“At least he’s safe there and he can fire back, right?”Hopefully he'll recover soon and won't be hamstrung with stupid rules of engagement in Afghanistan.
As is most often the case with these mass shootings, Maj. Hasan chose an undefended target, a room full of unarmed Army personnel. Believe it or not guns are probably more strictly controlled within Fort Hood (and other military bases) than they are outside the main gate. After 23 unarmed people were killed in a Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, TX in 1991 the state enacted a very user friendly concealed carry law that pretty much ensures that should someone try that again there will be someone there to shoot back.
The person who championed that law had actually taken a gun to Luby's that day but left it in the car because the law didn't allow her to carry it concealed. She watched both her parents killed by the gunman.
You have the love the Texas political leadership at that time. They decided they weren't going to allow their citizens to be helpless victims and gave them the tools and that authority to defend themselves.
We had a similar shooting at a McDonald's in San Ysidro, CA in 1984 that took 21 innocent lives. Afterwards the cops got some more training and high powered weapons, but no move was ever made to make it easier for citizens to carry. We still have a "may issue" law in California which makes it extremely difficult to get a concealed carry permit. If a shooter walks into a California restaurant today and starts blasting away, unless there's a cop in there he'll probably be the only one with a gun.
Knowing California legislators like I do, I'm sure another shooting would simply provoke them to crack down on gun ownership even more, thus ensuring that honest citizens will never be able to be armed in their own defense outside their homes...and may not there either.
Too bad the only people armed at Fort Hood were the shooter and the civilian police officer that couldn't get there until tremendous damage had been done.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment