About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

"Gun control" banned from Ft. Hood news coverage

November 06, 2009 10:26 am ET by Eric Boehlert

According to a check on TVeyes.com, the phrase "gun control" has not been mentioned once* in the context of the Ft. Hood shooting by any reporter, anchor or pundit appearing on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, or MSNBC.

In the dozens and dozens of cumulative hours of Ft. Hood coverage amassed by those television outlets, as they focus on the latest workplace mass shooting, the phrase "gun control" has not been uttered once. Once again, in the wake of epic gun violence, the topic of guns and non-stop gun violence in America is not on the media table and is not open for debate.

When the Columbine killers unleashed their fury inside a suburban Denver high school in April 1999, killing 15 and wounding more than 20, the horror show set off all kinds of media-driven debates about gun control. i.e. Were current laws too lenient, etc.

Today, the press couldn't care less about the issue or the related policy debate. It seems gun advocates have cowed the press corps, even as we watch wave after wave of mass shootings.

UPDATED: My bad. Since yesterday afternoon when the avalanche of Ft. Hood TV coverage began, the phrase "gun control" has been mentioned exactly one time, according to TVeyes.com. It was on MSNBC last night, and was uttered by guest, General (Ret.) Barry McCaffrey. 

This was the context:

Apparently it was two civilian handguns. Even there, there is ferocious gun control measures on soldiers and families on a military installation. They have to register them. Single soldiers in barracks, never allowed access to their weapon, they have to sign them out.

UPDATED: In what appears to be yet another workplace mass shooting, at least ten people have reportedly been shot in Orlando; two killed. We'll see if "gun control" is mentioned during that story's coverage today.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Cannonball (November 06, 2009 10:36 am ET)
      7 2
      The gun advocates imagine a time when a would be gunman enters a room with bad intent only to face countless heavily armed citizens who blow him away. It's a wild west fantasy.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by steve001968 (November 06, 2009 7:00 pm ET)
        1 1
        Sorry to break it to you but just because you are unaware of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. For example, the school shooting in Pearl Mississippi was stopped when the vice principal, armed with a handgun, held the shooter for police. The shooter would have been stopped sooner if the VP hadn't had to retrieve the handgun from his car since it was illegal for him to possess it in the school. The shooter of course just ignored the law like criminals always do. Yet another example of how gun control kills. Had the soldiers in this incident been armed as they would be in most of Iraq or Afghanistan this shooting spree would have ended abruptly too. They had no weapons because they aren't permitted to carry them on base unless they are training or MP's or are at a firing range. Consequently the killer, who simply ignored the regulations, was the only one armed. Gun control kills 13 more. I'd love to hear from one of the litte gun control advocates so eager to flush hundreds of millions of peoples rights down the toilet why, if guns are such a problem, there aren't any mass shootings in gun stores, gun shows, or NRA conventions. Just why is that?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (November 06, 2009 10:38 am ET)
      3 1
      Gun conrol is a settled issue. At least for the time being with the current supreme court. also, to equate a shooting on an army base to Columbine is disengenous I think.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Cannonball (November 06, 2009 10:40 am ET)
        2  
        why is that? it's still workplace violence. would a police station be different?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 11:06 am ET)
          2 1
          Duh if you walked into a police station and started shooting you would quickly be gunned down. No way you would kill 13 and wound 30 at a police station.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Cannonball (November 06, 2009 11:34 am ET)
            3 2
            your post here makes no sense compared to what you have written today, If the shooter is nuts or a rabid redical extremist with thoughts of heaven, he wouldn't care if the police gunned him down. my point is that it is workplace violence regardless of the workplace. much more restrictive laws would definitely reduce such deaths. the argument that only criminals would have guns flies in the face of the fact that most handguns either accidentally or purposefully kill or injure the owner's family thna any criminal. and most criminals get their guns personally of through the black market by stealing them from their owners. i wnat to stop gun violence and less guns is the answer. save me the platitudes and tell me the real reason you want to own a gun. if you cite fear of the government, you're a nutjob, self defense, you're misguided (as i say above), wild west mentality, your 12 years old...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Doug-Life (November 06, 2009 11:55 am ET)
              3 1
              Misguided if you want to protect yourself? That's a new one.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 11:56 am ET)
              1 5
              Gun Rights Supporters

              Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
              inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
              better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
              may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T.
              Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)


              George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
              Chronicle.)

              When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe." (Matthew 11:21)


              Gun control Advocates

              Adolf Hitler: "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun
              registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead."
              (Chancelor's Speech, 1935

              Adof Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subject peoples to
              possess arms. So let's not have any talk about native militias." (Hitler's Secret Conversations,
              1941-44, Farrar, Strauss and Young, 1953)

              Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must
              command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of
              War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)




              Report Abuse
              • Author by epkklk851 (November 06, 2009 12:11 pm ET)
                3 1
                Oh big flipping deal, you know how to cherry pick quotes! What does that prove anyway? Look at the real lives of real people, most of us don't own guns, and most of us are not the victim of crimes and yet, people who do own guns are more likely to be harmed by them, usually by the gun they own.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 12:19 pm ET)
                    2
                  Care to actually back that up.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by epkklk851 (November 06, 2009 12:26 pm ET)
                    2 1
                    I will add this to my list of statistics, have already supplied you with quite a bit of evidence, if you want more, then go looking. It is easy to use google, just type in the type of data you seek. I have finished my research for the day.

                    State Rankings of Violent Crimes:
                    http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 12:33 pm ET)
                        3
                      yet, people who do own guns are more likely to be harmed by them, usually by the gun they own.


                      You still have yet to back this up.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by epkklk851 (November 06, 2009 1:03 pm ET)
                        1  
                        A parting shot, I have stuff to do. It's a very nice little chart.

                        http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Cannonball (November 06, 2009 1:28 pm ET)
                        1  
                        it's been proven so many times that it is common knowledge. do some research youself, we're not here to educate you.
                        Report Abuse
                • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 12:26 pm ET)
                    3
                  Self-defense

                  In an extensive series of studies of large, nationally representative samples of crime incidents, criminologist Gary Kleck found that crime victims who defend themselves with guns are less likely to be injured or lose property than victims who either did not resist, or resisted without guns. This was so, even though the victims using guns typically faced more dangerous circumstances than other victims. The findings applied to both robberies and assaults.[77] Other research on rape indicated that although victims rarely resisted with guns, those using other weapons were less likely to be raped, and no more likely to suffer other injuries besides rape itself, than victims who did not resist, or resisted without weapons.[78] There is no evidence that victim use of a gun for self-protection provokes offenders into attacking the defending victim or results in the offender taking the gun away and using it against the victim.[79]

                  Kleck has also shown, in his own national survey, and in other surveys with smaller sample sizes, that the numbers of defensive uses of guns by crime victims each year are probably substantially larger than the largest estimates of the number of crimes committed of offenders using guns.[80] Thus, defensive gun use by victims is both effective and, relative to criminal uses, frequent. In a largely approving review of Kleck's book Point Blank (1991) in the journal Political Psychology, Joseph F. Sheley argues that Kleck sidesteps the larger political problem of the role of gun culture in contributing to the spread and effect of violence in the United States.[81]

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by political_left-religious_right (November 08, 2009 5:08 pm ET)
                   
                When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe." (Matthew 11:21)

                First of all, it's Luke, not Matthew. Second of all, this statement by Jesus is in the middle of a discussion about Beelzebub, and most Bible scholars believe that the "strong man" is a reference to the Devil himself. See some of the notes here (http://bible.cc/luke/11-21.htm), for example.

                If Jesus ever advocated easy acquisition of deadly weapons for everybody, he sure didn't do it in this passage. And since I've read everything in the gospels many times over, I can assure you he didn't do it anywhere else, either.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by steve001968 (November 06, 2009 7:16 pm ET)
              1 1
              "If you cite fear of the government, you're a nutjob". Yeah that was the position of the Nazi's under Hitler. Anyone who disagreed with their wonderful new order just had to be a "nutjob". They killed about 20 million "nutjobs". It's happened again and again and again. Cambodia, Russia, China, Uganda, and a hundred other places. People like you never never ever learn though and still think it can't ever happen to you. Most European Jews during the 2nd world war felt that way right up until they realized they were in a gas chamber. Governments have killed 100's of millions more than spree killers like this most recent nut ever will. 1 million of these nuts wouldn't kill half as many as governments have killed in the last half century. One thing they do both have in common though is that their victims are virtually always unarmed. 6 million heavily armed Jews would have been a bit of a problem for the Reich. Fortunately for them European gun control had already disarmed most of them. If prevalence of guns is the problem why no mass shootings at gun stores, gun shows, or NRA conventions? Also, Gary Klecks studies completely and utterly refute your assertions about self defense as well.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 10:48 am ET)
      1 4
      Army bases are some of the most gun restricted places in the US. 95% of people on army post cannot carry a weapon, not only can they not carry them they cant have them in their homes. Just like at Virginia Tech gun laws created a massacre zone were people were unable to defend themselves against a lone gunman. Your answer is more gun laws. Please tell me exactly what law is going to stop a nut job from going on a rampage. Why not allow people to defend themselves instead of being lambs for the slaughter. I personally am a licensed conceal and carry permit holder who is armed at almost all times I will not be a defenseless victim.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wesley (November 06, 2009 11:05 am ET)
        2 4
        -- Just like at Virginia Tech gun laws created a massacre zone were people were unable to defend themselves -- highliter

        I agree. More restrictive gun laws just enlarge the killing field where unarmed, law-abiding citizens are rendered defenseless against these kind of attacks.

        Hasan...the coward...was well aware of that fact.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by epkklk851 (November 06, 2009 11:14 am ET)
          4  
          So basically, the two of you want to go back to the wild west where everyone went around with guns on their hips? Do you remember that the first thing most effective marshalls did was to ban guns from being carried in town? And that Tombstone and towns like it had murder rates about equivilent to modern-day L.A.? Also, in states with more guns, the crime rates are about the national average, but in all cases the homocide rate is higher than in states with restrictive gun laws. In most cases, the crime rate for states with restrictive gun laws is much lower than average. Only Vermont has a high rate of gun ownership and a low crime rate. These statistics are available on Wikipedia, but you have to dig for gun ownership rates. Too bad I can't post the spreadsheet that I made, it had comparison rates from both sources.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by wesley (November 06, 2009 11:32 am ET)
            1 5
            -- the two of you want to go back to the wild west where everyone went around with guns on their hips? -- epk

            An absurd conclusion.

            Police depts. are rarely able to protect citizens from attacks. Not because they are unwilling...but because they are unable to respond quickly enough to eminent or on-going attacks.

            We have the right to defend ourselves...with more than a call for help to the police.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by epkklk851 (November 06, 2009 11:56 am ET)
              2  
              How often do these sorts of shootings occur? Not very often, however, the more guns there are, the more likely there is to be a shooting, accidental or otherwise. I am not cherry-picking my facts, the states with the highest gun ownership rates do have higher than average homocide rates, that is a fact. You also forget to add in the collateral damage that occurs when shootouts start. There are innocent bystanders and children around and they could be hurt. Do notice that the most dangerous states are a lot of the rural Southern ones where lots of people go around proclaiming that you will have to take their gun from their cold, dead hand. It would seem there are lots of people willing to oblige. The police are there to protect you, if you decide to shoot someone, who is to protect me from your self-defense. Back in Kansas in 1985, two people died several blocks away from two different, legitimate self-defense incidents, just two weeks apart. The victims were hit in the head as they drove their cars home, completely unaware of the problem that caused their deaths, which as I stated was blocks away. Check out the Witchita Eagle Beacon archives, it happened in late 1985, Octoberish.

              Gun ownership rates by state:
              http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

              Homocide Rates by State:
              http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-1996-2008

              Most Dangerous States:
              http://www.walletpop.com/insurance/most-dangerous-states
              Report Abuse
              • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 12:13 pm ET)
                  2
                You are looking at states as a whole. In Missouri where I live there are very few gun laws and a very high gun ownership rate in rural areas and almost zero shootings. In Missouri’s cities ie ST Louis there are many shooting; and the local sheriff refuses to issue conceal and carry permits have much more strict gun laws than the rest of the state and a lower rate of legal gun ownership. So you call Missouri a dangerous state when in fact 95% of the state is not. Only the 5% with the more restrictive laws make Missouri a dangerous state.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by epkklk851 (November 06, 2009 12:23 pm ET)
                  2  
                  No, you are choosing to see the statistics that way. Why would Missouri rate as 12th in crime rates if 95% of it is safe. The truth is, you want to have your gun and feel safe, regardless of what the facts are. Go right ahead, but wishing won't make it so. Notice, New York, with big,bad old NYC doesn't show up on the list. D.C. is just across the bridge from Maryland, and that is why the crime rate is so high, they bring the guns in from Maryland and Virginia. I live in Virginia, our crime rate isn't that bad.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 12:31 pm ET)
                      2
                    Why would Missouri rate as 12th in crime rates if 95% of it is safe.

                    Because Kansas City and St. Louis are very dangerous places but only make up 5% of the area in Missouri.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 12:23 pm ET)
                  2
                A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned . . . The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by epkklk851 (November 06, 2009 12:32 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Quoting British statistics won't do you any good in America.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 12:41 pm ET)
                      2
                    Oh of course showing you that banning guns doesn’t work has no Bering on us here in the US.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by epkklk851 (November 06, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
                      3  
                      The British have a completely different history and psychology. And you didn't show me anything, you merely quoted an article that you didn't attribute. It wouldn't pass in a high school class.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (November 06, 2009 12:25 pm ET)
                  1
                Sorry Epik (and fellow libs) but I have always been, and will remain, solidly with the conservatives on this one.

                I took the data from the first two studies and plotted the average of the 13 years worth of homocide rates (by state) against the % answering "Yes" on the gun ownership survey, by state.

                Guess what?

                No correlation whatsoever. The trendline was almost flat. Slope of only 0.0018. Clearly the rate of gun ownership, at least according to the data you provided has little to no influence on the overall level of homocides. Sorry. I thought your data might have pursuaded me, but instead it convinced me that I was right all along.

                And should I happen to live in a place with a high rate of violent crime, I want to ability to buy a gun, and I want the CHOICE of whether or not I own a gun to be MINE and MINE alone. I will say this, however: I despise guns. They're a coward's weapon. I don't own one, and never plan to. (Call me a throwback, but the sword is my weapon of choice.) But I still cherish the fact the the choice NOT to own a gun is, in fact, MINE.

                Now... I AM all for registries, background checks etc... for ALL firearms. (I'm a Virginia Tech alum, so I know full well how our system DOES need a lot of shoring up!) But I just cannot support laws intended to reduce gun ownership, or merely to deter it through uneccessary harrassment.

                ---------------------------------------------------------
                (bracing for liberal backlash)
                Report Abuse
                • Author by epkklk851 (November 06, 2009 12:41 pm ET)
                  2  
                  I actually made a chart last year, that looked at crime ranks, homocide rates, and gun ownership. I can't find the sites I used last year. The homocide rate isn't much higher than average, but it is higher when gun ownership is higher. But, it was nice of you to do all that figuring. And it doesn't make you like guns more, which is the good thing. There may come a time when I might have been spared a crime if I had a gun around, but it hasn't happened yet and I don't want to start carrying a gun because it might someday happen. I think guns should be licensed like cars, register them, insure them, have a sample of the barrel striations, and track them when they are stolen. Also, license the owners, make them prove they know how to use their weapon. And I just found this list, gun deaths by state:

                  http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by NiceguyEddie (November 06, 2009 1:16 pm ET)
                       
                    Much better data to use. Now there's a stong positive correlation. (Slope of 0.206 on the linear trendline, when scatter plotted against the "%Yes" figues from the first article.)

                    So, yeah, it can definitely be argued that more guns means more gun deaths. And many will be suicides & accidents, which nobody wants, while others from self-defense and other justifiable actions (does it include police shootings?) which no one wants but which you wouldn't necessarily BLAME on the GUN OWNER. (Even suicides... I mean... you hardly need a GUN to kill yourself.)

                    It doesn't change my position on gun laws much, which is what I would describe as "liberal, but still very much pro-2nd ammendment, for individuals" anyway... but it does jive pretty well with the very reasons I DON'T OWN a gun.

                    -------------------------------------------------
                    I have two [special needs] kids. I can't even find my wallet, phone or car-keys half the time thank to those little thieves! NO WAY I'd take my chances with a gun!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by epkklk851 (November 06, 2009 3:24 pm ET)
                      3  
                      My father and brother used to hunt. I am not opposed to hunting. I also know there are places where guns are needed for self-defense. I don't have special needs kids, but I feel safer not having guns around. A gun is doing exactly what it was designed for when it kills someone or something. If you don't want to kill something, you don't need a gun. And if I lived in an area where I feared a break-in, I think a shotgun with a load of rock salt would be enough to protect me. (It sure made my husband fear German farmers when he was an Army brat oh so long ago.)
                      Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 11:37 am ET)
            1 3
            The larger cities have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and yet t the cities are where the vast majority of shooting occur. DC had a total gun ban and yet was the murder capital of the US at one point. Some of the state that have the least restrictive gun laws are Utah Wyoming the Dakotas all of which have very low crime rates. You stats are cherry picked BS rural areas have high gun ownership rates and yet we have very few shootings.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (November 06, 2009 2:33 pm ET)
                 
              I think the (non-partisan) point is, RE rural versus urban, that Population Desnity is a far greater predicter of violent crime that pretty much any other attribute. Now... you can argue that those tougher gun laws may be NEEDED in the city, to prevent EVEN WORSE levels of crime, but they still can't bring it down to anywhere's near the rural level. (And it would still be more a funtion of pop.density.) I'm not saying this to refute eitehr of you, however. You can each take it as you will.

              To ME... It just makes sense that the more you bump into other people, the more likely you are to just snap one day.

              --------------------------------------------------------------
              Human beings were just not meant to live in swarms.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by steve001968 (November 06, 2009 7:53 pm ET)
              1
            The wild west was not all that wild. If you think it was you are probably watching too much TV. Homicide rates in the 19th century were not all that different than they are today. Many criminal careers then were cut short by a long drop from a short rope. Also what people such as yourself consistently fail to grasp is that pretty much anyone who wants to already has a gun on their hip. 48 states now have concealed carry. The criminals have always carried regardless of the law because criminals, by definition, don't obey laws and they aren't going to start obeying them no matter how many you pass. Gun control laws are utterly and completely useless because the only people who obey them are the people who aren't going to cause any problem anyway. It's all quickly becoming irrelevant anyway. The Supreme court has already affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. We aren't giving that right up because a statistically tiny percentage of the population are shot to death by an even statistically tinier portion of the population. Democrats, who were the only hope gun control had have finally at long last figured out that it is political suicide so I wouldn't count on getting any more useless gun laws passed based on this incident.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by political_left-religious_right (November 08, 2009 5:20 pm ET)
                 
              The wild west was not all that wild. If you think it was you are probably watching too much TV. Homicide rates in the 19th century were not all that different than they are today.

              The first time I heard this comparison was from an Alistair Cooke film in a high school history class, so I can't track it down, but it said that the rate of violent crime in the towns of the wild west was, per capita, fifty times greater than that of present-day New York.

              I can't produce my evidence, but I see you didn't produce any, either. Until you do so, I'll stick with what I was taught, thanks.

              Many criminal careers then were cut short by a long drop from a short rope.

              True enough, but it seems that you're saying that capital punishment is sufficient to deter crimes of this sort. There are two problems with this idea: (1) most mass shootings occur in states that have the death penalty, and (2) most mass shootings end up with the shooter dead, either by the police or by their own hand, thus negating the issue.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by NG_Officer (November 06, 2009 11:17 am ET)
          3  
          so when law enforcement shows up at an incident and can not determine who of the hundreds of gun toters is the assailant, what then? they waste valuable time, sifting through the armed "law-abiding citizens", trying to determine if they are the shooters.

          this was just debated in the legislature in LA and all of the Law Enforcement Officials who testified said that it would be detrimental to their response to have a bunch of armed "law-abiding citizens" in their way.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by wesley (November 06, 2009 11:38 am ET)
            1 3
            -- it would be detrimental to their response -- ng officer

            Well of course it would make their job easier if everyone was unarmed when they show up...because in most cases they are there to solve a crime that has already occurred...not to prevent one.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 11:48 am ET)
            1 3
            You would rather have me cower in a corner a pray I don’t get killed before the police get there that have the ability to defend myself?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 11:49 am ET)
              4
            You would rather have me cower in a corner a pray I don’t get killed before the police get there that have the ability to defend myself?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by epkklk851 (November 06, 2009 12:08 pm ET)
              4  
              That is what I would be doing. I am 49 years old and have never seen a shootout in any of the places I have lived. That includes six states and a foreign country. This idea that we have to go around packin' heat leads to more people carrying guns for fear that they might have to use them, which makes more people carry guns. It is a vicious circle. I prefer to lead my life without guns. I feel safer that way, and I know my children were safer.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by political_left-religious_right (November 08, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
                   
                Precisely. Furthermore, the one time I actually fired a gun (a BB-gun at a 6th grade camp), I was such a pathetic shot that I hit the target just once in 24 tries. If I fired a gun today, even in self-defense, I would be much more likely to take out some innocent victims of my own. No way!
                Report Abuse
    • Author by The_Cat (November 06, 2009 10:52 am ET)
      3  
      Gun control on a military base is even more stringent than it is for the civilian population. It appears, at least at the moment, that these guns, civilian purchases as opposed to military issue, were legally owned by Major Hasan. That means we have laws, and those laws were followed.

      I do not believe further obstacles to gun ownership and possession would make a significant difference in this case. Our current gun control laws would be sufficient, and if they were fully and completely enforced may seem draconian. I live in a state that requires a separate I.D. for gun owners. Waiting periods, background checks, heck, any law you can imagine including banning firearms altogether can be circumvented. Don't think so? I have sufficient training and will soon have the equipment necessary to make guns in my shop if I felt like it, like thousands of other people all across the country.

      Two weeks ago, if I had said, "Know what? There's a major in the U.S. army, working as a psychiatrist, and he's purchased two handguns privately for his own use," the outcry would've been... what? Nothing. Why? He followed the law, and seemed like a law-abiding American who was serving his country in a tough job.

      Personally, I'm more of a sword fan than a gun nut, but that's just me. Perhaps ever more gun control isn't always the answer, folks. Feel free to disagree. That's part of what makes this place fun! ;)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 11:02 am ET)
        1 2
        Not that it matters at all but he broke the law when he brought those pistols on base. Im all for waiting periods and background checks, I do not like however the whole separate id for gun owners I don’t like being singled out for simply owning a gun. We can have voter ID cards so why would gun owner id cards be allowed. I do have a conceal and carry ID but im ok with that it just lets law enforcement know that I am licensed to carry. .
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 11:09 am ET)
            2
          cant have voter id cards
          Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 11:10 am ET)
            2
          cant have voter id cards
          Report Abuse
        • Author by The_Cat (November 06, 2009 11:34 am ET)
          1  
          I was not aware that civilian purchase weapons were not allowed on military bases. I have known a number of ex-military personnel who purchased their service issued sidearms to take with them into civilian life. It just seemed that, in the face of that, personal weapons purchased from the civilian markets would be allowed on base. Thanks for the info, highliter.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 11:44 am ET)
              2
            They are allowed on bases you just cant carry them. And in most cases you must store them in a military controled arms room. Officers might be diffrent im not sure. I personally have always had to store them in a arms room.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by rtejon (November 06, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
          2  
          Having recently toured another base with a relative, I can tell you an officer presenting his ID at the gate would have had no trouble bringing whatever he wanted with him.

          I think something other than gun rules was at the root of the problem. Most of our people just don't premeditate this sort of thing, obviously, and because this guy is a psychiatrist and was recently promoted to major, there just wouldn't have been many people even charged with looking out for his own state of mind.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (November 06, 2009 11:07 am ET)
      3  
      I will speculate here that what we are going to find out (unless the army covers it up) is that this Major was a pain to supervise, so the army just decided to move him from post to post, i.e. from Walter Reed to Fort Hood to overseas, to make him someone elses problem. He snapped. There are no controls you can put in place if someone is determined to kill on a rampage and does not care if they are killed as well. Why do you think we cannot beat terrorists. They are not afraid to die. How can you defeat someone who thinks they go to a better place when dead? YOU CAN'T!!!!!!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (November 06, 2009 11:12 am ET)
        1 5
        It has already come out that they knew this guy was a nutjob. I guarantee they were just too scared to do anything to a Muslim army officer. The media would have crucified the army if they had booted a Muslim army officer out for being a radical.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wesley (November 06, 2009 11:48 am ET)
          1
        -- this Major was a pain to supervise -- terrapin

        I'll bet that's right. He raped the military benefits system and then tried to weasel out of his commitments.

        After joining the army out of high school...the army raised him...trained him...and educated him in the medical profession. When it was time to repay the army with his service...he tried to crap out.

        His army career was the path to a lucrative private practice without having to serve his country when it counted the most. His anti-war convictions were not quite as strong...until he had completed his medical training paid for by the army...else he would have resigned his commission years ago.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by randy99 (November 06, 2009 12:19 pm ET)
      1  
      Gun control on the world's largest military installation??
      This is ridiculous. I agree that there is a dearth of coverage of the topic in other civilian shootings, but this is an army base, not a cub scout camp.
      One would assume that almost every single person there, to the private, owns a gun and supports gun "rights" or whatever. They're in a profession which requires them to carry guns and shoot people. How on earth would better gun control have prevented this situation? Even if they were his civilian weapons, so??
      Jeez, I support gun control measures, but this is kind of a dumb post by Eric.
      Sorry dude.
      Randy
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (November 06, 2009 6:02 pm ET)
           
        I agree. Even if we had stricter civilian gun control laws would they apply on a military base?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by steve001968 (November 06, 2009 6:31 pm ET)
            1
          Stricter gun laws already apply on the base in question. There is concealed carry off the base. Concealed carry is not permitted on the base and none of the soldiers there when the shooting began hwd weapons because they are not permitted to carry them on base unless they are training or are MP. We all see how well that worked.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by steve001968 (November 06, 2009 6:28 pm ET)
      1 2
      Gun control is the problem. It just killed another 13 people. The shooter was the only one armed when his shooting spree began because gun control on the base disarmed his victims. Nobody but MP's, designated security personel, and those in training excercises are permitted a weapon and live ammunition on military basis in the US. Military personnel in this situation were worse armed than many citizens in states with concealed carry. The only thing gun control is good for is insuring that crime victims cannot fight back. I have yet to hear a gun control advocate explain why, if guns and people who own them are such a problem, there are no mass shootings at gun stores, gun shows, or NRA conventions. Had the soldiers actually been armed, as they would be in most of Iraq or Afghanistan the attack would have been over as soon as it began, with a dead terrorist.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wesley (November 07, 2009 12:12 am ET)
          2
        You just hit a four bagger...one that would rival the moon shot by Lou Brock in the Polo Grounds.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by JMarse (November 07, 2009 8:54 am ET)
           
        If the policy was that soldiers could carry US Military issued side arms on base, this attack may have not even happened. It comes down to psychological expectations. Not all need to carry guns. It is only necessary for reduced gun violence that a potential offender not know who has a gun but most likely someone does. This is the check on unwise gun behavior. Furthermore, when the offender goes crazy, he will be taken down sooner rather than later.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by political_left-religious_right (November 08, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
           
        Gun control is the problem. It just killed another 13 people.

        No, Nidal Malik Hasan just killed 13 people. So much for your side's purported fondness for personal responsibility.

        Gun control advocates want to prevent crimes of this sort by prohibiting mentally unbalanced people from acquiring guns. In other words, real gun control (and not the phony "they want to take everyone's guns away" nonsense that many on your side believe) would have saved another 13 people.
        Report Abuse