554816

Jack-I commented earlier on this same article. I can respect the officer's position in many respects, but am concerned about this move towards "I was in the military/LE/other tactical profession, so I have a valued opinion on gun control that trumps (no pun intended) all others". True, those with expertise in working professionally with firearms know the risks and applications better than most, but the standard for "expertise" might be a bit ambiguous; particularly for addressing such pivotal issues.

NOT being a "tactical professional", I have to rely on "common sense". This informs me that he's correct that with great rights come great responsibilities. Imbuing society with that responsibility is something I can support; though the "how" is harder to answer. However, I feel "safe" in assuming that the military model for training and operating is based on a least common denominator principle, risk assessment, and yes...a little bit of "cover your six" that probably isn't appropriate for application to privately held weapons and their owners. At one point, he seems to be suggesting (I could be misreading) that the concept of a single shooter, single weapon defense is essentially nonsensical. I don't know, but if I didn't feel my CC weapon was of any practical use to me without a fire team and supporting elements...I'm certain I wouldn't carry it. By the same rationale, I'd never consider my CC "skills" to make me the equal of someone operating professionally within such units.

I don't like the idea of standing up "secret security" manned by hastily trained educators; that doesn't seem like an answer. However, I don't see any difference between carrying my concealed weapon for personal self-defense on the street, in a restaurant, while shopping, or inside a school. If I were to presume anything, I'd wager that there is a risk of "blue on blue" should teachers or private citizens start acting like "private law enforcement" preparing to stand in whenever something like this goes down. Still, if all the "best laid plans" go pear shaped, and a bad guy finds their way into a classroom, shopping mall, hospital, etc... the LE isn't there yet, and people begin dying, maybe a fast acting citizen can stop it then and there if they have the right, the training and the personal preparedness to do so.

As you so eloquently state...we're not going to get anywhere merely defending opposing "sides". Thanks for sharing.

First from the Army Officer. Hate to say it but he sounds about as arrogant an Army officer as you will find. The quote below shows where he sits, on the edge confiscation. He says it is not practical and politically toxic but nothing about it being against the Constitution so maybe he will throw in if it gets more practical or less toxic to confiscate citizens weapons. He does not rule it out.

He is also comparing basic training and perhaps infantry training to what a regular citizen would go through. Apples and oranges. There is no requirement in the Constitution for all of this combat training and would we really want millions of Rambo's out there? Also is he suggesting that every day we need to turn in our weapons to the armory and lock them up? That is confiscation, what if they decide to just never open the armory again, weapons effectively confiscated. I hope this guy doesn't speak for more than a handful of lame brained army officers.

"What is to be done? Clearly, with several hundred million firearms in circulation, mass confiscation is not practical, politically toxic, and as a sporting man myself, I would say culturally undesirable. But simple steps such as limiting high-capacity magazines, stringent background checks (lets’s not pretend they hold water now), and a licensing process are all good starts. After a certain list of tangible steps is exhausted though, the question becomes a nebulous one of cultural norms. Is there going to be a shift toward seeing firearm ownership as innately bound up in social responsibility? One can hope."
____________________________________________________________________________

Then the war correspondent. Well, if there is an active shooter on campus you already have a "gun fight" it is an unfair, one sided ordeal when the shooter shows up with weapons and you have erasers to chuck at him. I am not sure what these guys think about in quiet moments as they are rolling these thoughts around in their head. I wonder if they realize hoe uninformed they sound.

"Different circumstances, but I'm pretty sure that having been shot at anywhere would be relevant experience in thinking about gunfights in classrooms. Of course Trump et al are pushing for gunfights that would involve somebody else, not them."

_______________________________________________________________________________

I am not impressed. Mr. Fallows has not supported his arguments except with his own opinion.