One year later: A lesson from Fort HoodJoe Duckworth, Jr.
On November 5th, 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, walked into a facility on Ft. Hood, armed with two pistols, and slaughtered more than a dozen of our nations finest, and wounded scores more. In the span of a few short minutes, he managed to fire approximately 200 rounds at anyone in uniform he encountered. It was a brutal act of senseless violence. Unfortunately, it was not the first, nor the last time that this type of attack will happen. It was, however, the first time that a rampage of this magnitude has taken place at a military facility, and this illustrates one fact that can not be denied. Gun free zones are slaughter zones.
You would be hard pressed to find a more well prepared group of victims than those gunned down at Fort Hood. These were highly trained troops, some on their way to combat, and some on their way home from a war zone. These were all people who knew how to react quickly to violence against them, assess the tactical situation, and how to neutralize the threat with the minimum risk to themselves. Yet, it didn't matter on that Thursday afternoon, and here is why...the only people armed were military and civilian police, and the bad guy. Sound familiar?
At the time, the rules for carrying weapons on an Army post were the same at nearly every base. The only people allowed to carry firearms on the base were military police. Most personnel were required to check their firearms daily and were only allowed to be removed from an arms room for training on a range or for maintenance. All ammo was required to be signed out and accounted for. Personal weapons were to be kept locked and registered with the base provost marshal, and the military police kept a record of all weapons on their base. Essentially, Ft. Hood was, and in many respects, still is, a "Gun Free Zone".
Army reserve Captain John Gaffaney, who was unarmed, attempted to stop Hasan, by charging him and throwing a chair, but was killed. A civilian medical worker, Michael Cahill, tried to disable Hasan with a chair. He was also killed. Finally, after nearly ten minutes, which must have seemed an eternity to all involved, civilian police Sergeant Kimberly Munley arrived with a side arm, and Hasan faced his first threat.
Does anyone really think that this mass murderer would have carried out the same attack at the base training range? Would he have been successful if these soldiers had been carrying their service weapons? I think not. If ever there was an illustration for the need for personal protection, that horrible day in 2009 is it.
It has been illustrated, time and time again, that an unarmed individual is at the mercy of an armed gunman. Always has been, and always will be. It is a lesson written in blood.
Keep that in mind the next time someone tells you there is no need for individuals to own a gun.
