As many people know by now, or are waking up to this morning, yesterday 39-year-old Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, went on a shooting spree at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas killing 13 and injuring at least 30. While Hasan is in critical condition and unconscious, some are speculating that the motive for the shooting was concern over his upcoming deployment to Afghanistan.
Regardless of motive, there are several lessons that we can take away from this incident.
First of all, Hasan, by himself, was able to wreak havoc at a secure military installation while reportedly armed with nothing but two handguns. How? Most of his intended victims were disarmed. Army regulations require that under normal operational procedure at Army bases on home soil soldiers are prohibited from carrying weapons unless under specific orders to do so (such as military police). This left highly trained fighting men and women at the mercy of a killer. We see the same scenario play out over and over when it is law abiding citizens disarmed by their government who are easy targets for armed criminals.
Despite the regulations, Hasan was able to arm himself and able to kill freely until it was someone with a gun who stopped him. For disarmed civilians, this is usually either the police or another armed citizen. For the soldiers at Ft. Hood, it was probably a MP who finally ended the carnage. It may also have been a civilian police officer as they were on the scene and one was reportedly among the casualties.
This shooting also highlights the futility of fleeing instead of fighting. Reports indicate that a voice over the public address system was telling people to stay indoors and the disarmed soldiers had no recourse other than to try to run away. How many of the dead or injured would not have been victimized had they the ability to issue an armed response to the attack? In comparison, many states are passing Stand Your Ground legislation to remove the burden to try to retreat when faced with a criminal attack. Allowing people to fight back from the start greatly increases their chance for survival.
Many reports about the incident have pointed out that soldiers expect that they might get attacked while overseas but not when stationed at a home base. This parallels many civilian shooting where surviving victims report they "felt safe" or never expected to be attacked. The element of surprise is a powerful weapon and the biggest defense is to be always prepared.
There have also been reports that Hasan may have exhibited several warning signs prior to the attack, including discussing death frequently, giving away his possessions, and was under investigation to determine if he was the author of internet postings that talked of similar attacks that may have indicated he believed he would be saving lives by taking such action. Perpetrators of civilian workplace shootings also tend to give prior warning which if ignored or not recognized can lead to violence.
Following this tragedy, it is expected that Army policy and procedures will undergo review and be subject to changes. It is important for civilian authorities to examine and learn from this tragedy as well. Disarmament all too often leads to victimization and that is true regardless of where you are or how safe you feel.
Further reading: Also see commentary from David Codrea, Kurt Hofmann, Dave Workman and Howard Nemerov.
Comments
Yeah, and if everyone on the base was permitted to carry their guns around, no one would ever get killed and there wouldn't be a higher preponderance of individual shootings.
OK. Keep dreaming.
Double D, I'll try to accomodate your obviously limited mental capacity, but I'm not sure I'll be successful. The rules didn't prevent a man intent on breaking those rules from doing so. How could removing the (ineffective) rules possibly create higher probability of someone performing the same heinous act? I will give the answer, as you are to dimwitted to reach the conclusion yourself: it couldn't. The probability of a criminal committing criminal acts regardless of ancillary rules, regulations, or laws, is de facto unchanged by the existence of those rules, regulations, or laws. That's why we call them criminals, and the acts they commit crimes.
The level of idocy displayed by many modern American adults is absoluety stunning to me. It bothers me that I am constantly foced to debate issues with what sounds like excerpts from in-game chat during Counter-Strike.
M Gallo is right. Base policy will not stop a shooter.
"Yeah, and if everyone on the base was permitted to carry their guns around, no one would ever get killed and there wouldn't be a higher preponderance of individual shootings." I can see that you have never been on a forward operating base (FOB) in a theator of war. Every one of these same Soldiers will have ammunition and weapons with them at all times. At all times! There are very few cases of violence or negligent discharges despite this. Just a thought.
It's just another example of several known facts. #1,in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, we will STILL be told to believe that Islam is a "peaceful" religion, by our "delusional" president ! (He thinks Israel is to violent) #2, in spite of all the evidence of "premeditation" this Muslim fanatic gave his superiors, his "First Amendment Rights" were preserved and protected, at ALL COSTS ! (Politically Correct) #3,neither the Army nor DOD will address the REAL causes for this tragedy, for fear of upsetting someone somewhere. (Again, Politically Correct) #4,after we spend millions on the best civilian criminal defense lawyers, and at least 10-15 years in the Courts, this "radical Muslim" will be declared "criminally Insane", and we'll all live happily ever after ! (Only in America) However, it should come as some comfort to us, that this Country is providing "comedy" entertainment to the rest of the world, with our "Keystone Cops" method of handling our serious problems !
If this NUT could not have obtained a weapon in the first place, this would not have happened. I'll bet that he got these hand guns legally. When will we learn that we, like most civilized nations, must further restrict and BAN guns? It is interesting that, with the weak guns laws of TX, no one, except a civilan police office, had the means to stop him. Wishes for Peace & healing to all touched by this insanity.
I kinda figured that someone would complain that the murderer bought his gun legally, and if no guns were available - as in other civilized countries - all murders would somehow cease.
Of course that goes against information published at www dot hawaii dot edu/powerkills/, which lists over 250,000,000 murdered by governments last century.
But I'm sure that type of murder by government would never happen here. Just surrender all guns and be a good little sheep.
Disarming the public has worked well in the UK, eh? Crimes in which guns are used are up something like 86%.
But this wouldn't have happened had the guy not been legally able to buy a gun.
I'm boggled by the logic.
Well, I think "Tom K Msg USA Ret" is onto something here. Let's ban guns, and then, when all the killing and crime stops, we'll ban drugs. Imagine the lives and money that could be saved. Then, we'll ban alcohol, prostitution, gambling, and overeating. Seriously, no ban on anything has ever worked anywhere or anytime. It's an exercise in futility. The one thing a ban does do is relieve morons of having to try to think of real solutions.
Two points:
1) There were red flags that were ignored.
2) If those innocent soldiers were armed the 'terrorist' may not have come in with guns blazing.
Too bad that our soldiers don't have a choice to carry on base - seems like PC run-a-muck.
Very sad!
it's a damn shame we can't ban morons. But then you would have fewer commenters. Yeah, Double D and Tom Msgt USA (ret), I was referring to you .
Tell me Msgt. would you advocate for that position for troops in a war zone? If not, why not? You seem to think that would work elsewhere. If your principle won't hold through all the strata, you principle is wrong.
The media are talking about the type of weapon and have named the store where it was purchased! Who cares about the store where, oh my, they sell guns? If I have a dinner party and one of my guests gets drunk and kills someone on the way home - will the media tell the name of the wine store where I bought the alcohol? This is stupid. The guy was a nut! He would have killed any way - any how if that's what he wanted to really do.
I agree Double D, and what's scary here is that there is an extreme level of antagonism and paranoia exhibited by some of the posters in the way they debate the issue. Giving these guys of people guns is like waving raw meat in front of a tiger.
On April 19, 1995 Timothy McVeigh used a 5,000 bomb made of fertilizer, diesel fuel, and a rented truck to kill 168 people and wound over 800 more in Oklahoma.
Have we banned fertilizer? No. Have we banned diesel fuel? No. Are rented trucks still on the roads? Yes they are. And I'm sure they're transporting tons of fertilizer and fuel around at this very moment!
The pompously vainglorious posters here who advocate additional gun bans obvious have not figured out what the rest of us have learned long ago that bad people are going to do bad things to good people and that honest law abiding citizens are going to be the real first responders, not the police.
The final tally of the dead is always inversely proportional to the number of armed people present who can intervene immediately instead of waiting precious minutes for the police to arrive, organize, and move in.
Keep in mind, in a violent life or death struggle, seconds count but help is minutes away.
hey tom k.this man was in the army,the last time i heard the army had guns get a brain
hey double d ever hear of a shootout latey at a police dept.were they are armed,you keep dreaming. d.a.
thats right pete,the army shouldnt have guns,we can win wars with milk and cookies instead
Yep, if we could just make all those nasty old guns go away everything would be sweetness and light.
Here's a history lesson for you. There was a time before guns were invented. It's called the dark ages. Before guns life was short brutish and violent. Guns and a willingness to use them are what makes the 90 pound weakling the equal to the 200 pound bully/robber/rapist. Yes, by all means lets give that up for your false sense of security, false because as we can well see the bad guys will always find a way to get weapons.
Great Britain fell for the gun ban idea and violent crime has escalated there unchecked to the point that street cops who formerly carried only a truncheon and a whistle are now armed with automatic weapons.
Lord save us from the idiots who demand that something be done even when it causes more harm than good. They seem to have an infinite capacity for ignoring the evil unintended consequences of their well intended bumbling mistakes.
Violent Left Wing Extremist whackos:
Lee Harvey Oswald – Liberal, Communist, killed JFK
James Earl Ray - Liberal Democrat, killed MLK
Sirhan Sirham - militant Muslim, killed RFK
John Wilkes Booth - pro-slavery Democrat, killed Lincoln
Nidal Malik Hasan – militant Liberal Muslim, killed 13 American soldiers at Fort Hood
Daniel, as followers of the gun rights examiners we know that gun control doesn’t work; unfortunately the US Army just got their lesson the hard way.
Of all of the places in the world you would think an army base would have people running around with guns, so for a man with a grudge or hatred of non-Muslims it’s a perfect victim zone.
I keep finding articles on women buying guns but strangely these articles are not being promoted.
I believe women are the key to saving the 2A, I encourage pro-gun women to make short You Tube videos about why women should own guns.
We need to keep this movement growing!
"We can contend with the evil that men do in the name of evil, but heaven protect us from what they do in the name of good."
-- Richard Boone (as "Paladin") quoting Erodius, in a "Have Gun, Will Travel" episode ("The Posse")
To Milt:
You might also add Leon Czolgocsz (sp.), anarchist, who killed William McKinley, and:
Joseph Zarenga, anarchist, who attempted assassination of FDR, but shot Chicago mayor Anton Cermak
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.
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!