Are we really this inept? (correct answer: yes we are)

Instead of showing the face of the murderer who killed 26 people using an AR-15 in a small town church in Texas yesterday, I'd rather show the photo of this good, brave citizen, Stephen Williford, who retrieved his AR-15 and returned fire, by all accounts saving many other lives.

The evil shooter was an Air Force veteran who was given a "Bad Conduct" discharge after receiving a Court Martial and spending a year in the brig (prison) for abusing his wife and child.  Also, in 2014 the evil shooter was arrested for misdemeanor animal cruelty in Colorado and given a differed probationary sentence.  

Now we learn the Air Force failed to notify the FBI of his court martial for spousal abuse.  Why?  Did Colorado notify the FBI of his recent misdemeanor conviction?  Apparently not.  Are we really this inept?  Either would have prevented him passing a background check and buying a gun through normal, legal channels.

Meanwhile the Texas Department of Public Safety (our State Police), during their standard vetting process, learned something and refused to issue him a license to legally carry a weapon.  What did the Texas DPS learn, and how did they learn it?  (Kudos DPS.  This is why our Texas firearm license holders have such an exemplary record of responsible gun ownership.)

The Federal Instant Criminal Background Check System won't work if felonies and recent misdemeanor convictions (and a few other disqualifiers) aren't reported.

But even if he had been legally disqualified from buying a gun, with an estimated 1,000,000 guns stolen every year, there is a thriving black market in cash-and-carry firearms transactions, and this is where most bad guys get their guns.  The system is full of holes that let bad people obtain guns.  "Black markets" pay no attention to laws....never have, never will. 

There are no more blatant examples of people who should NOT have guns than this Texas church shooter.  Those convicted of family violence, and anyone who would cruelly harm an animal, IMO don't deserve a second chance to prove they can handle something as deadly as a gun.   

Meanwhile we need to see to it that good people like Mr. Williford get the recognition they deserve for stepping up and confronting active shooters and saving lives.  This is a classic example of guns in the hands of good people doing good things. 

S

Good guns vs bad guns. Wha....what?

I wonder if anyone has the cojones to weigh in on this one:

For years now one of the questions that has bedeviled us is what, if anything, can or should we do to curb guns and the violence that accompanies them.  The idealists want to simply outlaw guns.  Just pass a law and....pfffft....problem solved.  The Bubba's want to arm us all with Gatling guns and assault rifles....commence firing! 

Being consistent with my philosophy of avoiding the extremes, I agree with those who say guns aren't the problem, but the intent of the person using it is.  Consider this:

"A psychiatric outpatient opened fire Thursday inside a psychiatrist's office at a hospital near Philadelphia, killing his caseworker and slightly wounding the doctor, who shot the gunman with his personal firearm, authorities said."  USA Today

So in this instance was the gun the villain or the good guy?  Laws that prevent the sale to/possession of guns by those who shouldn't have them don't work.  If they did, this psychiatric patient (with a criminal background no less) wouldn't have had one in the first place.  

Yet the pacifists amongst us want to disarm us, or at the very least make it extremely difficult for us to buy personal defensive firearms.  If they had their way the good doctor in the story above would probably be a victim, too, and the gunman might have kept on killing others until someone stopped him.

Here's where it gets convoluted:  The hospital had a policy that prevented everyone but on-duty law enforcement from having guns on campus.  The authorities say that the doctor had a legal right to possess his gun, so criminally he's safe, but from a civil standpoint he's in deep doodoo.

The hospital might take action against him, possibly revoking his privileges there, and the original gunman can now sue him in civil court (he survived his wounds).  The bad guy is quite likely to settle in to a very comfortable retirement, courtesy of the doctor.

Where is the justice in that?  (See my post of several days ago bemoaning "too many lawyers, and too many laws for them to manipulate".)

Sure, we need to enforce the laws we already have.  Enough "background checkers" aided by a state-of-the-art computer system could possibly have prevented this wacko from getting his hands on a gun.  

With 300M (?) guns already on the streets, there is no ironclad guarantee he couldn't have obtained one clandestinely, but surely we can keep guns away from some of these nuts. 

IMO, good people should be allowed to protect themselves with defensive firearms as the police are almost always REactive*.  They don't show up until the damage is already done.  YOU are primarily responsible for your safety.

*In case you're wondering, assault rifles are by definition primarily offensive weapons*

What was it the lady interviewed at the scene of the hospital shooting said?  "I never thought it would happen here."

Yeah, famous last words.

S

* Some facts:  In the average shooting less than 4 shots are fired, at a range of 7 yds, in less than 10 seconds.  In my city the average police response time is 4.5 minutes.  In some rural areas and in some crime plagued, underfunded cities the response time can be up to an hour.