1. Victim Disarmament Zones are the problem
The Aurora Theater, the Newtown school, and the Washington Navy Yard all shared something in common: carrying weapons for self defense was prohibited in each of these. Robb gives a personal anecdote about this:
At 19 years old, I would sit in the cockpits of fully armed Cobra helicopters with the express knowledge of how to arm and deploy an honest to God shitstorm (and even the knowhow to disable the Weight On Wheels sensor so that I could do so while parked on the ground). I was trusted with this. I was trained for it. I was actually pretty damned good at it.The Navy Yard had Marines stationed there, Marines who had at one point deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. They couldn't do anything because they were not allowed to have ammunition:
And yet, I was not allowed to carry a gun on base.
Because I couldn’t be trusted with it.
These are the fruits of the anti-gun labor. A Marine, trained in the art of rifles, with a Secret clearance, fully background checked and given access to real, military grade hardware, could not own something as simple as a handgun while on base.
"My son was at Marine Barracks -- at the Navy Yard yesterday - and they had weapons with them, but they didn't have ammunition. And they said, 'We were trained, and if we had the ammunition, we could've cleared that building.' Only three people had been shot at that time, and they could've stopped the rest of it."2. The gun used is irrelevant
Ignore the wildly inaccurate early reporting that the Navy Yard shooter had an AR-15. Ignore Piers Morgan's ranting. Now everyone knows that the shooter had a pump action shotgun. And yet we hear calls for the same old "ban 'assault' rifles".
I used to think that the strategy of the gun control advocates was to try to ban guns used in shootings. Over time, this would whittle away at the available options for shooters. At the extreme, most types of guns would be banned.
Now I think that they don't even care. There was a shooting? Ban the AR platform. The shooter used a shot gun? Ban the AR platform. Because guns suck.
The details of any of these events is entirely irrelevant, as the end goal is pre-determined and non-negotiable.
3. Negotiating with gun control advocates is a waste of time
Given their unwillingness to address the current failures of their preferred policies (item #1) and their unwillingness to enter a rational conversation about which guns are the problem (if in fact this is even the question, which it's not) (item #2 above), it's pretty clear that there is no possible compromise that should be considered by pro Second Amendment advocates. The "common sense gun control" proposals are, as The Bard put it, a tale told by an idiot; full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing.
I know that "compromise" if valued above all by the establishment, but it's very hard to see how "compromise" in this case is anything other than a stalking horse for Progressive dogma.