Observations and questions

Suzanne Olden looks at what happens in Gun-Free zones:

Dec. 14, 2012: Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and six adult staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. SCHOOL-GUN FREE

– Aug. 5, 2012: Six Sikh temple members were killed when Wade Michael Page opened fire in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. TEMPLE/CHURCH-GUN FREE

– July 20, 2012: During the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colo., James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58. THEATER/MALL-GUN FREE

– January 8, 2011, Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen others were shot during a constituent meeting held in a supermarket parking lot in Tuscon, AZ. NOT GUN FREE, OUTDOOR PUBLIC PLACE

– Nov. 5, 2009: Forty-three people were shot by Nidal Malik Hasan at the Fort Hood army base in Texas. Thirteen were killed and 29 were wounded. MILITARY BASE-GUN FREE

– April 16, 2007: Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Choi, gunned down 56 people. Thirty-two people died. SCHOOL-GUN FREE

– Oct. 2, 2006: An Amish schoolhouse in Lancaster, Penn. five girls were killed by Charles Carl Roberts.SCHOOL-GUN FREE (not to mention a religious sect that is non-violent and an easy target)

– March 21, 2005: Jeffrey Weise opened fire on Red Lake Senior High School, killing nine people on campus. SCHOOL-GUN FREE

– April 20, 1999: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot up Columbine High School in Colorado. They killed 13 people and wounded 21 others. SCHOOL-GUN FREE

Then he asks a series of questions:

First question: Why are our military bases “gun free zones?” Does anyone else see the utter ridiculousness of that statement? A military base being GUN FREE??? They should be one of the safest places to be. Our soldiers, seamen and airmen are trained in the use and care of weapons. So why in God’s name would a military base be a “gun free” zone? If Tuesday morning and the Ft. Hood incident showed us anything, it’s that our soldiers should be allowed to defend themselves on base with the weapons they are trained to use. How much faster and how many lives would have been saved if those on the Navy Yard had weapons available to them?

Is anyone else seeing a theme here? Eight of nine of the shootings listed above were in a gun-free zone. Which brings up the serious question of: why do we have them when they do nothing more than make people targets?

Next question: Why are people clamoring for more background checks when they obviously don’t stop shootings like this? Looking at the history of the shooter will make it abundantly clear why it’s obvious. First, he was a former member of the military and passed those background checks. Second, he has a concealed carry permit, and made it through those checks. He had just recently gotten clearance to be on the Navy Yard as a civilian contractor. As with enlisted, civilian contractors also have to be background checked. Just LAST WEEK he purchased a shot gun in Virginia and passed the Federal background checks for that purchase. This man was background checked to the nth degree. Even after his arrests for gun issues, and psychiatric issues, he was given the civilian contractor clearance and gun permit. More stringent background checks would have made zero difference.

Next question: Why wasn’t the shooter Tuesday prosecuted for the gun incidents for which he had been arrested? More laws don’t work because most laws aren’t enforced. The shooter Tuesday was arrested twice and not prosecuted. He should have been. That decision not to prosecute shouldn’t penalize the rest of us for doing something we are legally allowed to do – own a firearm.