PA Bill Number: SB945
Title: Consolidating the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L.323, No.130), known as The County Code; and making repeals.
Description: Consolidating the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L.323, No.130), known as The County Code; and making repeals. ...
Last Action: Third consideration and final passage (199-0)
Last Action Date: Apr 17, 2024
Military Base Murders-a Considered Opinion :: 05/01/2014
"How to Stop a Would-Be Killer at a Military Base - The Wall Street Journal.
By Arthur Z. Berg April 9, 2014 7:25 p.m. ET
Barring soldiers from carrying concealed weapons at Fort Hood Army base in Texas demeans the soldiers and ignores reality. It also gets people killed. In 2009 and again on April 2, lone shooters at Fort Hood were able to murder a total of 17 people and wound more than 40 largely without fear that anyone could interrupt them. Unless that changes, we can expect more such attacks, either at military bases where carrying a weapon is prohibited or other venues where killers are confident that their chances of inflicting mass slaughter are good.
This is long read, but makes so much sense. The anti military sentiment expressed by this administration is awful.
Mass killers demand attention: Why else seek such a large audience? That reality is well documented. Some of these killers have left detailed plans, including documentation of their murders with tallies of how many killed. One left a computerized spread sheet of news coverage and tabulated details of his killings gleaned from news reports. Another left evidence that intimated some form of competition: Who would score the highest body count?
As a psychiatrist, I know that a mass killer may be depressed or suffer some other psychiatric disorder. He may have been rejected in some way or bullied. But being able to make such a diagnosis is not the critical factor when planning prevention.
The Fort Hood news coverage is stirring fresh criticism of the media for providing intense, detailed and personalized coverage when many lives are lost. Violent movies and games also get blamed. As with the psychological profile of the killer, however, these are not the critical factors that need to be addressed when thinking about prevention.
The fact that's most important, and most relevant to prevention, is the killer's hunger for a large audience. These murderers want a big stage on which to lash out and to be immortalized. What the killer doesn't want is an unfinished drama. That's why, in these incidents, he often commits suicide the moment he hears a police siren or someone points a gun at him. Surrender and a court case is unthinkable. Everything he plans is designed to help him finish his drama before someone can stop him. Being stopped would be another demonstration of the ineptness and failure that has likely characterized his life. So he picks a safe place. He looks for the movie theater where guns are banned. He looks for a school-or a U.S. military base. A nationwide gun ban has been in effect at military installations since 1992.
A current line of defense, perimeter security, is far from foolproof, especially in large sprawling institutions such as universities and military bases. Practically speaking, the perimeter security's purpose is primarily psychological deterrence.
On a military base, however, with many service members legally carrying concealed weapons, one or two of them would be able to quickly dispatch a killer. There would be no "Wild West" free-for-all with bullets whizzing everywhere, either. That's an antigun argument used for discouraging carrying firearms in public, even though critics are hard-pressed to provide an example of such a scenario. In reality, there was little chance of collateral damage if soldiers at Fort Hood had been legally armed, and even if there were any, it would have been preferable to the slaughter of the unarmed.
It's worth noting that "Wild West" incidents don't happen where military personnel are deployed. These are the same people who aren't trusted to carry weapons at Fort Hood or other bases. The only difference is that when they're deployed, they are usually heavily armed with pistols and semiautomatic rifles. Correction: fully automatic rifles.
If the soldiers at Fort Hood had been armed, it has been claimed by some, then first responders to the shooting would have been confused about who was the killer-with everyone in the same uniform and many with guns present. I don't think there would have been much confusion: The bad guy would have been the one bleeding on the ground. The soldiers would have reholstered. They certainly would drop their weapons on command. Soldiers are well trained.
During the Korean War, my buddies and I always tried to make sure that things were done "Army correct." We didn't know back then about "politically correct." Veterans of more recent wars tell me they know all too much about it.
Soldiers who are legally permitted by a state to carry a concealed weapon should be allowed to do so on a U.S. Army base. From the soldiers, to the civilians to the first responders-we'd all be safer.
Dr. Berg, a former associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, is a life fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303910404579489772359133870
