How many at Fort Hood died because of the Army's gun ban?

If I were the parent or spouse of one of those killed in the terrorist attack at Fort Hood last week, I would begin raising utter hell in the public arena the minute my loved one was buried and my tears dried up.  Not only did outrageous political correctness convince otherwise rational people in authority to put our soldiers in unnecessary danger, but since 1993, there has been a gun-ban in place on our army bases. 

Here we have soldiers, expertly trained in the safe and efficient use of guns, yet they are prevented by a cockamamie Clinton ruling from carrying handguns on their bases.  From reports of the Ft. Hood terrorist attack, the Islamic radical enemy within was allowed a full 10 minutes of completely protected firing at soldiers before someone with a gun arrived on the scene to fire back. 

From the
report on Fox News:

"Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The unarmed soldiers could do little more than cower as Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a desk and shot down into the cubicles in which his victims were trapped. Some behaved heroically, such as private first class Marquest Smith who repeatedly risked his life removing five soldiers and a civilian from the carnage. But, being unarmed, these soldiers were unable to stop Hasan's attack."

At this rate, we will be extremely fortunate to have men and women in the entire United States willing  to sign up for military service.  Not only should this horrendous terror attack never have happened because all the red flags were there, but it would also seem quite certain that the gun ban resulted in more inexcusable loss of life.

As the Fox News report says, statistics are pretty clear on the additional loss of life in public shootings where gun bans are in force:

"Research shows that allowing individuals to defend themselves dramatically reduces the rates of multiple victim public shootings. Even if attacks still occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun. Ten minutes must have seemed like an eternity to those trapped in the attack at Ft. Hood. All the multiple victim public shootings in the U.S. -- in which more than three people have been killed -- have all occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned."

Now, it's not hard to understand that draft-dodging, war protester, Bill Clinton, thought this base gun ban was a good idea.  But we might want to ask ourselves why on earth the ban was not lifted by President Bush immediately after 9/11.  Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been churning out reports and analyses of the homegrown terror threat for at least a decade and yet we remain a nation seemingly bent on national suicide.

This is disgusting.
If I were the parent or spouse of one of those killed in the terrorist attack at Fort Hood last week, I would begin raising utter hell in the public arena the minute my loved one was buried and my tears dried up.  Not only did outrageous political correctness convince otherwise rational people in authority to put our soldiers in unnecessary danger, but since 1993, there has been a gun-ban in place on our army bases. 

Here we have soldiers, expertly trained in the safe and efficient use of guns, yet they are prevented by a cockamamie Clinton ruling from carrying handguns on their bases.  From reports of the Ft. Hood terrorist attack, the Islamic radical enemy within was allowed a full 10 minutes of completely protected firing at soldiers before someone with a gun arrived on the scene to fire back. 

From the
report on Fox News:

"Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The unarmed soldiers could do little more than cower as Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a desk and shot down into the cubicles in which his victims were trapped. Some behaved heroically, such as private first class Marquest Smith who repeatedly risked his life removing five soldiers and a civilian from the carnage. But, being unarmed, these soldiers were unable to stop Hasan's attack."

At this rate, we will be extremely fortunate to have men and women in the entire United States willing  to sign up for military service.  Not only should this horrendous terror attack never have happened because all the red flags were there, but it would also seem quite certain that the gun ban resulted in more inexcusable loss of life.

As the Fox News report says, statistics are pretty clear on the additional loss of life in public shootings where gun bans are in force:

"Research shows that allowing individuals to defend themselves dramatically reduces the rates of multiple victim public shootings. Even if attacks still occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun. Ten minutes must have seemed like an eternity to those trapped in the attack at Ft. Hood. All the multiple victim public shootings in the U.S. -- in which more than three people have been killed -- have all occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned."

Now, it's not hard to understand that draft-dodging, war protester, Bill Clinton, thought this base gun ban was a good idea.  But we might want to ask ourselves why on earth the ban was not lifted by President Bush immediately after 9/11.  Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been churning out reports and analyses of the homegrown terror threat for at least a decade and yet we remain a nation seemingly bent on national suicide.

This is disgusting.