The recent Fort Hood event has reignited the debate on the carry of firearms, which is perhaps predictable; PJ Media has this story on the topic: Fort Hood and Disarmament. Excerpt:
The latest active shooter attack at Fort Hood, Texas on April 2, 2014 left three dead and 16 wounded. As is almost always the case, the killer, confronted with armed resistance, choose suicide, ending the rampage. The Army has released a timeline that indicates that the attack lasted something over eight minutes, but the timeline fails to note how much time passed between the first shot and the first 911 call, which means the actual time was likely about ten minutes.
This will become significant shortly. The gun that anti-freedom forces love to demonize, the AR-15 with its standard 30 round magazine, was not involved. Instead, the killer used only a commonly available .45 caliber semiautomatic handgun.
As all mass attacks do, this one has reanimated the gun control debate, but this time, anti-freedom advocates have a unique handicap. It may seem counterintuitive and surprising to many, but continental United States military installations are a gun-free anti-gunner’s dream. They are even more strictly regulated than many schools. Soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines are nowhere as thoroughly disarmed as they are on American military bases.
And why, one wonders, should that be the case? Why – why the bloody hell – should our servicemen and -women, professionals in the profession of arms, be denied the ability to bear arms on the grounds of their own bases?
As recently as the Seventies at least officers and senior NCOs routinely carried sidearms even on stateside bases. The expectation was simple: Service members were in the business of bearing and using arms, and it was taken for granted that they would be armed in the course of their duties.
And how is this relevant to the nutbar shooter at Fort Hood? Or his predecessor, the nutbar turncoat jihadist Major Hasan?
There are two possible scenarios: First, the shooter would have expected armed resistance at the target area, and would have either given the whole thing a pass or, at worst, selected another target. Second, the shooter would have encountered armed resistance at the target area and been terminated before doing as much damage as he did.
So, the risk analysis is fairly simple; worst case is a diversion to a softer target. Best case is an aborted mass-shooter. In either case, the argument for disarming professional warriors in their own bases comes off as what it clearly is: Idiotic.