Reason Magazine's Jacob Sullum recently wrote a scathing criticism of the policy that rendered the victims of the Ft. Hood atrocity defensless against their cowardly attacker.
Neither Smith nor the other victims of Hasan’s assault had guns because soldiers on military bases within the United States generally are not allowed to carry them. Last week’s shootings, which killed 13 people and wounded more than 30, demonstrated once again the folly of “gun-free zones,” which attract and assist people bent on mass murder instead of deterring them.
The soldier disarmament policy to which Sullum refers is not just a Ft. Hood rule--the Ft. Hood victims were disarmed pursuant to a military-wide policy, institued presumably with the approval of former President Bill Clinton in 1993.
Among President Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.
In other words, in 1992, the Ft. Hood carnage would have been vastly less likely. In the wake of the attack, one victim's spouse made a brutally penetrating observation.
The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Fort Hood understands all too well. In an interview on CNN Monday night, Anchor John Roberts asked Mandy Foster how she felt about her husband's upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?"
Can there be a worse indictment of stateside military policy than the fact that troops stationed in war zones are safer?
Brady Campaigner Doug Pennington, in a piece expressing his contempt for Sullum's position, could just as easily been showing his contempt for Ms. Foster's.
So, even as the National Rifle Association tries to arm America to the teeth, soldiers — America’s professional gun users — do not carry weapons on base “as a matter of practice.”
Why? Because it’s their home.
You just knew that had to hit the gun zealots where it hurts most.
"Gun zealots," presumably, is Mr. Pennington's term for gun rights advocates. Fair enough--coming from a forcible citizen disarmament pusher, Pennington's opinion would not seem to be worth getting oneself worked up over. I do take exception to the last part, though. What hurts most is that many of the deaths at Ft. Hood were very likely preventable, by simply not stripping the troops of the tools of a soldier's trade. But to an idealogue like Pennington, his side's imagined "victory" is evidently more important than human life.
Pennington goes on to make a few more snide--and irrelevant--observations, such as the fact that Hasan had been issued a Virginia concealed carry permit in 1996, as if A) a '96 permit would still be valid, B) the permit would make any difference on an Army post (given the Clinton-era soldier disarmament edict), and C) a mass murderer would care whether or not carrying a firearm was permitted.
He also makes the obligatory reference to the supposed "cop killer" nature of the FN Five-seveN pistol used, despite the gun never having been used to kill a law enforcement officer in the U.S. (much less kill one by virtue of the 5.7x28mm round's vaunted "armor piercing" ability). In fact, the argument could be made that the death toll would have been much higher, had the killer made a different choice. Pennington also couldn't resist mentioning the "high capacity magazines" of the pistol--as if magazine changes impose much of an obstacle to killing unarmed victims.
Finally, he picks up on the "terror gap loophole" ridiculousness.
In short, Pennington blames the Ft. Hood deaths on the lack of a whole laundry list of gun laws--despite the fact that implementing every one of them would not have served to stop the killing. The only thing that would have stopped it would have been less restrictive gun regulation.
Comments
I have no idea where the idea that Clinton banned weapons on military bases comes from. In 1961, and probably before, it was not permissible for any troop other than M.P.'s or guard duty troops to carry weapons for any reason. I remember this since my Dad was in the USAF at this time, and when I was in the USMC from 1973 to 1981, the same rules were in effect. It is my understanding, and I could be wrong, that President Eisenhower instituted this policy. I am not defending Clinton, he was dirt, but there are enough things we can blame on him without having to make things up, or condemn him for supporting existing policy.
Old Jarhead, I have no doubt that individual base commanders have commonly imposed such restrictions for decades, but I'm convinced that the formal, military-wide ruling to that effect came about in '93: johnrlott.tripod.com/r190_14.pdf
Let's call Pennington what he is. An accessory to multiple murders. An avid lover of spilled blood who gains enormous satsfaction from his voyeurism of murderous acts.
I do not believe for a minute that this "thing" regrets any death anywhere in the nation so long as it isn't his. It is difficult to exert power over people who are not helpless. Pennington knows this and in his efforts to reduce the the citizen to helplessness he has found he enjoys the blood of the dying, espcecally since he see political profit in it.
The whole idea of gun free scrambles my brain, but military gun free fries it.
Don't you people always claim that a person with a concealed handgun permit would never do something like this?
Alex, for one, they aren't even sure if the permit was still valid, and besides, not all permits are transferable from one state to the next. Secondly, there is the phrase "there's one in every crowd"...meaning you can't paint everyone with the same brush. Even among concealed permit holders, there are those who would do evil if led down that path. Have you not heard that even cops commit crimes, or is that just too incredible? The point is, if everyone carries, then evil-doers can't inflict as much damage as when only the evil-doers carry, and they will...any time, any place, legally or not.
Yeah Alex, just like the police and government authorities never committ a crime, are better trained to have no accidents, or murder while armed eh? Oh wait, Alex is fully prepared to base his smartazz comment on irrefutable facts, especially how permitted people committ more total crimes even compared to the cops and authorities?
I admit I am a brady drone and troll.
Hmmm... Old Jarhead, something just doesn't ring true with what you said. I was born and raised on Camp Pendleton. Perhaps the rules were different for NCO's that lived on base. (I lived in Wire Mountain Housing.) After a day at the range my Step father almost always brought his weapon home for cleaning etc. He did have to have it back in the rack in a short time though if I remember correctly. But, then there were people such as myself. I was on the Junior NRA Team,and I can assure you that my rifle was kept at home. Heck, I would take it on the bus with me to practice on Saturday mornings when I didn't have a ride. This also is not to mention hunting rifles etc...
Semper Fi Devil Dog!
"Don't you people always claim that a person with a concealed handgun permit would never do something like this?"
If this is the depth to which one has to stoop to support a clearly unsupportable point, then we should take some comfort.
The answer to this fecal flingery, by the way, is of course "no". As already noted by others here, the point is not that NOBODY would EVER do ANYTHING like this--that's your invention--it has always been that private citizens, especially ones who (for some reason) jump through all the hoops the state puts in front of them for the right to do what every other living thing does naturally, have simply been demonstrably more peaceable than the state and its armed enforcers.
If you're not swayed by the humanitarian argument that forcible disarmament is always wrong because it serves up the weak to the strong, we have little more to say to one another. Besta luck staying on the right side of that mob.
Thanks, Patrick. Perhaps I was not clear in my narrative. I should have included that weapons used at the range, used for close order drill, etc. were of course permitted. However, if you lived in the barracks, not housing, personal weapons were always prohibited. Quite often in the barracks, issue weapons were chained and locked in racks, any time it was fired it was cleaned before being racked. Staff NCO's and officers were allowed to take issued weapons home for cleaning, but they must be returned in short order.
The carrying of personal weapons on base was highly restricted, as was the storage of these weapons anywhere but the armory if you lived in the barracks. It could be checked out for transport to the range, or for a hunting trip. Transport to and from any range has always allowed. I have been out since 1981, so I am not sure how the military is enforcing this ban, but it is probably much more strict than it was when I was on different bases.
The ban of weapons on military base,s endangers all of the usa, Clinton,Obama, both can care less for freedom, Clinton had made it so that we the usa ,would take a nuke ,without fireing back,Obama has showen noncare of ower military, both of them have done treason,today the gov has told others they dont have the freedom of speech,on fox news, the betrayal of trust, the steping on the constitution is endagering all of us and ower love,ed ones is treason ,we can only hope is, we could remove them from office, that ower vote still has say.if the bases had bin armed , we wouldent had the pain of loss, as much, we need to use the 10th of the constitution , befor its to late and ends with Obama terrorism,the way hes showen, so far is to disarm all, hes just like hitler in world war 2# he,s showen a deaf ear to the usa...
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!