Harry Reid: Fort Hood Shooting Should Revive Gun Control Push

Speaking to reporters on April 3rd, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said the shooting at Fort Hood should revive the gun control push.

According to The Washington Post, Reid said, "As I was told today, [Army Spc. Ivan Lopez] bought his gun a day or two before he killed these people. Couldn't we at least have background checks so that people who are ill mentally, or who are felons, shouldn't be able to buy guns?"

This is somewhat misleading because "law enforcement officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the pistol used by Lopez... was purchased legally last month... at Guns Galore." This means Lopez went through a background check to get the gun, which also means the failed Senate gun bill would not have stopped Lopez from getting it.

It is important to remember the failed Senate gun bill would have expanded the number of background checks, but they would essentially be the very same checks we have right now. That is because the structures and mechanisms for the kind of information sharing required to do the background checks that Democrats promote doesn't even exist.....

This is a good lesson for all of us, although the liberals are unteachable.

1) The gun was purchased legally, with background check, so more gun laws or restrictions (even a total ban on guns) would not have made any difference.
2) The gun was carried onto the Base where it was already illegal to have or carry a gun without special permission, so more gun laws or restrictions would have made any difference.
3) Because others on the Base were not carrying guns (in accordance with Base rules), other than the MPs, the shooter was able to do considerable damage before he was confronted by someone who was carrying.
4) Although there may have been extenuating circumstances in this instance (an altercation?), it is interesting that shooters don’t choose to go to a gun range, gun shop, or police station to do their evil.

Bottom line: people kill people - guns don’t. This is a concept that is beyond the intelligence of most of the low-information crowd (read liberals).

One thought I have had though: allowing concealed carry on a military base could put the MPs in a precarious and potentially dangerous situation because, (my assumption) a larger percentage would carry and the MPs would not who was or wasn’t and mistake certain actions as going for a weapon (it’s different in public, where I presume a smaller percentage of people actually carry). Maybe a better answer on military bases is to allow open carry?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.