U.S. postal workers can’t wield guns, but disgruntled ex-postal workers can, and since the sullen latter know the former fact, we’ve seen scores of cases of miscreants “going postal” and slaughtering innocents. That wouldn’t happen were it true (and widely known) that on-site postal workers could wield guns. Unlike U.S. postal facilities, shootings at U.S. military facilities are rare, even though these bases are designed to train recruits to kill others quickly, because the bases are also replete with people who wield guns proficiently and defensively. In a rare case in 2009, at Fort Hood in Texas, an Islam-addled U.S. Army Major shot and killed 13 while wounding 29, but his rampage was terminated by the Army Civilian Police who shot and paralyzed the evil perpetrator. The worst one-day loss of U.S. Marines since WWII occurred at a U.S. military barracks in Beirut in 1983; Islamic truck-bombers entered unmolested and killed 241, knowing well that their targets were unarmed “peace-keepers.”
Gun control-advocates want to blame mass shootings on “too many guns,” but the real problem is far too few guns and too little gun freedom. Restrictions on our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment right to bear arms invite slaughter and mayhem. Hijackers and terrorists have commandeered planes because they’ve known guns aren’t allowed on planes. In 2007 a maniac killed 32 students and hurt 17 others in a classroom at Virginia Tech, where guns are banned. That wouldn’t have happened had just one student with good aim been free to use a gun. In 2011 a U.S. Congresswoman and 18 others were gunned down in a shopping plaza, over the course of minutes; the grizzly result could have been avoided or minimized had there been no legal restrictions on gun-holding in such “public areas,” restrictions that were well known to that perpetrator, too. Last month a crazed shooter slaughtered 12 and wounded 58 others at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; he knew full well that the patrons were disarmed, since state law required it. In Oak Creek, Wisconsin this week a neo-Nazi religious whacko shot and killed 6 people and wounded 4 others at a Sikh temple, where no other guns were present because it was a “place of peace” – that is, a place the shooter knew was completely disarmed.
Here’s the perversity of the gun-controllers: they’ve convinced politicians and law enforcement officials that public areas are especially prone to gun violence, and have pushed for onerous bans and restrictions on gun use in such areas; but that means they themselves are accessories to such crimes, because they’ve actively encouraged government to ban or restrict our basic civil right to self-defense; it means they’ve goaded stray crazies into publicly slaughtering people with impunity. Self-defense is a crucial right; it requires gun-toting and full use not only in our homes and on our property but also (and especially) in public. How often do gun-wielding policemen actually prevent or stop violent crime? Almost never. They are not “crime-stoppers” but note-takers who arrive at a scene after the fact to gather testimony on what’s called an “alleged” crime, for later investigation and adjudication – which is, obviously, too late for the murdered and maimed.