Ft. Hood: "wishing he too had a gun"

So in Virginia, a civilian with little if any training and armed only with one decent gun, managed to kill 32 people in a "gun free zone" or victim disarmament zone. Whereas a trained military man well armed with two good guns, only managed to kill 13, because even though most people on the base were disarmed by gun control policies, some did have a gun at hand to stop the shooting. Imagine how short the shooting spree would have been if the soldiers had been allowed to protect themselves. More innocent people dead because of gun control.

Also, it's absurd to call this a terrorist attack. He was attacking his enemy's military forces. He was a turncoat or maybe an infiltrator or spy, or maybe just plain murderer is the right term, but not a terrorist. A terrorist is by definition someone who targets civilians. We shouldn't call our enemies terrorist if they're not terrorists because by doing so we would be effectively designating ourselves as terrorists.

Helmke is full of crap as usual. Military bases are practically gun free zones, as far as being individually armed all the time goes. In fact, as usual, the very first armed person the active shooter ran into stopped the fight.

Is there ANYTHING the Brady gang can get right?

Who could have imagined that Ft. Hood, one of the largest military bases in the world, is also one of those moronic "gun free zones." How many more times will the U.S. invite attack by official policy which creates soft targets? First 9-11, now Ft. Hood. As Obama readily tries to dismantle U.S. ballistic missile defenses all in exchange for empty hope about Russian behavior, I think we can all see what's coming.

My own thoughts about the attack comport with critic. Since the attack was against uniformed military people, on base and on duty, it doesn't fall into the category of terrorism. I do believe the assassin is a willing traitor though, motivated by his allegiance to Islam.

Critic and Brad, you are totally wrong about what is terrorism. It isn't the nature of the victim that is determinative, it is the nature and intent of the perpetrator. The available evidence indicates that this shooter was acting in support of Islamic terrorism and doing his best to carry out an act of Islamic terrorism.

Flash Gordon,
Can you link to some evidence that this guy acted in support of Islamic terrorism, and not just in support of the causes of Muslims in general? By definition, the nature of the target is determinative as to the question of whether something is terrorist. In other words, someone once asked: What shall we call people who target civilians for political effect? The word terrorist was chosen to label such people. Some, perhaps even most Muslims are terrorists or support terrorists, but undoubtedly at least some Muslims restrict their support to targeting military. Then their religious campaign against freedom and truth would still be evil, but at least they would not be terrorist.

Traitor? yes. Assassin? yes. War criminal? yes. Murderer? yes.

But terrorist? No.

He's guilty of enough things without going overboard on legitimate accusations. However should he confess alliance with Al Qeda or other terrorist group I'm perfectly happy to add terrorism to the list.

Good article regarding this on Volokh: http://volokh.com/2009/11/09/the-psychology-of-a-terrorist/

"Whereas a trained military man well armed with two good guns, only managed to kill 13, because even though most people on the base were disarmed by gun control policies, some did have a gun at hand to stop the shooting. "

Small difference of opinion. The difference is not training. As retired military in the medical field, I can tell you the amount of firearms training a psychiatrist receives is minimal.
The difference is the caliber and the type of ammo (and maybe some shot placement).
The propaganda is really pissing me off. Some in the media are calling it the "cop killer" pistol. This is pure bull crap straight from the Brady and VPC bunch! I own one of these pistols and know first hand what it can and can not do. The ammo that can pierce bullet resistant vests is NOT available to the public. It is only available to police and under DoD contract. Otherwise, it is equivalent in power to a .22 magnum. The maybe-terrorist at Ft Hood did not have access to this type of ammo.

I tried using this pistol at a match in Holbrook. While it is an extremely accurate pistol, it turned out to be completely unsuitable for that purpose because the bullets did not have enough energy to knock over the steel plates that were a part of the competition. On the other hand, it is an excellent home defense weapon because it won't over-penetrate like a 9mm, .38 super, or .40 S&W. Incidently some of these pistols can have as large or nearly as large a capacity as the FN.

By the way, allowing concealed carry by CCW permit holders on Post/Base, currently a gun-free (or victim disarmament) zone, like they do in 40 "shall issue" States might have substantually reduced the number of killed and wounded. Does anybody remember the bombing of the barracks in Lebanon when Reagan was President? The soldiers on guard couldn't stop the bomber because they were not allowed ammunition for their weapons. Sound familiar?

Here's an excellent article about the FN 5-7 discussed in Pajamas Media. Note that it pretty much supports my earlier comment.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/thank-goodness-for-cop-killer-weapons/

"...remember the bombing of the barracks in Lebanon when Reagan was President? The soldiers on guard couldn't stop the bomber because they were not allowed ammunition for their weapons. Sound familiar?"

Yes, that does sound familiar. A friend of mine who served in Vietnam (US Army) told me that when he was on guard duty he was not allowed to have a loaded magazine in his M-16.

This was 40 years ago.

Sorry Critic but the definition of domestic terrorism from 18 USC 113B is:

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

So the question is intent not target. Whether he had ties or sympathies to foreign islamic terrorist groups is academic to his being a terrorist but critical to his being a traitor.

However, given his chosen target, one has to question whether his intent did not rise to terrorism. We must remember he didn't attack his workplace, the hospital, he attacked soldiers processing for deployment possibly with the intent of affecting the conduct of the government/military.

When I tell people that very ew people on an Army base are ever armed, I always get a suprised response. I then explain that military bases have more gun control than New Jersey.

JKB wrote:

Sorry Critic but the definition of domestic terrorism from 18 USC 113B is:
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

When politicians define a term for political reasons it often bears little relationship to the true meaning of the term. The twisted definitions of the term "bear arms", as it was frequently misinterpreted by the courts, is a good example.

"Since the attack was against uniformed military people, on base and on duty, it doesn't fall into the category of terrorism."

So when the IRA attacks/bombs British military bases & soldiers, that's NOT terrorism?

"Also, it's absurd to call this a terrorist attack. He was attacking his enemy's military forces. He was a turncoat or maybe an infiltrator or spy, or maybe just plain murderer is the right term, but not a terrorist. A terrorist is by definition someone who targets civilians. We shouldn't call our enemies terrorist if they're not terrorists because by doing so we would be effectively designating ourselves as terrorists."

Never heard of STATE TERRORISM before?

"Terrorism is the war of the Poor;
War is the Terrorism of the Rich"
--Sir Peter Ustinov

So when the IRA attacks/bombs British military bases & soldiers, that's NOT terrorism?

"Terrorism is the war of the Poor;
War is the Terrorism of the Rich"
--Sir Peter Ustinov