Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones

[KySongDog]

Excellent argument to end the Clinton era ban on firearm possession by our service men and women.


Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones

by John Lott, FoxNews.com

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.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/10/john-lott-ft-hood-end-gun-free-zone/

[JohnP]

Fox News and John Lott are not telling the whole story on this.  All soldiers are permitted to have privately owned guns on  a Army installation.  Senior Non-Coms and Officers may store them in their family quarters, to include the BEQ (Bachelor Enlisted Quarters) and BOQ (Bachelor Officers Quarters).  Junior enlisted are required to store them in the units arms room.  There are some rules for a weapon when on the installation, they must be registered with the MP's, must be cased and ammo cannot be stored with the weapon.  I hunt the local Army base here on a regular bases and have never encountered any problems.  I have served on many Army bases and was an instructor at the FBI sniper course at Quantico (USMC installation) and have never been denied to own a weapon. 

If he is talking about Army issued weapons he again is not telling the whole truth.  Naturally all the LEO's are allowed to carry weapons, but there are "other" organizations that are also allowed to carry, either openly or preferably  concealed.  However your everyday, average soldier is not allowed to walk around the base with his issued weapon, they may only draw it when on field exercises  and when on the rifle range, drills and ceremonies, etc.  There are laws about weapons in a federal building and I'm sure I have broken more than a few as I carry concealed when in the PX, commissary etc and will continue to do so.     

[Frogman]

Yeah,

Just wait til the other hadjii radicals see how easy it was for this guy on an army base, no less???  Next thing you know they will be shooting up any place where people gather in large numbers.  Be sure you all have you ccw handy!!

Jim

[KySongDog]

Fox News and John Lott are not telling the whole story on this.  All soldiers are permitted to have privately owned guns on  a Army installation.  Senior Non-Coms and Officers may store them in their family quarters, to include the BEQ (Bachelor Enlisted Quarters) and BOQ (Bachelor Officers Quarters).  Junior enlisted are required to store them in the units arms room.  There are some rules for a weapon when on the installation, they must be registered with the MP's, must be cased and ammo cannot be stored with the weapon.  I hunt the local Army base here on a regular bases and have never encountered any problems.  I have served on many Army bases and was an instructor at the FBI sniper course at Quantico (USMC installation) and have never been denied to own a weapon. 

If he is talking about Army issued weapons he again is not telling the whole truth.  Naturally all the LEO's are allowed to carry weapons, but there are "other" organizations that are also allowed to carry, either openly or preferably  concealed.  However your everyday, average soldier is not allowed to walk around the base with his issued weapon, they may only draw it when on field exercises  and when on the rifle range, drills and ceremonies, etc.  There are laws about weapons in a federal building and I'm sure I have broken more than a few as I carry concealed when in the PX, commissary etc and will continue to do so.     

Read the article again, John.  I believe the article said the soldiers were forbidden from "carrying" their weapon whether it was concealed or otherwise.  The article did not say a soldier could not own a weapon.  The article said soldiers have to register privately owned weapons.  Nothing was said about carrying issued weapons.

However, a gun at your house or in your safe does you no good when you are standing in line getting shot by a fanatic.   

[nastygunz]

When I was in if you wanted a personal weapon you had to register it with the base and then it was stored in an armory and if you wanted it you had to sign it out, could not load or carry it around on base and when you brought it back into the base you had to tell the guard shack then sign it back into the armory...major PITA...we used to go just off base and for a few bucks a month rent a storage unit and store em there...much easier  ..also use to sometimes leave em in the rig out of sight which was risky if you got searched coming n going.

[JohnP]

Semp - Has that always been high-lighted in red, or did you do it for these tired old eyes of mine? 

Nastygunz - Most of what you posted still applies today if your E-1 through E-6 and living on the installation.  Sr Non-Coms and Officers are allowed to keep their weapons in their quarters regardless of where they live,  however all guns brought on post must be registered with the MP's. 

[msmith]

When I was in if you wanted a personal weapon you had to register it with the base and then it was stored in an armory and if you wanted it you had to sign it out, could not load or carry it around on base and when you brought it back into the base you had to tell the guard shack then sign it back into the armory...major PITA...we used to go just off base and for a few bucks a month rent a storage unit and store em there...much easier  ..also use to sometimes leave em in the rig out of sight which was risky if you got searched coming n going.

Done the same thing here. I learned the hard way to NOT take guns on base. Being a good 'ol boy  from WV, I was carrying my rifles in the gun rack in the cab of my truck. That way I could keep an eye on them and easily take them into the motel with me at night. When I arrived at NAS Miramar, I had forgot all about them and needless to say, the Marine guard directed me straight to the armory to get them registered and stored. A few weeks later I got a storage unit and went to pick up my guns to find that they had finger prints ALL over them.  Someone was bored and was checking out everyone's guns.

[KySongDog]

JohnP.......... That was highlighted in red when I first posted this thread.