On Wednesday, it happened again. Another attempted mass shooting on a United States military installation, this time at Ft. Stewart, Georgia. Fortunately, the shooter was swiftly neutralized, and while five people were injured, as of this writing, there are no reported fatalities. The shooter, a U.S. Army sergeant, is in custody.
There's a degree of serendipity here that we shouldn't always reckon on being the case. This whole thing could have been much, much worse. We have seen similar incidents that were much worse. And a part of the reason why some of these incidents are so much worse is this: Our military installations, manned by people who are in the profession of arms, are, inexplicably, "gun-free zones."
How's that working out? We trust our service members with a wide variety of lethal weapons systems. We trust them with millions of dollars worth of equipment. We administer to them an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, we rely on them to protect the liberty and property of American citizens, but we apparently can't trust them with a sidearm. Or, that's what the Pentagon's policy indicates.
Last April, I made a proposal directly to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth:
All officers and all enlisted personnel above the rank of E-5 (I’d be willing to consider raising that to E-7 if necessary to get this done) should be each issued a personal sidearm, should be required to train with that sidearm, to qualify with it at least annually, and to carry it loaded at all times while in uniform and on duty on base. The sidearm should be part of the uniform. When off-duty and in civilian attire, I’m not sure if I’d require carry of the sidearm, although I’d certainly allow it, and further, I’d consider serving active military to be by default concealed-carry permit holders just as serving law enforcement officers are, and therefore able to legally carry a personal sidearm concealed anywhere they go. Anywhere they go, subject to command discretion.
Believe it or not, I was describing this proposal to a friend, who raised an objection: "So, if there's a shooting, with your proposal, it would then involve two people with guns, shooting at each other. Is that better?" Note that this would apply not only to military bases, but anywhere where an armed citizen may encounter an armed goblin with mayhem on his mind. The reply to this is self-evident: "Yes. It's better to have an armed citizen respond, rather than to have people helpless in the face of an armed assailant."
That would have applied to the Ft. Stewart shooting - or to any of the other shootings on military bases in recent years.
Ramping up base security would help as well, and last April, I covered that as well:
Further, gate guards at closed installations should be armed. Back in 1996 when I was reactivated for the Balkans fracas, I worked in a Top Secret facility in Heidelberg, Germany; that facility was guarded by three layers of MPs, the first with a holstered sidearm, the second with a loaded M-16, the third at the end of a long approach hallway with a loaded riot shotgun. Gate guards at secure installations should be no less well-armed, and roving patrols of MPs likewise.
We trusted those MPs to guard a top-secret military installation, in fact part of the headquarters complex for the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Army, Europe. These were E-5 and E-6 soldiers, junior NCOs, and we trusted them to handle and, if necessary, employ loaded firearms in defense of that headquarters - but we wouldn't have trusted them to carry a sidearm when otherwise engaged, or to store a personal firearm in their base housing.
That's well to the left of ridiculous.
Read More: Breaking: Lockdown at Fort Stewart, GA - Report of Active Shooter (Updated)
Update: Fort Stewart Gunman Identified, Other Background Details Released
Under current policies, our military bases are soft targets. That's incomprehensively stupid, but it's true. The results?
- November 5th, 2009, Ft. Hood, Texas: 13 dead, 30+ wounded.
- December 6th, 2019, Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida: 3 dead, several wounded.
- December 4th, 2019, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: 2 dead, 1 wounded.
- June 1, 2020, Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota: 2 dead.
All of these could have been prevented, or at least brought under control more quickly, had there been armed service members at hand.
We trust these people with the safety and security of the republic. We recruit them, we train them in the use of arms, we deploy them to defend our national interests, our citizenry, our liberty and property, and yet the Pentagon's attitude is, apparently, that we shouldn't trust them with sidearms. That's not only a dumb policy; it's insulting to the dedication and honor of our service men and women.
In any event, such as what just happened at Ft Stewart, the best response is an immediate and armed response. Any service member faced with an armed attacker should be trained and equipped to respond accordingly: To close with and destroy the enemy by fire, maneuver, and shock effect.
Our service members are in the profession of arms. So, let's arm them.
