clipka wrote:

> >> And, since the death toll was fairly similar to previous attacks, one
>> might believe that the effects of large numbers of guns on either side
>> are in effect canceling each other out. So, what's the difference? The
>> gun companies are getting richer.
> 
> Yes, I think this case pretty much makes a point.
> 
> If the mere /presence/ of guns - especially the presence of /big/ guns
> (which I guess the rifle industry doesn't get tired to emphasize) -
> would be any help in stopping a gun-wielding blown-fuse berserker's amok
> run, then that guy should have been downed in seconds flat.

Have any of you guys been in the military? It seems to be a common
misconception that a military base is awash in guns. In my albeit limited
experience of the old SADF, this was NOT the case, and neither does it seem
to be the case with the US Army at Fort Hood. Besides gate guards (in a
civilian setting, compare to an armed policeman on patrol) and sentries,
MOST people on a military base in "peacetime" are -not- armed. In a well
disciplined force, weapons are held in a central storage location. If
troops on base DO have LOADED weapons (UNLOADED ones are much more common -
for training and drill) they are usually on the way to an operation, or
coming back in. Properly trained soldiers will also NEVER just fire back,
if fired upon - it depends on what orders they have been given. Granted, a
soldier that has got no orders might just take cover, instead of
automatically returning fire. I vividly remember how it was hammered into
our skulls, over and over until I could VOMIT with it, that you NEVER fire
without clear orders, a clear target, and when you know what is BEHIND your
target. The sequence was always "wait for my command" - especially if you
had loaded weapons and a properly trained officer.

A civilian might have been of more use, not subject to military discipline
or trained to wait for orders - he'd have had to use his own judgement,
which is often VERY badly regarded in most armies. You do what you are
told. If you are not told to do something, you don't do it.

> Which is probably just why that guy had time to kill 13 people before
> anyone came to wits, identified him as an aggressor, and managed to take
> him out.

Or they had to wait until they could get hold of somebody with a LOADED
weapon, ready to fire. And then that person too, if properly trained, would
have first made an assessment and not just blindly started firing back,
which can cause just as much harm.

Incidentally, this has happened twice here in SA where a subordinate shot
his commanding officer, on a military base, mostly over racial tensions. In
one situation the murderer wasn't shot, for the same reason the American
officer wasn't shot - nobody had a loaded weapon at hand. In the other
occasion, a gate guard (if I remember right) shot the perpetrator.
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message