Montrose - Daily Press

 It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan.Shouldn't an army base be the last place where a terrorist should be able to shoot at people uninterrupted for 10 minutes? After all, an army base is filled with soldiers who carry guns, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.The unarmed soldiers could do little more than cower as Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a desk and shot down into the cubicles in which his victims were trapped. Some behaved heroically, such as private first class Marquest Smith who repeatedly risked his life removing five soldiers and a civilian from the carnage. But, being unarmed, these soldiers were unable to stop Hasan's attack.The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Ft. Hood understood this all too well. Mandy Foster's husband had been shot but was fortunate enough not to be seriously injured. In an interview on CNN on Monday night, Mrs. Foster was asked by anchor John Roberts how she felt about her husband "still scheduled for deployment in January" to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?" -- It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, most of CNN's listeners probably didn't understand the rules that Ms. Foster was referring to.The law-abiding, not the criminals, are the ones who obey the ban on guns. Instead of making areas safe for victims, the bans make it safe for the criminal. Hasan not only violated the army's ban on carrying a gun, he also apparently violated the rules that require soldiers to register privately owned guns at the post.Research shows that allowing individuals to defend themselves dramatically reduces the rates of multiple victim public shootings. Even if attacks still occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun. Ten minutes must have seemed like an eternity to those trapped in the attack at Ft. Hood. All the multiple victim public shootings in the U.S. -- in which more than three people have been killed -- have all occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.For several days now, some in the media and various gun control groups have focused on a so-called "cop killer" gun that Hasan used. The five-seven is a conventional semi-automatic pistol. In fact, the bullets that it fires are relatively small, only being in the .22 caliber class. Unlike rifles, even higher caliber handguns don't fire publicly available ammunition at sufficient velocity to penetrate a police officer's vest. There is a special type of handgun ammunition that can penetrate some types of body armor, but under federal law it is not legal to manufacture or import that ammunition for sale to the public.For the safety of our soldiers and citizens, we hope that this simple fact about the Ft. Hood attack and the role that gun-free zones played in allowing yet another multiple victim public shooting becomes part of the news coverage itself. The political debate about guns would be quite different if even once in a while a news story clearly explained that there has been another multiple victim public shooting in a gun-free zone.

Advertisement

Comments

Bill wrote on Nov 28, 2009 8:46 AM:

" So we as a country wiped out the indians. Are the only country to use atomic weapons not once, but twice that killed several hundred thousand innocent Japanese. Allowed slavery, have more of our citizens in jail than any other country. Who is the real terror threat? If we were really concerned about terror we should look inside.
Were just as guilty as the so called terrorists if not more, we get what we ask for, as always what goes around comes around.......Bill "




Report Abuse

Tom Shearer wrote on Nov 25, 2009 4:12 PM:

" For MSNBC it's still too soon to come to the conclusion that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terrorism. Ask Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews the shooting of George Tiller was an act of terrorism, no question. The death of a census taker in Kentucky was also an act of terrorism. (it was a suicide/insurance scam.) But as to Maj. Hasan, the jury is still out and will be out for many, many years. "




Report Abuse

alley wrote on Nov 22, 2009 10:43 AM:

" God Bless America right? What shocks me even more than the gun thing is that this terorist was running around screaming hate for the USA, and no one would stop him then. It never should have got to the point of this idiot shooting up everyone. He should have been detained when his very first comment was said. I am also kind of glad this terrorist survived now we can make him pay for all he has done. "




Report Abuse

The Truth wrote on Nov 20, 2009 5:59 PM:

" Josh is right. John Lott is a major pro-gun advocate who oddly enough has a book he likes to promote and will use any tragedy to push is pro-gun agenda (and maybe sell a few books). Most (if not all) of the studies he uses were done by him. And they have been soundly denounced. Oh, and he does not live here... he posts in any free place he can for publicity.

I'm pro-gun. But using a national tragedy to push an agenda and sell some books is wrong. Plain and simple. "




Report Abuse

Josh wrote on Nov 18, 2009 7:08 PM:

" GLD, no I'm arguing not to use a tragedy to push an agenda.... nothing more. And trust me, I know more than enough about military combat... I saw many good men killed in crossfire... and many more killed because we did not know exactly who the enemy was and was not. "




Report Abuse

G.L.D. wrote on Nov 18, 2009 3:06 PM:

" Josh, it is highly apparent you are arguing from the heart and therefore are unable to see the forest for the trees.

Terms such as sector of fire, target acquisition, violence of action, controlled pairs and above all... threat neutralization cease fire are terms you would understand if you were an unarmed soldier being shot at from one of your "superior" officers. "




Report Abuse

fuzzhead wrote on Nov 18, 2009 10:19 AM:

" Josh, I have a cc permit and one day I or someone like me might save your life or someone dear to you. Gun bans do kill people. It has been shown that where people are allowed to carry arms crime and murder go down. It is just the opposite where there is a total ban on guns. If anyone should be ashamed it should be you for supporting something that tries to take a constitutional amendment right away from citizens. "




Report Abuse

Josh wrote on Nov 18, 2009 9:28 AM:

" G.L.D., with all due respect, under fire is a little different than Monday morning quarterbacking in hope of pushing an agenda. I will agree to disagree with you… however, having hundreds of people firing weapons at the same time and having them wondering who was trying to help and who was part of the plot to kill servicemen (and women) probably would have led to many more deaths. Is that person with the gun trying to help or hurt you? Answer, shoot first and worry about it later. That’s a military reality. "




Report Abuse

Canyonman wrote on Nov 18, 2009 8:47 AM:

" Had the men and women on that base been armed, this muslim coward would never have dared to pull a pistol on anyone. He wouldn't have even gotten "Allah" out of his filthy hole before a person with a weapon double tapped him. Guns are the only way to stop terrorists. You don't see terrorists walking into police stations and shooting people. "




Report Abuse

too bad wrote on Nov 17, 2009 2:46 PM:

" this account has few if any facts, it makes the remarks just as baseless as the story> "




Report Abuse

G.L.D. wrote on Nov 17, 2009 10:22 AM:

" Josh, take a look at the situation... A lone gunman elevated and silhouetted, shooting at unarmed, highly trained (and combat proven) military personnel. If the personnel had been armed, no circular argument you can pose can lead to an outcome other than a greatly reduced causality count. "




Report Abuse

a_montrose_resident wrote on Nov 16, 2009 7:31 PM:

" what i want to know is why did your president shut down the investigation on this tragedy ? it seems that anything that is related to muslim violence, he tries to minimize his attention to the whole situation. i am not really impressed with his comments in sympathy to the families involved. not right... "




Report Abuse

Josh wrote on Nov 16, 2009 1:27 PM:

" G.L.D., and how do you know that? Maybe someone would have shot the guy... or maybe they would have hit and killed innocent people running for their lives... or maybe... see the game you get into when you try to use a tragedy to push an agenda? There are too many what ifs. Nothing is cut and dry and there is no proof lifting of the ban would have caused a different result. "




Report Abuse

G.L.D. wrote on Nov 16, 2009 12:03 PM:

" It wasn't very long ago when a shooter was stopped in a crowded mall in Utah by a person with a CC. Gun bans only serve the interest of the less-than-law abidding and in no way protects the population in general.

Josh, no one said a gun ban caused this BUT a lifting of the DOD ban could have minimized it for dang sure! "




Report Abuse

DDS -- NRA Life Member wrote on Nov 16, 2009 8:55 AM:

" The media has seized on the FN pistol's ability to defeat a bullet resistant vest. Yet apparently none of the victims were wearing one. So, what's the point? Only that they want this firearm banned and will do or say anyting that advances that agenda. "




Report Abuse

Jen wrote on Nov 16, 2009 8:11 AM:

" uh no a gun ban didnt cause it but it does prevent you from being able to defend yourself. "




Report Abuse

Chickenman wrote on Nov 16, 2009 7:15 AM:

" People kill people not guns. What do you expect when were programed by violent video games, movies, television,etc. glorifing war and violence. In this case the good guys were harmed and were all upset, rightfully so, but untill we learn the power of love, tolerence, forgivness, kindness to one another, this is what we get when faced with endless wars, and all for what?.PEACEoutchickenman "




Report Abuse

Josh wrote on Nov 15, 2009 4:50 PM:

" Um, yea... a gun ban caused this... not the person firing the weapon. Stop using a tragedy to push your cause. You should be ashamed... "




Report Abuse

Jen wrote on Nov 15, 2009 8:26 AM:

" Criminals dont care about gun bans! You are right it only helps them. "




Report Abuse