UPDATED — 12.11.2019 @ 4 PM EST: It is my decidedly sad duty to report… more empirical evidence that John is wrong, here [below]. Just this afternoon, we’ve seen an “armed man” immediately detained on a Corpus Christi, Texas Naval airbase. And… he was, of course, immediately spotted BECAUSE… he was armed. Thus Mr. Hinderaker’s views below could not be more completely refuted — but it is sad that these events have become so commonplace, as to be largely unremarkable. End, update.

Overnight, John Hinderaker offers a post in which he [as ever, without any evidence] opines that fewer lives would have been lost in Pensacola [the most recent US Navy base shooting], had all cadets, midshipmen and officers — all persons on the base for that matter — been allowed to carry guns.

I can see how he might [ever childishly] think that.

Let us assume he really doesn’t get the policy idea here. Let us educate him.

US Navy bases are “no gun zones“.  That way, anyone running with a gun on the base is a KNOWN threat — not a friendly.

Now… consider the opposite state of affairs: everyone carrying guns. And, at least somewhat likely — a random fight over say the last chicken wing — in the canteen… is suddenly probably… lethal.

That said, I can see a case for only allowing MPs to carry on base, and then response to a known threat like the one we just saw might be marginally faster. Only marginally, though. The idea that stopping a lone terrorist is a more likely with LOTS of guns, a pre numerical quota — and not a focus on Navy policies to prevent loss of life [far more likely and common] from hot-headed young men in bunk fights/shootings… is silly, in a word.

This particular Naval Airbase is located in Pensacola, solely at the invitation of the people of Florida, and all other bases are at the invitation of the people of the US — please read Amendment Two [no forced quarter of troops, etc.]. These fine people long ago set that in motion; and set the rules of engagement.

As such, more generally, we civilians decide where bases are — and how much potential mayhem/lethal firepower  we want in our own backyards [collectively]. Florida long ago decided that having a few thousand super-testosterone infused midshipmen/air jockeys between the ages of say 18 and 28 — while needed for national defense, when on the high seas — should/would not be barracks full of armed men, on hair triggers, 24/7.

No — with arms safely locked away, fistfights and perhaps a stabbing or two would be about all the on-base mayhem we’d tolerate.

More fundamentally, nothing changes, if a terrorist decides to come on base with automatic weapons. Nothing the Navy men and women would do would much change the outcome — cogent research shows… where some terrorist is willing to sacrifice his life, to end the lives of at least a few others, including well-trained military officers, there is going to be some loss of life, regardless.

 It should be noted that this particular terrorist, under Florida’s insanely liberal gun laws, had lawfully obtained his weapons. Let that sink in. He initially violated the law, solely by violating the federal law preventing guns inside the base facility.

In sum — adding more guns inside a base, a school or a factory… will not change the outcome appreciably.

Here endeth the lesson, for childish John’s testosterone.