Letter to Stars and Stripes about bases being gun free zones
The letter can be found here:
Bases’ anti-self-defense policy
Stars and Stripes
Letters to the Editor, Thursday, November 19, 2009
The tragic results of victim disarmament were made real with the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas. If this were a moral and proper world, as soon as the suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, drew his weapon, every person in the building would have had their sights leveled on him.
U.S. military installations’ immoral and unjust anti-self-defense policy disarmed only the victims of this crime. How many more events like this is it going to take before Defense Department officials realize that victim disarmament costs lives and Congress amends the Uniform Code of Military Justice to require all civilian and military personnel to be properly armed (meaning not simply carrying an unloaded weapon) while on U.S. military installations?
In many states, citizens choose to be responsible for protecting their own lives and property by arming themselves. It is the ultimate expression of patriotism and good citizenship.
Fort Hood is my home station. It sickens me that when my wife needs to go on post she, too, has to surrender her right to defend herself by going unarmed.
Stateside military installations have become the country’s largest gun-free zones (playgrounds for criminals). How many lives would have been saved on Sept. 11, 2001, if people weren’t stripped of their right to self-defense because they wanted to fly? How many lives would have been saved at Virginia Tech, Columbine and now Fort Hood?
Those who advocate policies that guarantee the criminal class has unfettered access to defenseless, potential victims need to change their tune.
Lawmakers and DOD need to ensure that those of us who took the oath to defend the Constitution have the means available to live up to that oath.
Modifying installation policies and the UCMJ to remove all restrictions on carrying firearms would be a small step in the right direction.
Sgt. Brian Singer
Camp Taji, Iraq
Labels: GunFreeZone, military
posted by John Lott at 2:29 AM
2 Comments:
For another side to that, I'm going to quote heavily from a post by Juliette Akinyi (ex-USAF) on her "baldilocks" blog site...
Sand in the Tent
Simply put, a stateside military base is considered a home and those allowed to enter that home are considered family. On a military base there are no drive-by shootings, no burglaries, no carjackings, no muggings, etc. In that area of strictly-regulated entry, everyone is considered your brother, your sister or at least your friend even if you’ve never met them.
...
So when I hear civilians and even some military members express outrage that no one other than law enforcement was armed when the Fort Hood Soldier of Allah attacked, I submit that they are reacting from anger rather than thinking through the implications of the necessity of having every military member go armed on a domestic military base.
It would be like having to wear a sidearm in your house to defend yourself against your parents, your spouse, your siblings and your children. If you can’t trust your family, you can trust no one.
-
We don't arm ourselves at home to protect ourselves from our children. We arm ourselves to protect our children, our spouses and our property. However, thousands of people have protected themselves from abusive spouses with a firearm. I'm sure Mr. Lott could provide better numbers regarding exactly how many lives have been saved. In addition, one doesn't have to search very much through a newspaper to find stories of home invasions, murder and theft. Whole families slaughtered by some random criminal lunatic.
We arm ourselves at home because we are responsible citizens. I am not advocating special treatment for military members. What I'm saying is that we are suffering the same ill effects of victim disarmament as many others from all walks of life.
The argument that a military base is like a home, and therefore one need not be armed there is frankly ridiculous, as recent events at Fort Hood prove. If you're going to refuse to protect yourself at home, than where exactly is it that you would be willing to do so?
-Brian Singer
Post a Comment
<< Home