Skip to main content

View Diary: Concealed-carry laws may have made the Aurora massacre worse (45 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  some responses (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SuetheRedWA, Oh Mary Oh

    Aside from MPs, military bases are the most strictly-enforced gun-free zones.

    And this is obviously because the United States military is TOTALLY ANTI-GUN!!!!

    But aside from that, wouldn't a military base be the one place where you could expect a swift armed response to your shooting spree? As it turns out, there was in that case, and let's see how effective it was:

    Base civilian police Sergeant Kimberly Munley, who had rushed to the scene in her patrol car, encountered Hasan in the area outside the Soldier Readiness Processing Center. Hasan fired at Munley, who exchanged shots with him using her 9mm M9 pistol. Munley's hand was hit by shrapnel when one of Hasan's bullets struck a nearby rain gutter, and then two bullets struck Munley: the first bullet hit her thigh, and the second hit her knee. As she began to fall from the first bullet, the second bullet struck her femur, shattering it and knocking her to the ground. Hasan then walked up to Munley and kicked her pistol out of reach.
    Yes, I know, the next officer to come along did succeed in taking Hasan down. But the takeaway here is that this was where the most optimal armed response should have and did occur ... and yet more people died than did in Aurora. You would have to think that Hasan, too, anticipated an armed response to his rampage. CCW advocates at the very least ought not to be selling those laws as a harm-reduction measure, not outright prevention.

    And the real issue is that shooting-spree killers generally pick their locations for some personal reason, like working there, or the unemployment office because it was the anniversary of their claim being denied not because they're gun-free or not. Can we at least stipulate to this?

    Licensed CCW holders know the law - when they reach a gun-free zone, they respect the zone, and leave their weapon behind, or decline to come in.

    The two blog commenters I linked to said otherwise. One said it was worth the risk of losing the permit. And Cinemark's policy did not have legal backing other than trespass, as far as I can tell. It's not "the law" unless there is a specific criminal charge for bringing a firearm onto private property where the owner has decreed there shall be none.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site