AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (8 comments)

  1. Mark

    Video – Duck Hunting shotgun – broken link.

    1. Thanks and sorry, it’s fixed now….

  2. Are those jobs going to citizens or illegals?

    1. jorod

      Are those jobs going to citizens or illegals?

      Which jobs? Armed guards for the President and Vice President?

      The suggestion isn’t to reduce the number of guards, only to remove their weapons and create gun free zones.

      Secret service agents loudly shouting in unison at a potential assassin should be an effective deterrent, don’t you think?.

      Gun free zones work well in our schools, and worked really well at Fort Hood. Why not try them in other important settings?

  3. Cit. B

    I like that one a lot too. If gun free zones are effective deterrents to gun violence, why wouldn’t they work just as well around the President and his family?

    Gee, the President is the Commander in Chief of the ARMED forces, so eliminating armed guards is rediculous.

    I’m not sure your point about Commander in Chief. the President isn’t protected by the armed forces.

    I don’t need to join any government armed forces or militia to carry an AR-15. I have a constitutionally recognized and guaranteed right to do so already.

    1. I love that one. Like all politicians, Oblamebush drips with hypocrisy.

    2. Citizen B.

      Ron,

      “I’m not sure your point about Commander in Chief. the President isn’t protected by the armed forces.”

      Um, Ron, the first cordon of protection that is seen, is civilian. That is true. The secondary and very lethal military cordon is close at hand, such as fighter jets and other “stuff”.

      “I don’t need to join any government armed forces or militia to carry an AR-15. I have a constitutionally recognized and guaranteed right to do so already.”

      Ron, where do you draw the line on firepower, or do you, in your interpretation of the right to bear arms?

      At the semi-automatic level of the infantryman?
      A bazooka? An armed guided missle? A Warthog aircraft?

      Personally, I am below the threshold of the infantryman or national guardsman in both clip size and speed of fire. My guns are below that threshold.

      1. Citizen

        Um, Ron, the first cordon of protection that is seen, is civilian. That is true. The secondary and very lethal military cordon is close at hand, such as fighter jets and other “stuff”.

        That second cordon protects all of us to some degree against larger scale threats, but is of little use in preventing school shootings or individual threats to the President. All that military might did nothing to prevent the Kennedy assassination, for instance.

        Ron, where do you draw the line on firepower, or do you, in your interpretation of the right to bear arms?

        Are you asking where *I* draw the line or where *we* should draw the line on others?

        At the semi-automatic level of the infantryman?
        A bazooka? An armed guided missle? A Warthog aircraft?

        Infantrymen carry M16 or M4 automatic weapons. the AR-16 is the civilian semi-automatic version. the term “assault weapon” as usually condemned by con control advocates are actually semi-auto weapons that merely look like their fully automatic cousins. Most modern handguns are, in fact, semi automatic in that they fire once for each pull of the trigger.

        I personally don’t have any need for an RPG or a guided missile, or an A-10. I doubt that many people would want them or could afford them as they are very expensive to buy and to operate. Especially the A10. They are effectively banned to most people by the cost, and limited benefit.

        Personally, I am below the threshold of the infantryman or national guardsman in both clip size and speed of fire. My guns are below that threshold.

        Do you see anything inherently dangerous in allowing government to have better weapons than individual citizens? Or perhaps allowing ONLY government to have weapons of any kind?

        IMO the issue of limiting magazine size is one of the silliest arguments yet presented by gun control advocates. In stead of carrying 3 30 round magazines, a person can carry 9 10 round magazines. Big deal. The time to reload is negligible, and can’t possibly prevent mass shootings. It’s also important to note that making large capacity clips illegal only raises the price of them. If people want them, they will have them.

        You are aware, I assume, that Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, carried 200 rounds and 2 weapons to work with him on the day of the shooting in direct violation of the rules requiring all personal weapons to be held under lock and key by the provost marshal, except when needed for training. Hasan was able to shoot people for *10 minutes* before civilian base police arrived.

        All that said, the basic question was about the effectiveness of “gun free zones” in protecting people, and I believe the obvious answer is that they have exactly the opposite effect. They are safe zones for shooters intent on maximizing the horror they can inflict.

        If gun free zones are better than armed individuals in preventing violence, then the question is a good one, even if facetious. Why not use gun free zones to protect the President?

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content