Why couldn't the soldiers shoot back.
 

Maybe I'm a bit odd in that I wondered why the soldiers had to be defended at Fort Hood by 2 public police officers. (One of whom was wounded) There is an interesting editorial that explains the situation and similar shootings where many people get killed by whackos of whatever persuasion. EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban - Washington Times Some of the points made in the editorial follow: Nidal Hasan's murderous rampage at Fort Hood stopped only when two armed civilian police officers put four rounds into him. One of those officers was shot in the leg herself. But this begs the question: Why weren't American soldiers able to defend themselves?

Because in 1993, upon taking office, President Bill Clinton imposed regulations that forbid military personnel from carrying personal firearms on base and make it nearly impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers. Generally, only military police carry firearms on base.

In other words, as absurd as it may seem, Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed 1st Cavalry Division, is practically a "gun free" zone. The base now joins an infamous list of such "gun free" zones in which murderers were left alone with their guns, free to do their worst -- including Columbine High School, Virginia Tech University and Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska, among others. According to The Washington Times, "All the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned."

The wife of one of the wounded soldiers certainly understood the implications of disarming service personnel. When asked how she felt about her husband's upcoming deployment to Afghanistan, she replied, "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?"

It's a sad day when active military personnel can't carry firearms on a military base. It doesn't border on ridiculous. It is ridiculous. I feel the same way about off-duty police officers that are made to leave their service firearm at the police station in areas where gun bans are in effect. It's lunacy.

I have to agree with you. Who else is more qualified than an army soldier to carry a sidearm. Perhaps if he had been put down earlier, or had that threat of a whole group of soldiers opening fire at once, he wouldn't have killed so many, or any for that matter. Seems like they have taken away basic liberties that all Americans should have, but the way things are going these days we'll all be unarmed. The ones who want to commit evil will be however, then where do we stand?

I also thought back to Beirut when Reagen was President. The soldiers, under UN control if my memory serves me right, didn't even have bullets in their weapons when the terrorist rammed into the barracks and blew himself and his truck and our soldiers up. I still think Reagen should have put his foot down.

PS Sorry about the title. It should have read, Why couldn't the soldiers shoot back or something like that.

Another stupid regulation is that if a soldier goes out and buys a pistol or a rifle for their own use such as hunting and if he or she lives on the base, they are not allowed to keep it in their own home. It is supposed to be checked into the armory on base and thereafter checked out when they want to use it.
Major Hasan didn't follow that reg. either.
I agree that more soldiers should be able to carry a firearm on base. At least the officers lieutenant and above. in fact, they should be required to carry a sidearm! JMO!

If you delve into gun free cities versus cities with high gun ownership you'll find that the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime. Criminals love a populace that can't defend itself. Government does also. That's why the 2nd amendment was written. So we can defend ourselves and our country from tyranny.

Gun laws have never and will never work...... Its pretty stupid that Soldiers on an Army base....DURING A WAR TIME.... were prohibited from carrying their pistols. Just absurdity of a high proportion.

Only a moron would actually think that gun laws would prohibit a criminal from carrying a gun. Yet that is exactly what anti-gun legislation is designed. Even if manufacturing a gun were banned tomorrow, there would be 300,000 illegal shops popping up in a week, making gun for criminals......

I love when legislators refer to people having guns as the "wild west" and that if everyone were allowed to carry there would be "saloon style shootouts" all over America.... LOL... that is freaking hysterical that our law makers actually think the Wild West was like the movies.... idiots.....

Don't get me wrong, I don't think everyone should be able to own or carry a gun. And in general there are laws in place for that....But again this is only a process that law abiding citizens will go through..... Here in NY you have to jump through 6-months worth of hoops to get a handgun permit. Anyone with a record can forget it..... So those people will just buy illegal guns.....or rifles....or shotguns..... neither of which are regulated anywhere near as close as handguns....

The whole thing is silly..... The fact is that the statistics prove more guns does not equal more violence.....Texas is a prime example... Since CCW permits went back on the books there have actually been fewer gun related incidents in public places.

When I got married, I moved into my wife's apartment in Brighton, which is a part of Boston, MA. One day I had to go into the city hall to file some paperwork. I decided to go into the Boston Police Department station in charge of pistol permits. I asked an officer on the beat how to find the station from where I was. He asked why I was going over there. I said I wanted to get a pistol permit. He said, "Good luck." I said, "It really irritates me that I could go into Dorchester (seedy part of Boston) with $1000 and have pretty much any firearm I want within a week. But because I am law abiding I won't be able to get a permit." He said, "I agree with you but you won't be able to get the permit without taking the issue to court". I moved out into the suburbs and didn't have an ounce of trouble.

Sadly enough, if the soldiers were armed, did fire back, and did kill him. They would now be charged with murder of some degree. I agree that we as citizens should be free to protect ourselves, but even if you can get a legal permit, chances are you are going to have to fight for your freedom, after you fight for your life.

Why would they have been charged with murder? Do Soldiers not have the right to self defense?

If you are a regular citizen and follow the rules, and are forced to shoot to defend yourself you are not charged with murder. If its a "good shoot" you won't be charged. You would certainly not be charged for "shooting back" which would have been the case.....

The only time I've seen people get charged with murder in these circumstances is if they shot someone who was not armed. In one case I recall a man who was charged in Colorado for shooting a mugger in the back. He was convicted but not of murder of manslaughter and his sentence was suspended.

Point is I don't know military base law, and if the Soldiers can be charged with murder for defending themselves that needs to be changed.

Always take it to court and fight if you ever have to defend family, neighbors, or home from punks. It's really the politicians that want to take firearms away, not so much the police officer on the beat. It depends on where you live. I'd rather take my chances firing in self-defense for my family and take it to court if necessary. Back in the days of Mike Dukakis they passed a law saying that if someone broke into your house you had to flee. Thankfully, that has changed and we can now defend ourselves here in Massachusetts.