How much more proof is needed? Disarming capable, legal citizens is not smart nor is it safe! With the shooting that happened last week at Fort Hood, where 13 people were killed and more than 30 wounded, it once again proves this point. “Gun-free zones” are nothing more than a place where the bad guys can do harm, and a lot of it.
The Associated Press reported that when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan started shooting up the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Pfc. Marquest Smith dove under a desk, where he "lay low for several minutes, waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition and wishing he, too, had a gun."
Neither Smith nor the other victims of Hasan's assault had guns because soldiers on military bases within the United States generally are not allowed to carry them. This folly of "gun-free zones" only attracts and assists people bent on mass murder instead of deterring them.
The supporters of victim disarmament believe that Smith’s desire for a gun was irrational. According to Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, "This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified Army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places."
Does this make no sense to anyone else? Number one, his reference to "a heavily fortified Army base" completely disregards the fact that the people attacked by Hasan were unarmed as a matter of policy. Number two, Helmke’s assurance that "more guns is not the solution to gun violence” is just plain ridiculous. Look at the facts… IF someone, anyone, would have been armed, this tragedy would most likely not have happened, or would have at least been stopped before so many innocent people were harmed.
The first people with guns to confront Hasan, two local police officers, were the ones who put a stop to his rampage. While these police officers did their job and acted heroically, they did not arrive on the scene until a crucial 10 minutes or so had elapsed and Hasan had fired more than 100 rounds.
If someone else at the processing center had had a gun when Hasan started shooting, it is likely that fewer people would have been killed or injured.
Of course, Hasan knew that his victims would’ve been unarmed, so maybe he would’ve chosen a different target. Maybe one of the other locations where firearms are not allowed… churches, schools, shopping malls, etc. The overall problem is that hell-bent killers tend not to follow such rules while the good citizens do. And the good guys end up paying for it.