By now, you’ve no doubt heard about the active shooter incident that happened within the past week at Fort Stewart, Georgia.
As always, active shooter incidents are never justified and are always horrible.
That this active shooter incident took place at a military facility, one of several over the last few years, is notable. If you haven’t heard the details, though, John R. Lott, Jr. has them for us (hat tip to here for the lead). Lott writes,
On Wednesday, another mass shooting unfolded — this time at Fort Stewart military base in Georgia. A male Army sergeant, who illegally carried a gun on the base, wounded five soldiers before others tackled and disarmed him.
Now, if you’re wondering how this person was able to illegally care a gun on to the base and wound five soldiers, Lott has those details, too:
Typically, only authorized designated security forces such as MPs are armed on duty. Any other soldier caught carrying a firearm faces severe consequences, ranging from a rank reduction, court-martial, potential criminal convictions, dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay, and even imprisonment.
So, is Lott saying that Fort Steward is, essentially, a gun-free zone?
Yes, that’s exactly what he’s saying. All military bases in the U.S. are, and that leads us to our point today. Again from Lott:
So why would a soldier risk such harsh penalties? Because if you’re the attacker, planning to murder fellow soldiers, gun control laws won’t stop you. If you expect to die in the assault, as most mass public shooters do, extra years added to your sentence mean nothing. Even if you survive, you already anticipate multiple life sentences or the death penalty.
But for law-abiding soldiers, those same rules carry enormous weight. Carrying a gun for self-defense could turn them into felons and destroy their futures. These gun control policies disarm the innocent while encouraging a determined killer to attack there as they will know that they are the only ones who will be armed.
And that gets us to the entire problem: the law-abiding on base, the soldiers and civilians who aren’t looking to do something criminal are the ones who aren’t armed. The criminal, though, isn’t worried about breaking a gun law. After all, their intention is to kill people (and usually are trying to commit suicide by cop/MP in the process).
Some will argue, though, that the law enforcement on base, the ones who can legally carry firearms there, are enough to stop the criminal.
Funny, a woke general said the same thing about the Fort Hood incident. From Lott:
Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley, then commander of Third Corps stationed at Fort Hood, testified to Congress about the second attack there: “We have adequate law enforcement on those bases to respond … those police responded within eight minutes and that guy was dead.” But eight minutes was simply too long for the three soldiers who were murdered and the 12 others who were wounded.
Look, it’s simply absurd that members of the military, the very people that our government trains to use firearms in order to kill other people during wartime, are legally disarmed. Aren’t these supposed to be the people trained to defend us? Then, why aren’t we trusting them with firearms?
It’s just insane. But there are people even in the military (see Mark Milley above) who have bought completely into the irrationality of leftist political narratives and created places where people aren’t legally able to use what is often the single most effective way to defend themselves: a firearm.
And that’s the point today: gun-free zones kill people. Even people who are supposed to be protecting you and me.
Gun-free zones should be abolished.