How on earth did this guy shoot 43 people on a military base before somebody shot this guy?

Maybe my friends in the military can answer this one. Is there a reason soldiers are not allowed to carry firearms on the military base? Is this just a Fort Hod rule, or does this apply to all military bases?



It seems almost ironic that a military base would be attacked so badly because a "no gun" policy kept the soldiers from being armed, doesn't it?How on earth did this guy shoot 43 people on a military base before somebody shot this guy?Easy, when home security said this guy wasn't a threat. %26gt;0How on earth did this guy shoot 43 people on a military base before somebody shot this guy?
There is no reason to carry weapons on a military base in the US.



Well except to protect yourself from crazy people as we have seen...How on earth did this guy shoot 43 people on a military base before somebody shot this guy?Even more astounding is that he's still alive.













For now.
Soldiers are not allowed to have weapons on post. MP's carry weapons when on duty.How on earth did this guy shoot 43 people on a military base before somebody shot this guy?Military bases are set up just like cities. The military police and guards carry guns.How on earth did this guy shoot 43 people on a military base before somebody shot this guy?
There would be dead soldiers on home base every single day if we armed every soldier on every stateside base. Many soldiers are 18 year old fresh out of high school- and they're just as reckless as any 18 year old. Now toss alcohol into the mix; see where I'm going with this?



There's no reason for some Admin worker who's job is data entry to be lugging around an M16. It's asking for trouble.



We have Military Police for a reason.



EDIT: Also, if every person was armed where Hasan opened fire, we'd probably have a hundred dead from friendly fire.
If soldiers were allow to keep arms this would happen much more OFTEN.



Ever talk to a war vet with PTSD? You wouldnt want them carrying a loaded weapon on base. MPs are allowed to carry firearms and that is it.How on earth did this guy shoot 43 people on a military base before somebody shot this guy?
I would have to guess that he did it with a gun of some type.

How else would he have done it?

How do you think he did it?
And why was this man still in the Military at all ?
I believe this rule applies to all bases in the US and yes it is rediculous, apparently they could be smuggled in though if your a "trusted" authority. Which brings up the next question, why were we so PC about the muslin connection that the base was encouraged to TRUST this TERRORIST?
Protection of the troops means keeping folks from easy access to weapons, and this has been very successful as US Military bases have a very low per capita violent crime rate.



The issue I have is with handguns in general, and high capacity magazines for handguns, specifically. Sidearms are only designed to kill people and to be easily concealed, and that is exactly how Maj. Hasan conducted his spree.
It is against policy in all military installations in the U.S for unauthorized personnel to carry a weapon. The only ones authorized are law enforcement officers that are on duty, all others must receive permission.
The gun-control on military bases is far more strict than in civilian areas. Such a successful gun control policy should not go unnoticed. Oh wait.
he did it in an administrative area. no weapons cache there.



only MPs and security details carry weapons on post.
That's gun control for ya. All those good people were unarmed, and one terrorist wasn't. Of course he wasn't legally armed, so we can take solace in knowing that in addition to homicide charges he may get fined for having guns in a no-weapons area.
There is generally no reason for soldiers to carry firearms on bases here in the US. I was an infantry soldier for many years and I can't think of a good reason why I needed my weapon with me most of the time. While this incident is horrific, it shouldn't be used for bad rationale. In the US, soldiers simply do not need firearms on their person unless they are MPs or are off to training.
They don't carry guns because a military base in the US is normally not considered to be a combat zone.
Do we really want such a concentrated population of armed 18-20 year olds?



Personally, while I believe in our right to bear arms (within reason)... would we be alright with the entire population of a university, walking around armed? 18-20 year olds are really just kids, IMO.
Military installations have all the ammo locked down in armories. Only MP's carry live weapons. The only time you get real ammo is at the rifle range or any live fire exercises. That's what makes it such a cowardly act...if you want to kill american soldiers, get a damn plane ticket to pakistan and infiltrate across the border like the rest of the jihadist....religion of peace my ***!
Easy, our soldiers are unarmed. The reason should be obvious. High ranking military people (NCOs) usually have very bad manners and people skills, frequently harassing their subordinates. If the soldiers were armed, the lower ranking soldiers could get revenge when they're pissed. If you've ever seen a military unit in garrison and in combat, you'll notice that the leaders all act VERY different in combat. This is because the soldiers are armed so the leaders know they can't get away with garbage. As soon as they come back and weapons are confiscated, the leaders all start acting stupid again.
IDK but it was shock to everyone. May the fallen rest in peace. %26gt;%26lt;