Friday, November 6, 2009

Why Do Regulations Disarm our Military?

My sincere condolences to the victims and family members impacted by Yesterday's Fort Hood mass shooting. I'm sure I stand with many when I say thank you to brave hero Police Sergeant Kimberly Munley (and her partner) who confronted the killer, shooting him 4 times and bringing an early halt to his attack. Luckily she was close to the incident directing traffic and was able to respond within 3 minutes of the first 911 call.

I believe 3 minutes is the fastest Police response I've ever heard of to a mass shooting incident. Once she arrived she went straight in and confronted the shooter. She didn't waste any time waiting around for a swat team to arrive, which I believe saved many lives.

There remains however an urgent question in my mind: Why does Military policy disarm our trained military men and women while they are on base? I'm sure many of the 13 dead and 30 wounded would have wanted to fight back and defend themselves had they not all been disarmed by bad military base policy.

Did the gun free zone created by base regulations which ban weapon carry by anyone other than on duty Military Police prevent the madman from bringing both of his handguns to his attack? Of course not. Anybody willing to break the law in such a gruesome attack is not going to worry about a gun free zone policy. I imagine that the three minutes, while very fast for a Police response, seemed like an eternity to the defenseless victims who were stuck in the gun free zone while being shot at by the mad man.

I believe that the military gun free zone policy was probably created by a group of brain dead bureaucrats without any basis in fact. It is high time such idiotic policies be stricken down, as it is immoral to victimize the very men and women who have fought and died off shore protecting our freedoms by denying them the fundamental right of self protection while on US soil on our US military bases.

Update 1: Stephanie Gutmann, The Armorer, Dave Workman, Daniel White, Kurt Hofmann, and Howard Nemerov ask the same question. It is also being discussed on and


Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

It's worth noting that the police response time at Virginia Tech was also 3 minutes, and entry was attempted immediately. It still ended with 32 dead.

Anonymous said...

What are you talking about?

If any of the military men in that building had been armed someone might have gotten hurt!

Seriously a 21 year Navy vet and Concealed Handgun Permit holder who still works on base, this is something that's irked me forever.

Gate security is a joke and once they get past the gate, they pretty much have free reign to wreak havoc at will until the base Police can get there.

In this case it was a military member who would have no trouble getting past the gate...but even a criminally minded civilian wouldn't find it too challenging, especially during rush hour when they're struggling to get thousands of vehicles past the choke point at the gate as quickly as possible.

Anonymous said...

If any of the military men in that building had been armed someone might have gotten hurt! snark needs some refinement. Obviously, someone WAS armed and people DID get hurt.

It would have worked better had I said: "If any of the OTHER military men in that building..."

Whatever. You get the point.

JD said...

My prayers to the familys of the wonded and killed. That being said I second your thoughts. This being a gun free zone just made things eaiser for the bad guy. . . . all that training and no weapon to use to defend youself. Whomever made this rule should be ashamed of themselves

Rivrdog said...

The rule has been around since 1969 that I know of, and probably earlier.

1969 was the first time I was stationed PCS and had to lock up all my guns in the base armory. I only had 4: a Colt Woodsman, a Savage 99, an LC Smith 12-ga and later, a Springfield Mdl 30 12-ga.

The longs guns got treated like crap in the armory, with the trigger guards almost destroyed by the naked steel cable that was run though them while they sat in an open gun rack gathering dust and rust.

Dustin said...

Just as an exercise in frustration I watched a bit of the CNN coverage to see how they were spinning the incident. They were ranting about the "semi-automatic" handgun that allowed the madman to shoot so many people so quickly. To top it off, a correspondent was asked if any of the victims on base had been armed and she said "No, they had no reason to be armed"

I screamed at my television "Are you kidding me! Tell the 13 dead & 30 wounded that they had no reason to defend themselves!"

As usual, she failed to acknowledge my input.

Anonymous said...

I don't recall being told not to bring guns on base back in my Air Force days. It was just something you didn't do. Back then there were no civilians on base except for families of service members who lived in base housing. Any place of military security interest, including the gates to the base, were covered by armed security. Back in the "old days" on would never dream of hurting another member of the military or their family so the base was in fact the safest place to be. And if someone was acting a little weird you'd make sure they got help and it would be done in such a way that very few people would know about it in order to preserve his or her dignity. We were all family.

Anonymous said...

If I recall correctly, then president Jimmy Carter was responsible for disarming our U.S. military on U.S. soil (i.e. military bases). Why did he do this? Perhaps because he was such a crappy president he feared a military coo! The only thing the government fears more than an armed citizen is the military!

1stCav said...

Suey is a typical POG who has never served a day in the armed forces. The military IS part of the government, nitwit. I was there in the 70's when we were disarmed on bases. There was no fucking threat of a coup. Typical conspiracy dipshits always making up shit to fit their narrow world-view.

marko said...

In the event that the cruiser is possessed by the individual who will be driving it, they have the choice to get the basic obligation approach or to go for a more thorough arrangement. While there truly is not right or wrong reply, certain elements ought to be considered. Cash Advance Chicago

Paulo said...

Coordinate understudy credits have a settled loan fee that is set each July first. There is likewise an advance expense that can be up to 4%. This expense is normally used to balance the cost of the projects or administrations. check cashing

Paulo said...

Presently in the event that you surmise that on the off chance that you remain in school everlastingly, you will never need to pay off your understudy advances, well, you're off-base. Keep in mind when you about-face to class, your understudy credit obligations will in the end get to be distinctly bigger as you gain new understudy advances, making it harder to pay off. Cash Advance

Unknown said...

These understudies are ordinarily those whose guardians were not able send them to school and who did not quality for a full grant. Subsequently, they had no way out on the most proficient method to fund their instruction, however now that they are graduating or have graduated, reality has introduced itself, and they have a huge number of dollars in understudy advances that they are required to pay back.