The indispensable John Lott explains how a misguided anti-gun regulation from the early 1990s created a safe environment for Major Hasan’s terrorist attack. As Lott explains in his Foxnews.com article, gun bans only disarm innocent people. Terrorists and other human refuse take advantage of such situations to kill more people:
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.” …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. …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. …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.
Great post. I will be facing a few of these issues as
well..
[…] don’t want innocent people to have any ability to defend themselves (they’ve even adopted policies prohibiting members of the military from being […]
[…] H.W. Bush in 1992 and implemented by President Bill Clinton in 1993 under regulation 190-14 prohibited members of the military from being […]
[…] exatamente isso o que aconteceu em Fort Hood. E em Santa Barbara. E em Newtown, Connecticut. E no cinema da cidade de Aurora, Colorado. E […]
[…] and bureaucrats don’t want innocent people to have any ability to defend themselves (they’ve even adopted policies prohibiting members of the military from being […]
[…] don’t want innocent people to have any ability to defend themselves (they’ve even adopted policies prohibiting members of the military from being […]
[…] is what happened at Fort Hood. And in Santa Barbara. And in Newtown, Connecticut. And at the Aurora movie theater. And at […]
[…] Fort Hood shootings, when the crazed Islamist killed a bunch of people? How many of us know that Major Hasan had the ability to kill so many people because of a Clinton-era policy limiting gun poss…? In other words, the government created a safe zone for the […]
[…] reading this article below I learned anti-gun laws facilitated the terrorist attack at Fort Hood and gun control made Jamaica a more dangerous country.It is a very fine article and I really […]
[…] Lott explained how anti-gun laws facilitated the terrorist attack at Fort Hood. […]
I drop a comment whenever I especially enjoy a article on a site or if I
have something to valuable to contribute to the conversation.
It is a result of the fire displayed in the article I read.
And after this post Anti-Gun Policy Helped Terrorism at Fort Hood |
International Liberty. I was actually moved enough to write a comment :
) I do have a couple of questions for you if it’s okay. Is it just me or does it look like a few of the comments come across as if they are coming from brain dead people? 😛 And, if you are writing at additional online social sites, I’d
like to follow you. Could you make a list every one of all your communal pages
like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin
profile?
[…] reading this article below I learned anti-gun laws facilitated the terrorist attack at Fort Hood and gun control made Jamaica a more dangerous country.It is a very fine article and I really […]
[…] Fort Hood shootings, when the crazed Islamist killed a bunch of people? How many of us know that Major Hasan had the ability to kill so many people because of a Clinton-era policy limiting gun poss…? In other words, the government created a safe zone for the […]
If it’d been Major Nick Johnson, retributive justice would have been swift and certain.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
[…] Lott explained how anti-gun laws facilitated the terrorist attack at Fort Hood. […]
[…] explained how anti-gun laws facilitated the terrorist attack at Fort Hood. Defender of […]
[…] Lott explained how anti-gun laws facilitated the terrorist attack at Fort Hood. […]
It isn’t “Clinton’s policy.” Such policy has been in effect for many decades. On most military installations you cannot enter with a legally carried and/or concealed firearm. If you live in base housing you must register your firearm with the provost marshal. In some cases, and everywhere a few years ago, you had to keep it in your unit’s arms room and sign it in and out. Idiotic policy all around.
When I was in the Army the only people “normally” armed on post were the military police. By regulation every MP on duty out side of the barracks had to be armed with a 45 auto and was. If on patrol the requirement was side arm and M1 carbine or grease gun or in some cases all. But that was the Ike army not the Clinton or obama army.
The new “Minute Men” are the thousands of HUNTERS with Scoped deer rifles that will be the last ditch effort to take back America from the THUGS WE HAVE IN THE GOVERNMENT.
If a person has a mind to murder he doesn’t need a gun. In fact I understand that the 9/11 terrorists used box cutters to terrify passengers in the planes that they crashed into buildings and killed over 3000 Americans. Also, Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, murdered 168 innocent people and wounded 800 more – using a home made pipe bomb. More damage than any gunman ever did.
The lefts gun law efforts isn’t about citizens’ safety . . . but it is about the lefts who are trying to take guns away from honest Americans being afraid that one day the “honest Americans” are going to get tired of turning the “other cheek” and take the action necessary to take America back from those thugs.
[…] explained how anti-gun laws facilitated the terrorist attack at Fort Hood. var AdBrite_Title_Color = 'FFFF66'; var AdBrite_Text_Color = 'FFFFFF'; var […]
[…] Lott explained how anti-gun laws facilitated the terrorist attack at Fort Hood. […]
[…] Fort Hood shootings, when the crazed Islamist killed a bunch of people? How many of us know that Major Hasan had the ability to kill so many people because of a Clinton-era policy limiting gun poss…? In other words, the government created a safe zone for the […]
There is no such thing as gun control: Is people control by the ignorant public officials who think they know better, while at the same time traveling with armed security squads pontificating about how safe we would be if their policies were adopted nationwide. Even if the facts proof them wrong they continue down the path of control, control, control.
[…] the Ft. Hood terrorist, who was able to kill 14 people and wound 29 because of Clinton’s policy of limiting guns on military bases. Obviously, Clinton’s gun control policy didn’t […]
[…] this post about the Fort Hood murders, featuring the superb analysis of John Lott, is must reading on the foolishness of so-called gun […]
Social policies are always implemented first in “less free” environments like jails/prisons, and military settings.
It should be clear to everyone that this disarmament policy is ridiculous in the context of the armed forces, as well as being an abject failure. Still, there are many non-thinking people who continue to “feel” that gun control laws are “good”, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
This is where organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation come in. By filing timely, significant *winning* lawsuits, they are pushing back a 40-70 year legacy of civil-rights violations.
Everyone should support the SAF.
[…] this post about the Fort Hood murders, featuring the superb analysis of John Lott, is must reading on the foolishness of so-called gun […]
The only thing that stops bad people with guns is good people with guns.
[…] this post about the Fort Hood murders, featuring the superb analysis of John Lott, is must reading on the foolishness of so-called gun […]
[…] Fort Hood shootings, when the crazed Islamist killed a bunch of people? How many of us know that Major Hasan had the ability to kill so many people because of a Clinton-era policy limiting gun poss…? In other words, the government created a safe zone for the […]
[…] Fort Hood shootings, when the crazed Islamist killed a bunch of people? How many of us know that Major Hasan had the ability to kill so many people because of a Clinton-era policy limiting gun poss…? In other words, the government created a safe zone for the […]
Premium article, good looking weblog, added it to my favorites.
There is sadly an inability to understand that while the criminal can access armaments illegally (and will), the law-abiding citizen will not and is therefore screwed. Gun laws don’t hurt criminals, they hurt the victims.