Twelve Navy Department civilians left home for work last Monday, and never returned, slaughtered by a barrage of gun-fire, at the hands of a former Navy member, hired as a contract employee, despite an apparent record of past "misconduct," anger-management issues, reportedly a penchant for violent video games, claims of "hearing voices," sleep-deprivation, and said to have been under at least some VA care. Among the obvious questions: the inter-agency communication-failures that maintained his access-status, and how he came to possess guns, brought-in and perhaps obtained inside a military facility considered-secure. Raising again the basic issue of force-protection vs. efficient daily-entry for hundreds, sometimes thousands, of properly-ID'd employees. Is it time, then, to re-think non-MP installation gun-restrictions, to be replaced, instead, by selected, highly-trained and armed, rapid-response military-members, serving throughout an installation's units. At both Fort Hood and the Navy Yard, a more timely counter-fire reaction would likely have reduced the loss of life.
Gun-control advocates quickly re-emerged, when news organizations reported that an AR-15 had been used. But they and their media buddies lost interest, once determined it hadn't, and the assailant wasn't a Southern conservative. While those deaths last Monday were incredibly tragic, in Chicago, like D.C., a strict gun-control city, an average of 10 people are murdered weekly. Yet, for that carnage, the media drums don't beat, proving again, that the real concern is largely-synthetic, and political in nature, attempting to infringe, yet another American freedom, by applying a band-aid, not a cure. A valid cliché states: guns don't kill people, people do. Therein lies the problem, and the tough-solution we'll continue to ignore: the instability of the few.