Saturday, November 7, 2009

Concealed Carry Would Have Saved Lives at Fort Hood

I am stunned and angered by the effectiveness of the terrorist act at Fort Hood.  I have been left to wonder- Why were our trained soldiers defenseless against this handgun attack?

According to the Fort Hood Sentinel- "the Texas Concealed handgun Law does not apply on Fort Hood. Therefore, concealed handguns are prohibited on Fort Hood. During firearms transportation the firearms will be unloaded and secured in the trunk, or out of immediate reach of all occupants." 

In addition, according to Fort Hood policy- "privately owned weapons and ammunition will not be stored or allowed in the barracks at any time"...  "Military personnel who fail to comply... are subject to judicial or non-judicial disciplinary action".

Yet, obviously, military personnel who do comply...  are subject to terrorist action and death.  Which is worse?

Note:  I have copied and archived the referenced FortHoodSentinel article and Ford Hood policy because controversial web links (especially factual ones) have a tendency to disappear.  The referenced article as of 11/7/09 can be downloaded HERE and the referenced policy can be downloaded HERE.

As a direct result of these policies, the capable defenders stationed at Fort Hood were forced-defenseless against the enemy unleashed within the gates.  I submit that the patrons of any coffee shop in Texas (where concealed carry is legal) would be more effective at defending themselves against this form of attack. Now, after this tragedy, we are all left to wonder- will policy makers realize and correct their errors?  What is it going to take to convince policy makers that Concealed Carry Saves Lives?

Just who are these policy makers?  Do they have names?  Do they have faces? 
They seem to be as effective as the enemy.  At Fort Hood- their work enabled the enemy.  How can these policy makers be identified and stopped?

The following history questions need to be researched and answered-

1)  When were privately owned guns banned from Fort Hood?  Why?  Who banned them?
I have heard from ex-military that privately owned guns were banned in the late 70's or early 80's.  Is this true?

2)  Where were the armed guards?  I have heard that armed guards were common at Fort Hood in the 50's.  Is this true?  When were the number of armed guards reduced? Why?  Who reduced them?  When was Fort Hood security outsourced? Why? Who outsourced it?

If we can understand and dissect the evolution of these policies, then we can be better prepared for the fight to reverse them.  I believe that the internal operations of Fort Hood were more secure in 1949 than they are in 2009.  Don't agree?  Prove me wrong.  We will all learn something through the exercise.

Related links-
(Caution - You will have to traverse liberal thought patterns in order to get at the facts in some of the following articles.  I know, it's a painful exercise - but well worth it - if these policies are changed to once again allow individuals to protect themselves- lives will be saved.)

Fort Hood History- Wikipedia- Fort Hood
Fort Hood Shooting- Wikipedia- Fort Hood Shooting, Danger Room- What, Exactly, Is a ‘Cop-Killer’ Gun?, Media Matters- "Gun control" banned from Ft. Hood news coverage, Fort Hood: Death by gun control, Chron- "Enough is enough"--After Fort Hood, gun control groups seek Capitol Hill win
Applicable Laws- 18 U.S.C. § 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
U.S. Gun Law History- NPR-U.S. Gun Laws: A History, WashPo- D.C. History of Gun Control, Infoplease- A timeline of gun legislation and organizations from 1791 to the present
Military Gun Control- WorldNet- Military demands details on soldiers' private guns
Gun Safety Issues- Afghan Ronny: Trouble with weapons
Post Incident Policy Review- Star-Telegram: Rampage forces review of security policies on Army bases worldwide

Here is a comment worth repeating-
Tracy (a commenter to the article HERE) writes:
"I have a standing order: If I am killed in a situation where I have been prevented from lawfully carrying a firearm for self-defense and where shooting in self defense would likely have saved my life, my life insurance and other financial assets will be used to sue the authority that prevented me from carrying a gun."

This comment gets to the point of how to attack flawed "anti-gun" policies.  When policies inflict or enable harm- the policy makers must be held liable. 

These cowardly policy makers have done too much to harm our country already.  They must be stopped and pushed back.  We citizens must hold them accountable for their bad ideas and social experiments.  These are real lives we are dealing with.  We are not guinea pigs.  We have our common sense.  We know what is right and what is wrong.

The right to defend.  The duty to defend.  The right to attack.  The duty to attack.

The families and individuals harmed in the Fort Hood attack should immediately form a class action suit against the policies and policy makers who enabled the harm.  The men and women killed and injured in this attack had a right to defend themselves.  Their means to defend were stolen by policy.  Their rights were stolen.  Their lives were stolen. 

The regulations against guns on this base can be likened to regulations against seat belts on the highway.   You know we are driving (we are at war) and you know there are chances we can crash (we can be attacked). Now, we order you- do not wear your seat belts (do not wear your guns).  When a car swerves into your lane, just brace yourselves for impact. 

You see- bad policy can enable the enemy.  Fort Hood is proof.  If you can't trust your soldiers to carry guns- who can you trust?

Forum Discussion Threads- DefensiveCarry, ConcealedCarryForum, DefensiveCarry-A Proposed Solution to Fort Hood

Followup KC article:  A Proposed Solution to Fort Hood


Gerard said...

what proof do you have that this was a "terrorist act"?

JN Kish said...

Proof: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The unlawful use of violence by a person against people is already well established.

Intention: A course of action that one intends to follow.

Intimidate: To make timid; fill with fear.

It is well documented that “At the start of the attack, Hasan reportedly jumped up on a desk and shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before allegedly firing more than 100 rounds in the processing center.” Allahu Akbar- “usually translated "God is great" or "God is [the] greatest," it is a common Arabic expression and is used as both an informal expression of faith and as a formal declaration.”

The documented act of shouting this phrase just prior to killing 13 and wounding 30 compels the mind to accept that the shooter intended to intimidate societies or governments for ideological or political reasons.