.jpg)
Major Hasan (Courtesy of AP)
Yesterday at Fort Hood, disgruntled Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 12 soldiers and wounded 31 others before being shot and captured.
These soldiers were entrusted to carry fully automatic, military assault rifles when deployed to Afghanistan, where the shooter was about to be sent. But in America, these same soldiers are disarmed when on base. From the Associated Press:
Soldiers at Fort Hood don't carry weapons unless they are doing training exercises.
Apparently, Hasan didn’t want to fulfill the commitment he gave when joining the Army, instead unilaterally deciding where he would deploy:
[Retired co-worker Col. Terry] Lee said Hasan had hoped Obama would pull troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and got into frequent arguments with others in the military who supported the wars.
MCNBC reported that Hasan was under suspicion for having terrorist sympathies:
The Associated Press, quoting federal law enforcement officials, said Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats. The officials said they were still trying to confirm that he was the author.
This underscores the fact that law enforcement is not obligated to stop crime, as shown by the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
Old media attempted to associate this mass murder with the one that happened to civilians in 1991:
The base is surrounded by the town of Killeen, where a man shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s restaurant in October 1991.
“Unfortunately, this is a day we had dreaded,” said Hilary Shine, a spokeswoman for the city of Killeen. “Every time you hear of a mass casualty situation in Killeen, you think of Luby’s. ...
They inadvertently prove that civilian disarmament zones provide the perfect place for mass murderers: Luby’s patrons were disarmed due to Texas’s gun control laws. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who lost her parents in the Luby's massacre, explains what happened in the video below.
In his book The Bias Against Guns, John Lott examined the relationship between the presence of legally-carried firearms and multiple murders. He concluded:
If right-to-carry laws [legal concealed carry of handguns] allow citizens to limit the amount of attacks that still take place, the number of persons harmed should fall relative to the number of shootings… And indeed, that is what we find. The average number of people dying or becoming injured per attack declines by around 50 percent.
Lott also found that both the total number and rate of multiple murders in right-to-carry states are one-third that of restrictive states. In an email interview, he clarified this data by stating:
The simplest numbers showed a 67 percent drop in the number of attacks and a 79 percent decrease in the number of people killed or injured from such attacks. The number of people harmed fell by more than the number of attacks because some attacks that weren't deterred were stopped in progress by people with guns.
But some people don’t like John Lott, because he ostensibly is a “gun lobby” tool, even though he was anti-gun when he began his research (like this author). The same people who want to ban firearms tell us that police and military should carry guns to protect us.
Ron Borsch is a part-time, commissioned consultant trainer for the Bedford (Ohio) Police Department, with 30 full-time years of service and 17 years with SWAT. He still works part-time, managing the SEALE Police Academy in Bedford, where he specializes in tactically training first-responders, teaching them how to deal with what he calls “active killers.” Borsch defines the active killer as “one who commits rapid mass murder [incident occurring in 20 minutes or less, with 4 or more intentionally killed]. Active killers typically do NOT negotiate or take hostages.”
Borsch notes that nearly all mass murders occur in places where law-abiding citizens are banned from possessing firearms, either by property owners or government regulation.
Off-base, soldiers age 18 are eligible under Texas law to carry a concealed handgun.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has a private security firm “charged with protecting and safeguarding the occupants, visitors, and infrastructure of the Pentagon, Navy Annex and other assigned Pentagon facilities.”
Nobody safeguarded our young men and women who were good enough to risk their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For in-depth analysis of the issues discussed here, read Howard’s book Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working?, which deconstructs the gun control agenda and motivates more people to support our civil right of self-defense. Autographed copies are available from the author.
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
What drivel. If you don't care about your life or getting injured, you can kill or injure lots of people before anyone can respond adequately. Its pure fantasy that this could have been stopped in any meaningful way.
For the First Responders, primarily Department of the Army Civilian Police, and Sgt. Munley, who although wounded, put 4 shots in this monster donations are currently being accepted at the Chapels but there will be a press confrence regarding such things, as below:
Press Conference at 1:30CST and they will likely have info as to a general fund and specific funds later in the day. AS IS. Ft. Hood Chapels are accepting donations for all of them.
Bell County
301 Preist Rd., Killeen TX
(254) 634-0768
Coryell County
201 S. 2nd Street, Copperas Cove, TX 76522
(254) 547-6517
Let some wack job try this on a Marine Corps base
My question is this.....If Hasan was suspected of having "terrorist sympathies" why was he still an active member of the United States Military. This type of thing should never happen. We have too many heros in the military putting their lives on the line every day to have something like this occur.
Let’s be clear on an initial legal matter: Castle Rock v. Gonzales did not contain wording that suggested police officers had no obligation to “stop” crime. It merely dismissed the claim that an individual’s due process protections were violated when a police officer failed to follow through on a restraining order. Although a minute part of your article, this lack of accuracy gives the wrong impression of an important legal question—the extent to which “due process” of the 5th and 14th amendments can be applied.
Following your formidable, if partly inaccurate, narrative—we come to your point: “Nobody safeguarded our young men and women who were good enough to risk their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.” But the heart of the matter still remains elusive: Are these deaths the result of unwanted gun control ordinances, or the end result of a mad man breaking a reasonable law? But both questions are inadequate in leading to a potential resolution here.
The fact remains that mass murders occur primarily in places where the victims are disarmed.
Police are not obligated to stop crime. That's the truth. Castle Rock v Gonzales merely continued a consistent set of similar rulings.
Solution? Try something different. Data points to one viable option: Train to carry and then do so.
Robert: Then explain why mass murders occur most often in places where victims are disarmed. Your comment is uninformed.
Howard..this is exactly what I have been thinking! It makes me crazy with anger when I think all these fine soldiers got murdered like this. Why are they all not carrying their sidearms? Because of politics, because America is filled with too many anti-gun fanatics who are just scared of guns? For God's sake..if soldiers are not allowed to always carry a sidearm? what does this say about American politics and the chances of all of us as citizens to be able to continue to carry sidearms for self protection? There is no doubt the Federal Govt is on the path to turn everyone into sheep who will be incapable of defending themselves against the ongoing and everspreading crazy insane dangerous animals that roam the streets all around us, everywhere.
I have a license to carry a concealed handgun. Because of this, I have been harrassed by my neighbors and have been rousted by the local "law enforcement officers" who dont like it. They can all just kiss my rear end!! NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUNS!!
Bethel Temple hosting a prayer service tonight at 7pm for victims of Ft Hood shooting - 3102 S. Fort Hood St.
Prayer service Sunday at 5 pm at Killeen Civic and Conference Center 3601 WS Young
No further donation info other than blood donors may be needed but they are clogged up with donors at the responding hospitals so maybe go later or call and check first.
Howard: The data hardly point to one viable solution, other than you misread Supreme Court opinions and would rather have civilians trained for shoot-to-kill encounters. There is no solid argument for right-to-carry other than those based on fear-driven self-interest.
Ironclad: ...
Fence: There is nothing wrong here except that you have a need to ignore reality in order to hold onto your untenable position. Thanks for sharing.
It seems to me that the SCOTUS ruling being discussed is just nit picking.
If guns are limited to Authorized Persons, there are only going to be a few authorized carriers who can't be everywhere at once. Plus, these will still be human beings with problems of their own. We're supposed to believe that they're inherently superior?
The gun banners are acting out fear based self interest themselves, but they don't have the numbers on their side.
I find it amazing that on at least four occassions the USSC has ruled that policing agencies have no duty to protect anyone, and lower courts have relied upon those decisions to dismiss cases bearing upon that question, that there are people who deny the reality of the fact that these decisions exist, just so they may continue to hold a position that is harmful to every citizen of the nation.
Any person who can so deceive himself is not someone who can be relied upon to speak honestly to others. There are two possible explanations for their position a)stupidity, b) evil. I vote for evil since we have seen some of these people can manuipulate a keyboard rather well.
@Robert:
When a mass shooting occurs, it is *always* the case that the shooting comes to an end when someone with a gun arrives and shoots the guy. If 42 Army Personnel, who *ought* to be trained in the use of their arms, had their arms, how long would it have taken for one of them to pull out their gun and stop the gunman? Two seconds? Maybe a *little* more, to assess the situation? Yes, the gunman would have shot a person or two, but not *42* people!
Instead, they had to wait for the police to show up. *That's* why so many died, and so many were injured!
First, there WAS someone protecting those soldiers. Officer Kimberly Munley and others. The problem is they were all at least 3 MINUTES away. That is the problem with security, you never have enough for instant response. Security forces are generally reactive in nature. They can't be everywhere or watching everyone (and we would object if they were).
Various studies (including the one by the US Secret Service) have concluded that active shooters are normally stopped by their own choice or the first armed resistance. Since we don't want to let them decide how many to murder, we need to investigate options for bringing armed resistance to bear faster. Non-duty carry of firearms is one option (and a fairly simple one to institute with 48 states already having laws on it.)
it was stopped with a gun.dont you watch the news
You may be right that the initial violence cant be stopped, but it sure can be curtailed to limit the damages.
Lets see, I remember two law students out Virginia way stopping a shooter short, a certain teacher holding a teenage whack job off before he could commit more violence, a guard at a church, wow, the list goes on and on of how people, civilians, were armed and prevented more mayhem. But hey facts are irrelevant right?
I am often late to these discussions and it appears I am once again.
Let's get into the head of a bad guy. First, normal criminals are only concerned with themselves; that is why they don't have jobs to support themselves. Second, our laws are not even an inconvenience, since they don't consider them except at trial. Third, (thinking as a criminal)if I were intent upon doing a mass murder and if there were security personel in the area, I would take out the security first. Lastly, the only way security could ever make everyone safe would be to have an armed officer every 20 or 30 feet. And then who would watch the wathers?
JC in The Peoples Republic of Kalifornia
I"m attempting to figure which side you are on. First you want people to visit Mesquite Nevada? You do the story of the dude hasan? You put the story that is so true of Suzanna Gratie Hopp on there also (shich I'm grateful for.
Get this, I am like Hopp, where you find me, I will be packing protection of my family and my life. The laws are not for our protection. SO IF I COME TO NEVADA MY CCW IS NOT ANY GOOD IN THAT STATE.. (????????????. dO YOU REALY THINK MYSELF OR FRIENDS WOULD COME THERE?
I have a standing order: if I am killed in a situation where I have been prevented from lawfully carrying a firearm for self-defense and where shooting in self defense would likely have saved my life, my life insurance and other financial assets will be used to sue the authority that prevented me from carrying a gun.
Everett: The only article mentioning "Mesquite" was from the Texas State Rifle Association annual meeting recap I wrote. (Mesquite, Texas)
As far as Nevada, standards for reciprocity seem to be decided by a council of sheriffs and police chiefs, not the legislature. As a result, I hesitate to travel there for vacation.
Suzanna's last name is HUpp, not HOpp. Hopps makes gun cleaners and lubricants.
I am confused as to the point you are trying to make.
Everett: The only article mentioning "Mesquite" was from the Texas State Rifle Association annual meeting recap I wrote. (Mesquite, Texas)
As far as Nevada, standards for reciprocity seem to be decided by a council of sheriffs and police chiefs, not the legislature. As a result, I hesitate to travel there for vacation.
Suzanna's last name is HUpp, not HOpp. Hopps makes gun cleaners and lubricants.
I am confused as to the point you are trying to make.
Howard, it's HoppE's that makes the cleaners and lubricants. A minor point, to be sure, but important.
Gary: I stand corrected. Should have checked my supplies.
Gun free zones are killing zones. I retired from the Army in 1996. I'm legal to carry a concealed firearm in 37 states. I carry 24/7 and have for many years. Since military bases and posts don't allow concealed carry, I avoid them. Yes, I give up a bunch that I'm entitled to as a retiree, but I know that my Kimber will protect me, if I do my part.
My condolences to the famalies of these slain Soldiers. May God be with them.
100 rounds in three minutes sounds like a several magazines worth of bullets. I agree with the author. If everyone on base carried their M16, probably only 20-30 rounds (one magazine) could have been fired before an appropriate response had been mustered by the armed populace. If police were to come on the scene and start firing at law abiding citizens that were defending themselves then their poor training makes the police enemies of the peace as well. Remember an armed populace can defend themselves when government oversteps their authority.
Gun controls on US Military installations have got to go. Although I wouldn't mandate that all soldiers carry all the time, I do think that drill sergeants and pushy officers will have to accept the new reality and learn to be part of a civilized "polite" society.
Joe: "If police were to come on the scene and start firing at law abiding citizens that were defending themselves then their poor training makes the police enemies of the peace as well."
Those are YOUR words. When police arrive on scene, they have no way to determine who the good guys are, if they are all in Army uniforms. Officers must also protect their own lives.
In 3 minutes, an armed response would likely have already stopped the attacker, so that the defenders would stand down by the time the police arrive. That's the true first-responder situation. (See my next.)
There’s enough info already available to conclude without any doubt the killing and wounding of these unarmed American soldiers was a premeditated act of terrorism by a Muslim turned Jihadist.
Many people who decide there’s no reason to continue living or won't face certain situations in their life commit simple suicide but kill only themselves.
Those indoctrinated to the Islamic ideology are brainwashed into believing that killing persons opposed to Islam and other non-believers results in blessings granted in the afterlife.
While the non-indoctrinated might simply kill themselves, this ideology gives purpose and reason to suicidal acts involving the premeditated murder of other people.
In many circumstances Muslims also become victims.
This makes no sense at all to the non-indoctrinated without the knowledge that, as part of the belief system, other Muslims who die as a result of a Jihadist‘s acts become instant martyrs for the cause and are blessed accordingly.
A simple solution. Every soldier, airman, seaman, E or O that holds the expert marksman ship badge, every MP, every sniper, senior NCO, small arms instructor should be required to carry arms on duty, and encouraged to carry on base off duty. When "stressed" armed bad guys see the place crawling with weapons, they may seek a less valuable target.
SGTB The laws governing firearms are uniform throughout ALL Federal Military posts/Bases etc..... The same thing would have happened lets get off the Corps brainwashing from a retired Army Ranger the few are pretty overated...
CD--- WRONG! By definition, murderers are cowards. They WILL seek another target. Howard correctly points out how military disarmament of it's own combat people caused this tragedy. By the way, this isn't the first time this has happened. As the old song line goes: "When will they ever learn?"
And thanks again, Howard, for the one and ONLY article in the entire world that I've seen that exposes the real cause of this tragedy-the military's polically correct "gun free zone" incredibly enforced on a military base, on military personnel, during a TIME OF WAR!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!