Surveillance State Failure

The shooting at the Washington Navy Yard this week is inevitably calling for more gun controls, such as increased background checks.  But the shooter had already passed the background check to a hold a SECRET level clearance.  Why was he able to kill so many people on a military base?  Unilateral disarmament is one explanation, from CNS News:

"My son was at Marine Barracks -- at the Navy Yard yesterday - and they had weapons with them, but they didn't have ammunition.   And they said, 'We were trained, and if we had the ammunition, we could've cleared that building.' Only three people had been shot at that time, and they could've stopped the rest of it." 

The Navy Yard shooting brings up the legitimate issue of carrying - and using - firearms on military installations. 

Back in 1993, the Clinton administration virtually declared military establishments "gun-free zones." As a result, the policy banned "military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that 'a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel 'may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan," according to economist John Lott.

None of the proposals for gun-control will make us any safer.  They are the typical noise from politicians who demand that Something Be Done!  Whether or not it addresses the problem is irrelevant.

Gun Rights are Human Rights.