Kilkrazy wrote:
whembly wrote:
Yeah, because we know the shooter didn't stop until he was approached by armed
MPs.
Shooter probably rationalized that since the bases are "guns-free zones", he'd have free reign.
If personnels were allowed to carry, the shooter would probably NOT go on this rampage... or, at the very least, be approached by armed opposition MUCH quicker. Thus, mitigating more casualties.
Introducing guns to military bases would probably reduce the already low rate of mass shootings, and, as an unfortunate side effect, might greatly increase the overall rate of deaths from the other causes.
In the rest of the USA the gun related death rate is much higher because of accidents, suicides, murders and other killings.
Hopefully the accident rate would be low on military bases, due to people being properly trained.
Are we going to gloss over this inescapable fact?
If we give everyone a gun, then yes, we are in all likelihood safer from the statistically infinitesimal chance of being shot to death in a mass shooting,
BUT,
we are at much greater risk from the overwhelming causes of gun death; suicide and accidents.
While events like
Ft Hood are lamentable and shocking, rushing to arm everyone to protect themselves from "the bad guy with a gun" will only result in MORE death.
It's like removing seatbelts from cars because sometimes they drown users if the car goes into the water.