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.
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 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.
Yes, military police guard entrances, but like civilian police, they can’t be everywhere. Military bases function like cities, and MPs face the same limitations as police responding to off-base mass shootings.
Consider the attacks at the Navy Yard, both Fort Hood shootings, and the Chattanooga recruiting station. In each case, unarmed JAG officers, Marines, and soldiers had no choice but to hide while the attacker fired shot after shot.
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.
Time after time, murderers exploit regulations that guarantee they’ll face no armed resistance. Diaries and manifestos of mass public shooters show a chilling trend: They deliberately choose gun-free zones, knowing their victims can’t fight back. While we don’t yet know if the Fort Stewart shooter made that same calculation, his actions fit a pattern seen in dozens of other cases. It’s no coincidence that 94 percent of mass public shootings happen in places where guns are banned.
Ironically, soldiers with a concealed handgun permit can carry a concealed handgun whenever they are off base so that they can protect themselves and others. But on the base, they and their fellow soldiers are defenseless.
These are soldiers trained to handle firearms. We trust them with weapons in combat, yet we deny them that same trust on their own bases.
In 1992, the George H.W. Bush administration started reshaping the military into a more “professional, business-like environment.” That shift led to tighter restrictions on firearms. In 1993, President Clinton rewrote and implemented those restrictions, effectively banning soldiers from carrying personal firearms on base.
After the 2015 Chattanooga recruiting station attack, the military slightly loosened the rules. Commanders gained the authority to approve individual service members to carry privately owned firearms. But in practice, commanders rarely grant that permission.
Importantly, U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan were required to keep their weapons on them at all times — even on base. These soldiers needed to protect themselves against threats, and there are no known cases of them turning those weapons on each other. The policy worked.
So why do we make it easy for killers to target our own troops at home? Why do we force soldiers, like those at Fort Stewart, to tackle armed attackers with bare hands?
Let’s stop pretending that gun-free zones protect anyone. They only protect killers.
This article originally appeared on The Federalist. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News. It is republished with permission.
READ NEXT: Trump Secures Peace Deal, US Investment, Delivers Blow To Putin
Sponsored
I have said it before for years and saying it again. Gun free zones don’t work. The only people that pay attention to them are law abiding gun owners. They give a parents and the public a false sense of security. People with mental health issues, disgruntled employees, angry students and criminals don’t pay attention to a posted sign or consequences.
Gun Free Zones delete or apply to Blue states
Since the invention of the gun, there has never been an actual gun free zone. There are only defense free zones.
I’ve often wondered and ASKED, who thought up the DUMB idea of DISARMING SEARVICE PERSONNEL in MILITARY Bases?
Interesting article. I was a Dept of Army civilian and lived on Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood) for several years before retiring in 2019. Even though we had a skeet shooting facility on Post, we weren’t allowed to have firearms. Not a big problem but during my tenure there the FBI arrested an individual who was affiliated with ISIS at his residence which was very close to a portion of the fence that could’ve been negotiated without notice. I would’ve felt more secure if I could’ve had a firearm since I lived very close to where the ISIS collaborated did–on the other side of the fence.
In addition, the post had contracts with civilian businesses to perform routine landscaping an occasional small construction jobs such as roofing. The worker typically spoke Spanish. On one occasion about 3 or 4 Hispanic workers were doing landscaping and retired to their box truck to wait for their supervisor. There didn’t appear to be anyone from the company to monitor them. That post usually has good gate security but it appeared there was an arrangement for this company’s worker to freely roam the Post. Since I lived on the street they had parked I felt vulnerable by the apparent lack of supervision.
FBI apprehension: https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/maryland-man-sentenced-in-terrorism-planning-and-financing-conspiracy-071718