Newest op-ed at Fox News: "After Fort Hood: Should soldiers be allowed to bear arms on base?"
My newest piece from Fox News starts this way:
In debates on gun control, gun opponents usually speculate about what might go wrong. Unfortunately, the current debate over arming soldiers on military bases is no different.
Except for the military police, soldiers on military bases are banned from carrying guns. But that hasn’t always been the case.
The ban itself hasn’t been around that long. It was proposed during the George H.W. Bush administration in 1992 as an effort to make the military a more "professional business-like environment." President Clinton rewrote and implemented the ban in 1993.
After the attack at Fort Hood this past week, many soldiers no doubt wished they had been carrying a gun. The six minutes before military police arrived at the scene proved much too long for the three people killed and 16 wounded.
Soldiers who survived the 2009 attack at Fort Hood, Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning,Sgt. Howard Ray and retired Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, warn it is time the 1993 rule be revised.
Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham points out that there have been “nearly two dozen shootings at U.S. military installations” since the 1993 ban. Yet such attacks have not occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan, where virtually all soldiers have carried a loaded weapon. Nor were they occurring when guns were allowed to be carried on U.S. bases. Gun-free zones in the military have not worked any better than they have in civilian life. . . . .
Labels: GunFreeZone, op-ed
posted by John Lott at 4:47 PM
4 Comments:
At today's memorial service for those fallen at Fort Hood, President Obama said that we need to do more to protect our soldiers here at home as well as overseas. Assuming he is not supporting allowing soldiers to carry firearms on bases, perhaps he will increase armed guards protecting soldiers? Even he must see the irony in having guards to protect fighting men & women... That leaves more gun controls, and inevitable failure.
You sir are misinformed about shootings in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have personally seen the aftermath of them multiple times. The most predominant that I remember:
http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20130422/NEWS/304220021/Army-sgt-pleads-guilty-killing-fellow-troops-2009-Iraq-shooting
From a veterans view, I will tell you that arming the current generation of soldiers CONUS , along with the fact that there will be drugs and alcohol all around, it is only going to lead to many other tragedies.
I would suggest something such as a base support battalion comprised of soldiers drawn from the many units on each base to take up extra security support at each location. At least then your minimizing the risk while increasing security.
Dear Aaron:
Sgt. John Russell was convicted of killing five other soldiers in 2013. But it appears the mental health clinic might have been a gun-free zone. If you have information that is incorrect, please let me know. If guns are banned in the one part of the base where the attack occurred, it would be consistent with the concern about gun-free zones. Of course, if guns were allowed there, you would be correct. If I am wrong to classify it as a place where guns were banned, please let me know.
Dr Lott,Sir,
The response that the rank E6 and above is typical of the US Army/Military mindset etc. The heart of the matter and reality is, it is realy up to the individual.
That is why myself and other experienced Veterans recommend that a practical course be drawn up for regular military personnel on how they could respond to an Active Shooter/Slasher Incident. Such course should be made available to all military personnel regardless of rank, it should include familiarization with various side arms how to make and use improvised weapons, laws responsibilities and how to conduct themselves,(React) to Responding Military and Civilian Police personnel. Once the Service members successfully passes such a course a Policy should be in place allowing for the lawful carrying of privately owned side arms for collective and personal security. Such would greatly boost Force Protection.
Another life saving logical approach for DOD to implement is that All personal either assigned to Charge Quarters or Staff Duty, should also be armed with Government Sidearm, such would be a force multiplier is boosting support to the Force Protection Force Continuum. If I may suggest that you and all concerned write to our elected Civilian officials and Military Leaders recommending the above be set in motion.
the process of arbitrarily restricting US Military Personnel from exercising their natural right to Keep and Bear Arms can be traced back to the American Civil War, when Regulations were drawn up that Prohibited Solders etc from Obtaining and Carrying a Privately owned sidearm, unless they were issued it. Both republican and Democratic Presidents have add to those such as Eisenhower, Carter, Regan(Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing 1983) HW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama.
Post a Comment
<< Home