I’ve had two people say something to the effect of “it’s hard to believe this massacre could happen on an Army base where everyone is a soldier and there are so many guns around,” meaning that lots of people should have been able to defend themselves.
Obviously, these people haven’t spent a lot of time on base.
I don’t know the regs for Fort Hood, but military bases are often pretty “gun free” in the sense that personnel aren’t issued weapons and generally not allowed to carry unless it’s part of their duties. So pretty much just MPs. It’s not like all the 11B infantrymen are walking around in armor with a loaded M4.
I thought I had posted about some new rules a while back that were trying to control personal weapons off base, also, but I can’t find it right now.
Suffice it to say that the personnel on Fort Hood had no real chance to defend themselves against Nidal Malik Hasan, a lifelong Muslim who reportedly gave an “Allahu Akbar!” shout-out before opening fire.
Will we be seeing the Bradys and other anti-gun groups trying to spin this as some sort of evidence that more guns won’t make anyone safer? Probably.