Well, that didn't take long...

[Airman193SOS]

Museum shooting stirs gun amendment controversy

“Today’s event should be a wake-up call for why we must work to fend off the controversial gun amendment that was most recently attached to the DC…Voting Rights Act, and will certainly resurface as part of future legislation,” said D.C. Councilman Michael Brown. “Loosening the District's gun laws is a deadly proposition.”...

...“Congress needs no more evidence than today’s tragedy, which occurred blocks from the White House, for the justification of the District’s strict gun laws, which protect the President, Members of Congress, D.C, residents, and millions of tourists who travel to Washington, DC each year to visit monuments and other sites like the Holocaust Museum,” said D.C. Councilman Phil Mendelson in a statement.

OK, let's evaluate this dispassionately, if we can. Surely Misters Mendelson and Brown will do the same upon further reflection.

1) DC v. Heller was about handguns. A handgun was not used here.

2) Longarms have never, to my knowledge, been illegal to possess in the District. They have, however, been illegal to assemble unless a threat is imminent and they have never been legal to carry anywhere in the District loaded, let alone at a National Museum.

3) The weapon was allegedly a .22 LR-chambered rifle, which has never appeared on any "ban" list.

But hey, why not push for another gun ban, only make sure you focus on weapons that were in NO way related to the events at the Holocaust museum?

That, my friends, is a textbook example of the bait-and-switch that legislatures are adept at perpetrating on their constituents. Not that you didn't know that, of course. I trust that I'm surely not insulting any of you with that last bit of commentary. But man, isn't it frustrating when you know what's going to happen and are powerless to do anything about it even as it is happening?

 

[model of 1905]

If we like minded folks come together, we are not powerless, we are powerful. Stop voting for these people and be active about it.

 

[xbox360]

If everyone carryed noone would shoot, the guns would point to the shooter,

 

[kingpin008]

If everyone carryed noone would shoot, the guns would point to the shooter,

And if everyone made sense, we'd know what they were saying.

 

[zoom6zoom]

There's also the bit about the shooter being a felon who was already prohibited from possessing a firearm. Seems none of these utopian panaceas had much effect on stopping the event.

 

[gvnwst]

And if everyone made sense, we'd know what they were saying.

I think he means that if everyone carried firearms, no one would try to shoot anyone else, or they would get shot on the spot, or something...

But, this is just plain dumb.

 

[maskedman504]

The weapon was allegedly a .22 LR-chambered rifle, which has never appeared on any "ban" list.

Locally, the weapon was reported as a shotgun. (Tampa, FL)

 

[Realbigo]

All I heard was that it was a rifle that was close to a 100 years old.

 

[psyopspec]

I agree with the OP, but at the top of my evaluation: It's sad to see that some would exploit this tragedy for political gain.

 

[Airman193SOS]

There's also the bit about the shooter being a felon who was already prohibited from possessing a firearm.

How did I ever forget that?

 

[Phatty]

It's amazing how locations with strict gun laws point to events where their laws utterly failed as evidence for the need for those laws.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Yeah I am pretty sure everything that happened here is already illegal, but I'm so glad they are looking into it....

 

[CoRoMo]

...the District’s strict gun laws, which protect the President, Members of Congress, D.C, residents...

Actually the laws didn't/don't protect jack. Guns protect these people.


If they think that gun laws would have stopped this shooter, they are flat stupid.
If they simply want to use this incident to enact more controlling laws, they are evil.

 

[Big_E]

Typical politicians, taking a gun and making it into something more. Thankfully, the guards were armed. And one of them jumped into the line of fire to protect lives or so I heard.

 

[zoom6zoom]

At least they haven't called it an "assault rifle" yet.

 

[Phatty]

At least they haven't called it an "assault rifle" yet.

No, the twist here will be, "Imagine how many more lives this man would have taken if he had been armed with an assault rifle. We need to ban assault rifles to ensure tragedies like this aren't even worse."

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Once again I am astounded that a murderous bigot would dare to violate a no-firearms rule.

 

[CoRoMo]

I am astounded that a murderous bigot would dare to violate a no-firearms rule.

That's right, I guess only another rule would help.

 

[mugsie]

I got one - how bout some idiots in Washington pass a law which says felons have to abide by the laws!

They will never ever get it. Ever.

 

[duckman007]

What a sad life it must be to have so much hatred for others. It's almost as sad as those who intellect is so limited as to believe that firearms are the cause of such a tragedy.

 

[matrem]

It's amazing how locations with strict gun laws point to events where their laws utterly failed as evidence for the need for those laws.

That, Sir..Is a fact!

 

[ants]

Hatred is only part of the problem.

In an interview this morning with a member of his family (his family disowned him decades ago), she said that he is mentally ill but they disowned him rather than get help.

So many of the other shooters in the news during the last year and a half also had mental illnesses. It's a no-brainer that identifying the crazies and getting treatment will go a long, long way to stopping violence. It would probably be cheaper than the current investigation, medical costs, indictment, trial, and incarceration for this guy. Not to mention that it would preserve the life of a brave security guard, may he rest in peace.

 

[rainbowbob]

"Imagine how many more lives this man would have taken if he had been armed with an assault rifle. We need to ban assault rifles to ensure tragedies like this aren't even worse."

We have a winner...give that man a cigar!


Off-topic rant alert:

So many of the other shooters in the news during the last year and a half also had mental illnesses. It's a no-brainer that identifying the crazies and getting treatment will go a long, long way to stopping violence.

What you say is true. Unfortunately, the civil rights of the mentally ill make it all but impossible for concerned family to seek and obtain effect help for their loved ones.

For some reason, we can legally quarantine and treat people with infectious diseases, we can lock up Alzheimer's sufferers for their own safety, but persons suffering from a severe psychotic illness are "free" to be dangerously ill until they commit a crime. As a result of these policies, seriously mentally ill people are more likely to go to jail than to a hospital.

 

[Guitargod1985]

Hey rainbowbob,

I know we've had some back and forth discussions relating to the issue of mental illness and due process in regard to gun rights before, but I just thought I'd add something.

I think it's a possibility that some people who realize that they need help are often afraid to do so for fear of possible repercussions of seeking treatment. The stigma attached to people even with mild forms of psychiatric abnormality or mental illness is pretty strong with some people. Consequently, some people who could possibly benefit from treatment don't get the held they should because either they fear drugs or therapy, or perhaps they are afraid to lose their gun rights, etc. Also, the criteria in most jurisdictions for having an individual involuntarily committed is pretty serious, as it should be. I mean, if the individual in question has never committed a crime, the burden of "proof" should rest pretty heavily on those who want to have the person locked up.

I think the real question is, as bob pointed out, do we curtail the rights of those who may be mentally ill? IF the person has clearly demonstrated that without a doubt, he/she is incompetent or a danger to others, then it is appropriate -- I mean, you wouldn't hand a gun to someone with the mental acuity of Rosie O'donnel, would you?

But seriously, where do we draw the line? What about the cantankerous old geezer up the street who keeps to himself and doesn't talk to anybody except the mailman and his dog? He sits on his porch for six hours at a time in the middle of the summer! Is he mentally ill? Should he be compelled to forfeit his rights? Of course not. Part of Due Process is the presumption of innocence, even in the presence of mental illness. Like it or not, those people have the same rights you and I have - and thank God for that. We can't simply force people to surrender their rights arbitrarily or without just cause. IMO, there must be a clear intent to hurt another person or a severe lack of intelligence to a degree that impairs one's ability to do even the simplest tasks.

As far as the museum shooting, I heard about it this morning. It's just a terrible occurrence all around, but an anti-Semitic motivated shooting in a museum devoted to victims and survivors of genocide? That's about as low as you can get IMO. One of my best friends works armed security and we were talking about this incident today. The guy just got up today and went to work. Death was the farthest thing from his mind when he got dressed or brushed his teeth. Maybe he stopped for some coffee or something on his way in, but he still had no idea what would occur later. He had no idea that some hate-filled idiot would shoot him dead in spite of all the District's gun laws - because of them, in fact. Then these a$$hats on the DC council want to politicize the whole thing and clamor for more gun control! Unbelievable. A man is dead and all they can think about it pushing their agenda.

 

[Crash_Test_Dhimmi]

Why don't they just ban murder?