What stops mass murderers? A gun.

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
Everyone is concentrating on whether we could have foretold that Hasan would have committed his mass murders, based on what he was known to have said and done in the past.

But no one is examining why he was able to go on shooting, firing more than 100 shots, reloading time and again, without being stopped... on an Army base!!!

The place was full of soldiers, wasn't it? Particularly the room where he did his murders. He was shooting soldiers.

Aren't soldiers people who have guns, by definition? People who are trained in their use? Then how on earth could this guy calmly going on firing at them, firing, reloading, firing some more, reloading again, firing some more, ad infinitum, without being taken out after the first few shots??

For that matter, if Hasan wanted to commit mass murder, and needed a place full of people where he could be sure of having plenty of time to do all the shooting, reloading, etc. that such deeds require without anybody being able to interfere and stop him before he racks up a truly impressive body count... you'd think the LAST place he'd pick was a U.S. Army base, full of soldiers.

Yet that's exactly the place he did pick. Why not a shopping mall, or a Post office, or a school? Places where people are forbidden to bring guns, as so many mass murderers before him chose, and with such great success? Whatever made him think he could engage in a long shooting spree witout interference, on an Army base???

Yep. As the old saying goes... and keeps being found true... when you come up against a completely inexplicable situation that makes no sense, and want to know why it's so, the reason is almost always....

Government.

One of the first things Bill Clinton did when he assumed office in 1993, was to disarm U.S. soldiers on our military bases.

So, not one of the many dozens of soldiers in the room, trained in the use of weapons for their own defense and to control attackers, had their weapons with them. And Hasan knew they wouldn't.

The gun-rights-haters have successfully made sure of the deaths of fourteen more victims (one of the murdered soldiers was a pregnant woman, whose infant also died).

How many more will die in the future, due to the haters' insistence that they be left disarmed (even soldiers trained in the use of weapons) in an imperfect, dangerous world?

---------------------------------------------

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/what-stops-mass-murderers-a-gun-70134582.html

What stops mass murderers? A gun

by Vin Suprynowicz
Nov. 15, 2009

Early in the morning of Dec. 5, 1999, off-duty Las Vegas police officer Dennis Devitte was one of the customers at Mr. D's Sportsbar & Grill, at Rainbow and Oakey boulevards, where he and some pals had gone to hear the band Pigs in a Blanket.

A little after 1 a.m., three armed robbers charged through the back door with guns drawn and their faces covered with T-shirts or bandanas. "I'd only been in the bar a short time and was talking to friends," Mr. Devitte later told an interviewer for the International Association of Chiefs of Police. "I saw a ruckus at the end of the bar. ...

"One of the gunmen went right by me and shot a man in a wheelchair, hitting him in the shoulder," Mr. Devitte recalled. "I only had my small .25-caliber off-duty gun, which isn't very accurate, so I knew I had to get really close before I could start shooting. Otherwise I might hit someone else."

The robbers might have taken a moment to consider the name of the band, which featured three off-duty officers. Mr. D's was often referred to as a "cop bar," though the IACP determined Mr. Devitte was, curiously enough, the only patron armed at the time.

Mr. Devitte dug the handgun out of his pocket and approached 19-year-old Emilio Rodriguez, who was firing into the crowd with a .40 caliber pistol. "I went straight at him as he turned and started firing at me," Mr. Devitte said. "He kept firing and hitting me, but I held my fire until I got to less than 18 inches from him."

The incident took 20 seconds and was recorded on the bar's surveillance tape. Mr. Devitte shot Rodriguez eight times -- twice through the heart -- before the officer finally fell, the robber's last round having blown out his knee.

Rodriguez stumbled out the front door and died. The other two robbers fled.

"Dennis was bleeding from everywhere," recalled Mike Richards, a fellow officer who was playing in the band. "I yelled for towels. Then I tried to get Dennis' gun from him. Even though one bullet had blown his right hand apart and another had hit his right thumb, he wouldn't give it up. He told me there were still two more bad guys."

"Please tell my wife I love her," Mr. Devitte told officer Curtis Wills, as he lay bleeding from his wounds. "I did the best I could. I hope I didn't hit anybody else."

The following year, Dennis Devitte -- who recovered and returned to duty -- received the highest honor in law enforcement, as the IACP named him America's Police Officer of the Year.

There are two reasons no innocent parties died at Mr. D's that night. One, beyond any question, was the selfless courage of Dennis Devitte.

The second reason? One of Emilio Rodriguez's intended victims had a gun.

On Nov. 6, America found reason to honor another brave civilian police officer, as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. army psychiatrist about to be deployed to Afghanistan, reportedly shouted "Allahu Akbar!" and opened fire at a soldier readiness facility in Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 people and wounding 28.

Police Sgt. Kimberly Munley and Sgt. Mark Todd responded separately within three minutes of the report of gunfire. Sgt. Munley was hit by the mass murderer's rounds in her wrist and both thighs while returning fire, standing her ground. Sgt. Todd then delivered the rounds that ended Hasan's brief career as a jihadist -- providing the current White House doesn't intervene to commute his pending court-martial sentence to singing three rousing choruses of "Kumbaya."

Hasan reportedly had fired more than 100 rounds, requiring him to change handgun magazines several times -- Sgt. Todd said Hasan was reloading again when he shot the suspect. Why didn't any of the hundreds of Army personnel in the room shoot back, ending his killing spree far sooner?

Because they couldn't.

Among President Bill Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 "was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases," the Washington Times points out.

But mass murderers do generally have a harder time of it in Texas, nowadays, thanks to the legislative response to the second deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, which also occurred in Killeen, Texas -- home to Fort Hood.

In 1991, George Hennard drove his pickup through the window of a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, jumped out and began firing two pistols at the defenseless customers and employees inside, killing 23.

As Jacob Sullum pointed out in his syndicated column in last week's Review-Journal, one customer, Suzanna Hupp, saw Hennard gun down her parents. Mrs. Hupp later testified that she had brought a handgun with her that day but, to her bitter regret, left it in her car, as required by state law.

Hupp ran for and was elected to the Texas Legislature, where she was able to win passage of a "shall issue" law that requires authorities to issue a concealed carry permit to any resident who meets certain objective criteria.

Unless they join the Army.
 
Werbung:
I've been meaning to post a thread on just this topic. Most people don't understand that he was the only one with a weapon. It took civilian police to deal with him.

Disarm the general public and you make this possible in every meeting place, mall, and place of business in America. The bad guys will always find a way to find a weapon. It's the knowledge that the good guys are armed that keeps them in check.
 
Aren't soldiers people who have guns, by definition? People who are trained in their use? Then how on earth could this guy calmly going on firing at them, firing, reloading, firing some more, reloading again, firing some more, ad infinitum, without being taken out after the first few shots??
If you'd (actually) paid-attention to this incident, you'd KNOW that general military-personnel aren't allowed to be armed, there.

Carry-on with your snit-fit....'cause you're certainly not doing any research.

:rolleyes:
 
If you'd (actually) paid-attention to this incident, you'd KNOW that general military-personnel aren't allowed to be armed, there.

Carry-on with your snit-fit....'cause you're certainly not doing any research.

:rolleyes:
And if you had actually read his post, you would KNOW that is what he said.
 
of course Bush never changed that in 8 years did he?

and I have yet to hear the Military say anything about them being against it before.
Also just a guess, I doubt they would have all been standing around armed for no reason regardless.

How long does Bush have to be out of office before you can stop using him as an excuse for having no data to back up a point.

I don't care who created the rule, the problem is that the only guy with a gun was the bad guy.
 
How long does Bush have to be out of office before you can stop using him as an excuse for having no data to back up a point.

I don't care who created the rule, the problem is that the only guy with a gun was the bad guy.

I see....so attack Clinton for it is ok, but point out the Bush did not change anything ...I am going back to far? Did I miss that there is a 8 year gap? I did not blame Bush or Clinton now did I? I pointed out that if you are to try to blame Clinton...as was done...that Bush had in fact not felt it needed to change...and I had not heard anyone in the army take issue with it as well...


Also what data did you want to see? Data on that Bush had not changed the policy? realy, I have no idea what your point is to your post...
 
I see....so attack Clinton for it is ok, but point out the Bush did not change anything ...I am going back to far? Did I miss that there is a 8 year gap? I did not blame Bush or Clinton now did I? I pointed out that if you are to try to blame Clinton...as was done...that Bush had in fact not felt it needed to change...and I had not heard anyone in the army take issue with it as well...


Also what data did you want to see? Data on that Bush had not changed the policy? realy, I have no idea what your point is to your post...


My point is stop arguing on party line...they both did the citizens no favors. At the time, there were several generals that questioned the risk/reward of the change.
 
My point is stop arguing on party line...they both did the citizens no favors. At the time, there were several generals that questioned the risk/reward of the change.

I see, no more party line ( of course I am not a Dem, and I hated Bill Clinton, but thats a diff issue)....but attacking Clinton you say nothing, point out anything about Bush...and its party line ...?
 
So does a handgrenade, and a GBU-31 Mk.84 JDAM.

I support people owning and even carrying guns, but I dont think it is wise for us to go back to the days of the old west.
 
How long does Bush have to be out of office before you can stop using him as an excuse for having no data to back up a point.
As-soon-as we've cleaned-up Bush Economic-Debacle II.

*

At least the DEMS have a track-record of SUCCE$$!!!

"During the 1980s, most Western governments woke up to the nightmare of public debt. Having failed to repay their debts in good times, they found themselves caught in a vicious circle.

Every single time a debt repayment was due, governments had to "roll over" the debt and borrow even more money to cover running expenses."

(See: Reaganbushenomics)​

:p
 
I see....so attack Clinton for it is ok, but point out the Bush did not change anything ...I am going back too far?

420242.65560.jpg
 
So does a handgrenade, and a GBU-31 Mk.84 JDAM.

I support people owning and even carrying guns, but I dont think it is wise for us to go back to the days of the old west.
Whew.....I should say NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bush_littlebigman.jpg
 
Werbung:
I support people owning and even carrying guns, but I dont think it is wise for us to go back to the days of the old west.

It is not a matter of, "...go(ing) back to the days of the old west.", it is the days of acts of terrorism. We are in a state of war, as announced by a U.S. president after 911. As such, there can be, and is likely that there will be attacks against the U.S. on home soil. Therefore, it would seem prudent that at least all officers in the military be issued side arms to be carried at all times while on duty on a military base. This is not the first shooting on a military base; it will not be the last.

When I was in the army we were paid in cash. On pay day the company commander would sit at a table with a metal box of cash with the executive officer sitting next to him. On the table in front of the executive officer was a .45 Automatic Colt Pistol. It was not the wild west, it was just how business was conducted in those days.
 
Back
Top