Lessons from Fort Hood shooting

November 6, 6:49 AMCleveland Gun Rights ExaminerDaniel White

Previous Next

20 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

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.