We Don't Need Gun Control in this Country, We Need People Control

I have written many times about guns and gun control, and I will not bore you with more of the same here.  Review the index of this blog and you can find them easy enough.  However, once again, we have had a shooting that appalls the greater world and, as usual, there have been a multitude of comments.

I believe this incident, yet again, proves the point that "gun control" is an unfortunate battle cry of my brethren Liberals that, in the end, will not accomplish much.  This horrific shooting incident is an example of something that would have happened in spite of the most stringent gun controls that have been proposed in this country.

Each and every time we have a shooting anything like the one at the Navy Yard, or Newtown or Aurora or any number of other so-called “mass” shootings, people, most of them Liberals like me, come out of the woodwork to tell us, “See, I told you so…  We should ban guns!”  The Conservatives, and especially members of the NRA, and the NRA itself, also come out of the woodwork to tell us, “See, I told you so… If someone had been carrying a lawful concealed firearm, they could have stopped this.”  I do not believe either of these positions is correct.  Allow me to go through a few facts, as we know them right this minute (note:  The matter is still under investigation.  The facts have already changed…a couple of times.  They will change again, I am sure.)

Initial reports regarding the shooting would have had us believe Aaron Alexis, the shooter, was armed with the dreaded AR-15 assault rifle.  He was not; he was armed with a Remington, Model 870, 12- gauge, pump-action shotgun.  I suspect that the anti-gun-side of the issue desperately wanted it to be the AR-15 so they could scream “assault weapons ban” at the top of their lungs.  I am intimately familiar with both of these weapons and happen to own both.  You are about to learn more than you ever wanted to know about a particular shotgun. 

The Remington 870 is, as I said, a pump-action shotgun.  The shooter must pull the trigger to fire the shot, and then pull the forearm back to eject the fired shell and then push it forward to load another live round, then, as they say, lather, rinse, repeat.  The gun is not an automatic weapon, nor is it a semi-automatic weapon (sorry, you will have to use Google for the differences).  The Remington 870 shotgun was designed in 1951 and there have been over 10 million produced.  There is a saying, said in jest by members of the gun-owning community, every male over the age of 25, if they own a gun or guns, will own a Remington 870.  In the firearms-owning community, they are virtually ubiquitous.

The 870 comes in various types and styles; The Wingmaster, Express, Marine, SPS, SPS-T, XCS, TAC, Super Mag and MCS.  Suffice it to say that there are variants of the weapon from bird-shooting models to tactical combat versions.  In the military, in Southeast Asia (Vietnam, a seldom understood place), I carried an 870 shotgun in addition to the ubiquitous M16-A1 assault rifle, for close encounters with the enemy.  As a police officer, I used the 870 “Riot Gun” version of this shotgun (supplied by the police department) and own both the "Wingmaster" for bird hunting and “Deerslayer” model for hunting small to medium-sized game animals.  The point of all this is, with just a few changes, the same shotgun can be adapted for hunting, police or military combat uses.  Just FYI, the model 870 can hold anywhere from six to eight rounds (“shots”).  This is not a high-capacity magazine by anyone’s definition.

Mr. Alexis was able to use this commonly available firearm to go on a shooting rampage and kill 12 people.  He did not need the now-reviled assault weapon or high-capacity magazine to be a very effective killing machine.  Before you start using this as a justification for banning all firearms, check out my previous blog post on why that will not work  (GUN CONTROL IN THE U.S. – KINDA LIKE BEING JUST A LITTLE PREGNANT?, March 16, 2012).

Now that we know what kind of gun he used, let us look at the tactics.  He took up a position four floors above what amounts to a food court/dining area and started blasting away.  At some point, police and armed security in hot pursuit, he shot an armed security officer and took his gun.  He used his Navy combat training to know to scavenge another weapon from the “downed” enemy. I would argue that he could have just as easily approached an unsuspecting security officer or police officer with a concealed knife, stabbed him or her, and taken their firearm.  The element of surprise was the most effective weapon he had to arm himself, not necessarily the firearm (See my blog post: TRAYVON MARTIN’S DEATH….THERE ARE THINGS WE MUST LEARN, April 10, 2012, especially No. 3, for more relevant information about armed encounters).

Let us review:  Anti-gunners, Alexis used one of the single most commonly available shotguns on the planet to kill a significant number of people. This was a hunting shotgun that no one has proposed banning. He did not use an assault weapon, nor high-capacity magazines to inflict these casualties.  Under the most stringent gun control regulations  proposed in this country, this weapon would have been available from any gun shop. This shooting occurred in Washington, D.C., where, arguably, the most stringent gun control laws in the country exist.  It is not possible to ban all guns in this country and you don’t need an assault weapon to kill a lot of people.  Using a shotgun, Alexis did not even need to be a good shot.  They call it a scatter-gun for a reason. Personal note: As a cop, I always said I would rather face a man with a pistol because I had a chance that he might miss.  If gun control eliminates pistols, bad guys will use shotguns and then they don’t even have to be good shots to kill me, but that is just me.

Pro-gunners; Alexis used deadly force to kill and disarm an individual, a security officer, carrying a legal firearm.  He then turned this stolen firearm on others.  It can be argued that an individual with a concealed firearm might have been able to use the element of surprise against Alexis and shoot him before Alexis knew the individual was armed, but that engages in a series of “what if’s” that are pretty far-fetched.  Anyone with a gun, concealed or otherwise, would have it drawn and at the ready, even if they were carrying it concealed to begin with, and this man was killing indiscriminately. Police and security brought weapons to the fight; once they got shot and/or killed their guns could be used against them or others.

As I started this blog post, this incident would have happened in spite of even the most stringent gun control legislation ever proposed.  The only thing that will stop gun violence is people control.  This guy was nuts.  Everbody knew he was nuts, inclduing the police, but he was able to buy a shotgun, in spite of a so-called "background check."  While the background check makes us feel better, it is a false sense of security as currently implemented, and is is worse than useless.