The Phallacy of Unilateral Disarmament

[Katya Mullethov]

Or wait it's folly , common mistake . No matter . More disingenuous goodthink dissected .

The Folly of Unilateral Disarmament
by Jacob Sullum


When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan started shooting up the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Pfc. Marquest Smith dove under a desk. A.P. reports that “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 supposed to carry them. Last week’s shootings, which killed 13 people and wounded more than 30, demonstrated once again the folly of “gun-free zones,” which attract and assist people bent on mass murder instead of deterring them.

Judging from the comments of those who support this policy of victim disarmament, 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.”

Note how the reference to “a heavily fortified army base” obscures the crucial point that the people attacked by Hasan were unarmed as a matter of policy. Also note the breathtaking inanity of Helmke’s assurance that “more guns” are not “the solution to gun violence.” In this case, they assuredly were. The first people with guns to confront Hasan, two local police officers, were the ones who put a stop to his rampage. And while Sgt. Kim Munley and Sgt. Mark Todd 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 .
//////////
That problem was vividly illustrated by the second deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, which occurred in Killeen, Texas, a stone's throw from Fort Hood. In 1991, George Jo Hennard drove his pickup truck 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 of them.

http://townhall.com/columnists/JacobSullum/2009/11/11/the_folly_of_unilateral_disarmament

And the companion piece video .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgrIsuO5PLc

" Mr Senator , I would respectfully request you wipe that SHIT EATING SMIRK off your face... before I have to do it for you .......Sir . "

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. It's "fallacy"

Funny though.

[Euromutt]

10. Not to be confused with "phallus," which is Greek for penis

...aaaand cue the dick jokes.

[JonQ]

23. Gun control always comes back to the phallus

for those who seek fewer freedoms and greater restrictions anyway, everything to do with guns is "phallic".

So maybe the title was just throwing that back at them. Or it was a typo. Either way, it made me smirk.

[Katya Mullethov]

24. Just the requisite cockshot

[spin]

27. True, the real controlling interests that promote gun control...

want to screw those people.

Gun control has as its roots racism. Even today, the rich and powerful ruling class would prefer that the lower classes were disarmed. Of course, these elite upper class individuals desire to own firearms, but armed guards and body guards will suffice.

The sad part is that the middle and lower class people in this country appear to be getting the shaft in many ways.

When this recession is finally over, we will find the rich made money by buying cheap and selling high. It takes money to make money.

[rrneck]

2. Content aside...

A Townhall link. Ooooweeeeee.

:popcorn:

[Euromutt]

3. Jacob Sullum also writes for Reason

He's a libertarian, not a conservative. Much of his stuff for Reason is on drug policy (mostly, why it's none of the government's business what people put into their bloodstreams as long as they don't harm anybody else, and can we stop pretending we didn't lose the War on Drugs a long time ago).

[rrneck]

5. I wasn't thinking about

the content or the author. The appearance of that link can have certain interesting effects on a thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeW0Jw7wjUw :D

[spin]

14. While that may be fair, can you argue against what Sullum said...

I have yet to form an opinion on the issue of allowing soldiers to carry on bases inside the states. There are advantages and disadvantages.

It's a worthwhile discussion.

[rrneck]

16. Actually,

the flamewar I expected didn't materialize. Should I flatter myself in thinking I took all the fun out of it by being a smart ass?

Personally I don't mind seeing links from sources like Townhall. It makes no sense to disregard a source out of hand. Contrary to popular belief, the entire country didn't suddenly become a clone of Berkley the minute we elected a Democratic president. Too many posters here get in a swivet for fear they might find a cat turd in their liberal sandbox. The times they are a changin' and they need to get used to it.

I agree that it's a worthwhile discussion. Sullum makes good sense. A soft target is a soft target no matter where it is.

I've never served in the military so there are others here who could weigh in with more authority than myself, but I don't see why soldiers shouldn't be able to carry a personal sidearm if they want and qualify to do so. I sort of doubt it will ever happen though. Allowing people to do whatever they want is pretty far down the list of priorities for the military, especially when it comes to noisemakers. I doubt they will require everyone to carry issued weapons either. The logistics would be a pain in the ass.

I'm guessing the best solution is to post an armed guard or two with a loaded rifle (maybe even in full battle rattle) at every entrance or something like that. It seems to me the best way to control the area and protect unarmed personnel with minimal logistical hassle.

[spin]

21. Thanks for the reply...

Flame wars can be fun but they are rarely productive.

Guns on college campuses and military bases are an interesting subject and present challenges that do not occur with guns in other communities.

Colleges have dorm rooms and military bases have barracks. In both cases you have a lot of people living in close proximity with each other. To allow individuals who live in these environments the right to carry firearms would mean that they could have to have a safe means of storing their weapon in the dorm or the barracks.

Colleges are often noted for parties that involve heavy drinking and my off time in the service (back in the late sixties) was often spent in local bars. Alcohol, testosterone and firearms can be a bad mix especially in crowded living quarters.

However many NCOs live in base housing and with proper training in how to react to a shooter on base could carry firearms. In the college environment, teachers and staff could be trained and qualified in how to react if a college shooting occurs and be allow to carry.

Your idea of posting guards is possibly another solution. When I was in the service, often the airman standing guard had an unloaded M16. To be effective, the brass would have to train and trust the soldier not to have an accidental discharge and not to shoot some innocent person for little reason. This should not be a serious problem.

[rrneck]

31. Interesting comparison.

Both the military and universities concern themselves with the same basic demographic group of people. But the organizations are light years apart.

It might be fair to say that the military is designed around dealing with dangerous weapons in one way or another. That makes it highly focused, rigidly hierarchical, and closure oriented. It probably attracts people for whom that mindset has some appeal.

A liberal arts university on the other hand is exactly the opposite. It's stock and trade is ideas, not a few of which are dangerous as well. It's multi disciplinary, authority questioning, and sponsors research with an expectation of cultural change. Pretty much everything the military, an organization designed around weapons, is not. Universities attract a lot of people who simply don't have the temperament or mindset to deal well with firearms. Placing guns into that environment presents a lot of unique challenges.

I don't like the idea of guns in universities. I would rather there not be a firearm at any university ever. Of course I don't like the idea of home invasions, muggings and rapes at universities either. I can't see any reason to deny someone the right to carry at a university if they can legally do so elsewhere.

I haven't been able to conjure up any new type of firearms regulation that I thought would work in a university environment. But everyone there is supposed to be there to learn. Instead of another layer of regulation, it seems to me that another layer of education would be the solution. I was reminded in another thread how few actual soldiers there are in this, the worlds latest (and perhaps last) empire. Maybe it's time for compulsory national service. I'm not talking about a draft, or service that is exclusively military focused, although that could be an option. But I'm tired of people thinking that higher education is just a quick stop on the way to a bigger paycheck.

[Euromutt]

28. I can only speak from experience in the Dutch army...

Back in my day (1993-94), we did have soldiers performing guard duty (manning the gates and patrolling the perimeter), typically with a magazine with ten rounds locked into the weapon, but no round chambered. I currently live near Fort Lewis, and I've been to visit the museum on post a couple of times; while Ft. Lewis has civilian security personnel at the gate rather than soldiers, the civilian personnel do carry sidearms, and I suspect they may have heavier firepower available.

The problem is that perimeter security isn't focused on people who have authorized access to the facility, as Major Hasan did. And a post the size of Fort Hood has a lot of people working on it, including civilian DoD employees and contractors. Okay, Hood is the biggest military installation, both by area and the number of assigned personnel, anywhere in NATO, but even Fort Lewis (WA - 2 Stryker brigades, a Ranger battalion and a Special Forces group), Fort Bragg (NC - 82nd Abn Div, SOCOM), Fort Benning (GA - primary infantry training center), Fort Drum (NY - 10th Mountain Div), Fort Campbell (KY - 101st Abn Div, 160th Spec Ops Avn Regt), not to mention USMC Camps Lejeune and Pendleton, are huge facilities compared to anything you're going to find in other NATO member states.

As to why troops aren't authorized to carry firearms while not exercise or armed duty, well, I can only surmise that trying to control the headache of keeping inventory has a lot to do with it. Firearms can get lost or stolen when they're not in the armory, and keeping tabs on who has his weapon out of the armory at any given moment is a major pain in the bollocks.

And then it's worth noting that between 1985 and 1991, the Dutch army suffered five robberies, in which armed guards were deprived of their weapon by armed criminals (in one case, using a crossbow). Even when I was in basic training we were instructed that if something like this occurred, we should let them take our weapons (provided it looked like our lives were otherwise not in danger), on the basis that the weapons were readily replaceable, whereas we were not. Mind you, the criminals were typically after Uzis and Browning Hi-Powers, whereas my unit (being infantry) carried FN FALs, which weren't in demand.

[rrneck]

30. I should have been more clear.

I wasn't thinking about the entrance to the base. I meant every entrance to the building or anywhere else people gather. In other words, anybody considering mass murder or mayhem should have to consider dealing with a nearby soldier or soldiers with rifles and ready to use them.

You're right. Those bases are large. Force protection like that would require a lot of personnel who are currently needed in the bullshit war of imperial conquest across the great water.

[rfranklin]

4. Do you really want all those idiots around you packin'?

Just look at havoc they cause by talking on their cellphones.

[Howzit]

6. No, but if the enemy walks into camp, I'd like

the soldiers to be able to put up a little resistance other than clogging the walkways with their bodies.

[PavePusher]

29. So, you broad-brush the military as

Thanks for your support. Stop. Please.

[Tejas]

34. antis call our troops "trained killers" in anticipation of

blood running in the streets upon their return, so no surprise here.



*note - it was in GD, maybe someone could search it, I called the mouthbreathing-troll on it but conveniently got only crickets (imagine that).

[taurus145]

7. Gun free zones

Put up a sign that says "No Firearms Allowed" anywhere and you'd just as well post a "Please Rob Me" sigh below it.

[rfranklin]

8. I live in a gun free zone and I have never been robbed...

Where do you live?

[Katya Mullethov]

9. The unfortunates tallied in the soon to be legendary Church Post

Had likely never been shot before either . I bet they were suprised !

[beevul]

11. Do you?

Do you live in a "gun free zone" where firearms are not allowed by rule?

Or...Do you live in a gunfreezone where there are actually no firearms present within that zone?

[eqfan592]

13. Until a few days ago....

...the people at Fort Hood had worked in a gun free zone and had never been shot by a maniac while working there before. Must you wait until somebody points out the flaw in the logic of a "gun free zone" with a gun to your head before you decide that maybe, JUST maybe, the policy is a total failure? Or are you capable, as most adults should be, of reasoning out this ineffectiveness by looking at past examples of other "gun free zones"?

[taurus145]

17. Then you're lucky

If you know of no one in your area now, you will in the future that has been robbed, raped, or who knows what else.

I remind you that D.C. was a "Gun Free Zone" for over 30 years. I don't have to recite crime statistics for that garden spot of gun free delights since 1976 - or do I?

[Euromutt]

18. Is your "gun free zone" visibly marked as such?

You know, with signs and that sort of thing?

[taurus145]

22. If it is

it's an open invitation to criminals. You may as well hire a carnival barker to stand in front of your house to loudly invite felons and potential felons to help themselves.

[spin]

26. You have generated a lot of interest in your post...

hopefully you are not just a drive by poster.

Describe where you live at.

Do you, for example, live in a gated community with armed guards checking everybody who enters and exits? Or do you live in Chicago where handguns are banned?

I truly am interested

[taurus145]

35. In the middle of 300 acres of farmland

which is surrounded by other farms, which are surrounded by other farms.

I drive 7 miles to the nearest store/gas station and 15 miles to the nearest town.

Gun free absolutely won;t work for me. Varmints (coyotes, foxes, etc.) harass and kill livestock if not controlled.

We've recently added a new charm to country life; home invasions. Criminals have learned that response by the sheriff's department can - and usually does - take over 30 minutes.

[Katya Mullethov]

36. You can come back in and play

Just wear a hat or something if you are self conscious .

[gorfle]

12. Damn.

I had never seen that video of Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp before. Chilling.

[Katya Mullethov]

19. Her testimony

Or the elected officials reactions to her ? In combination I found them to be extremely insightful .

[SteveM]

20. Her testimony may have been a turning point in the gun-control debate...

I saw it several years ago and was impressed by her arguments and presentation. Judging from the expressions of the the legislators, I think they were as well.

[spin]

25. I totally agree...

Unfortunately it didn't receive the publicity it deserved.

[spin]

15. Questions for those who have served on bases outside the U.S.

When I was in the military in the U.S. we were not allowed to have firearms on base unless they were stored in an armory.

I spend my entire time in the Air Force stateside.

Can anyone comment on the rules for firearms in bases outside the U.S.? If soldiers had access to loaded firearms, did any incidents occur where they were misused?

[jody]

32. I had an airman use his carbine to shoot a few holes in a C-130 rudder so we reassigned him off Iwo

Jima in 1958.

Perhaps it was his way of asking for reassignment!

[Euromutt]

33. I can tell you some horror stories about Dutch troops

Though they have to be understood in context.

The first concerns troops assigned to guard "POMS sites." These were locations where U.S. vehicles, weapons, equipment, ammunition and fuel were stored, so that in the event of a Soviet invasion of western Europe, the U.S. Army would only have to fly the troops in by airliner (carrying a minimum of personal gear) to have several combat-ready divisions in Europe within days. Security fell to Dutch troops, who would for reasons unclear to me, would have to stand guard duty for ridiculously long shifts, resulting in horrific boredom. There were more than a few incidents where some Dutch squaddie would empty his weapon into the treeline or at some errant rabbit, just to alleviate the tedium. Still, even with periodic incidents with lead flying about, no innocents were ever hurt.

The second involves the Dutch army's "Infantry Security Companies"; these were territorial units, assigned to provide rear-area security in wartime to sea- and airports, railroad yards, critical bridges, etc. but in peacetime, they were mainly tasked with guarding facilities like mobilization complexes, where weapons and equipment were stored with which to equip the inactive reserves in event of war. These were rather low-prestige units, and Directorate of Personnel had a tendency of assigning the worst draftee fuck-ups to these units as privates. One pal of mine was assigned to one of these companies as an NCO (draftee "shake 'n' bake" NCO and reserve officer were trained at a separate school), and his job mainly consisted of going out at night with a squad packed into a VW van, driving round a bunch of these complexes, and carrying out a perimeter check at each one. One night, one of his squad opened up and emptied his 10 rounds at some shadows. When they got him back to barracks, it turned out he was high as a kite, because he'd taken some illicit drug (I forget which) right before the patrol went out.

Mind you, since the end of the Cold War, and the suspension of the draft in the Netherlands (which led to the Infantry Security Companies being replaced by civilian security personnel), this sort of thing doesn't happen any more.