have now had two shootings on military installations. Why when on these installation are some of the most well trained marksmen, the cream of the crop on counter attack measures, and the best there are on search and destroy missions. Why are they placed into a survival mode during these instances? The answer one of our former presidents decided it was in the best interest of safety to prohibit these professionals from carrying their tools (weapons) on military installations on U.S. soil. This was done by an executive order of Bill Clinton's. This needs to be removed an instantaneous response by these professionals would have stopped this incident in its tracks.
No. 2 - Why have all but one of these crimes, wait a minute congress gets Security Service and they impose a gun free zone around the representative, so why have they all been committed in gun free zones. Look these people who do these crimes are crazy as bed bugs but they are not stupid. They want unrestricted access to people who can not fight back so they can fulfill their desire to reek havoc on humanity. The Washington Police were spot on they were there within five minutes and entered the building on a search and destroy immediately. But this crazy had five minutes of shooting at unarmed individuals an immediate response or just the thought of someone having a weapon seems to deter them.
No. 3 - This shooting was not done with an assault weapon. This individual used a shot gun. Shot guns only hold five rounds max. That means the size of the clip does not matter. One of the main arguments for an assault weapons ban. This shot gun was reloaded at least twice for the damage caused. It is not the type of weapon that matters, it is what is in the heart of the individual holding the weapon.
So in summary, my stance has changed. Why do we want to extend an already broken system? Let us hold the people responsible for the reporting accountable. Had this individual's history been reported this would not have happened with a legally purchased weapon. But if these people are going to commit murder then they don't care how they get their weapons. Let us not restrict the access to weapons of the law abiding. Let us ensure these people know we will do all in our power to ensure they are faced with instantaneous resistance. This also means we will need to re-evaluate our gun free zones so these individuals never know when where or how this resistance will come at them. Just my thoughts folks.