◼ The gun control debate Sen. Feinstein does not want to have - Brenner Brief by Sara Marie Brenner/Washington Times
If politicians and policy-makers would simply study the data, it would be clear that gun ownership should be encouraged in order to reduce the number of murders. There most certainly should be a gun control debate, and about that Sen. Feinstein is correct, but not in the way that the anti-gun lobby would want.
We should be discussing how to encourage more gun ownership, and whether taxpayer dollars should be allocated to help citizens learn how to better control the firearms we own. This is the gun control debate we should be having. By expanding the option for citizens in the United States to own a firearm and carry it, whether concealed or openly and in any location they choose, there would not be “gun free zones” that cry out to become the targets of a gunman on a rampage.
Senator Feinstein and others who are anti-gun should set the politics aside, and examine the reality of the statistics if safety is truly their end goal. Should they disregard the facts, then their true intentions must be questioned and exposed.
◼ Washington Navy Yard Already Suffers the Restrictions That Gun Control Advocates Favor - J.D. Tuccille/Reason
Background checks are only as good as the information in the database and the people running them. Alexis passed his background checks, then was issued credentials that allowed him to enter the Navy Yard, bypassing such armed security personnel as guarded the perimeter.
After that, he faced unarmed victims, deprived of the means to defend themselves. At this point the choice of weapons, nevermind Sen. Feinstein's fixation on AR-15s, was moot*.
This is gun control.
*Update: The FBI now says the weapons used by Aaron Alexis in the Washington Navy Yard attack were one shotgun and two pistols.
MEANWHILE: ◼ Obama waives ban on giving guns to terrorists - Rick Moran/American Thinker
