Any guesses on what stopped him from killing even more people? C'mon, I'm sure you can figure it out

Since we are talking facts, the coward attacked in an area where there were unarmed servicemen, so your post is full of BS!:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

"President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Paul Helmke, said that "This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places."[118] However, Lt. General Cone stated: "As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons on Fort Hood. This is our home."[119] Military weapons are only used for training or by base security, and personal weapons must be kept locked away by the provost marshal.[120] Specialist Jerry Richard, a soldier working at the Readiness Center, expressed the opinion that this policy had left them unnecessarily vulnerable to violent assaults: "Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can't even defend yourself."

The servicemen he initially killed had no weapons and attempted to stop him by attacking him, throwing tables and chairs. Had they been armed at the time, the coward would have been stopped much sooner assuming he would have tried anything around armed servicemen.

_________________
That's weak sauce!

On Army bases, all weapons (or weapon bolts in the case of weapons like the M242 Bushmaster for a BFV) are locked away in the units armory.

This guy didn't attack a building where weapons are locked away. He attacked the building where troops go to process for deployments (shots, records checks, going over wills, etc...) . I would suggest before you use a specific shooting to spout off about gun control, you understand all the details of said shooting.

_________________
Member formally known as AC59

As I recall, you can't even have a gun in your own home on Army housing. During my career, in the times I lived on Army, Air Force, and Navy bases, I remember being told during in-processing that those who had weapons must check them into the armory or keep them off base. Whether it seems a oxymoron or not, a military base is typically one of the more gun-free zones around.

Military members, except for military police, also do not carry firearms on base. Even while serving as Master-at-Arms, we did not carry firearms. Our most lethal tools were pepper spray, an asp, and handcuffs. And you can find a number of bases where even the MPs carried unloaded weapons.

Also, the amount of training at the firing range is vastly overrated for military members. A large number of the folks I've been stationed with never fired a gun outside of a day during boot camp. In fact, someone with more recent knowledge can correct me, but I believe the Navy even stopped the day of shooting at the range in boot camp too. During my career, I was active with the Auxilliary Security Force at my first duty station. (Auxiliary Security Force (ASF) personnel are active duty service members that augment base security personnel during contingencies, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, civil disturbances, exercises and special events that require heightened levels of security.) I was Master-at-Arms at another. (Master-at-Arms personnel are security specialists who perform antiterrorism, force protection, physical security, and law enforcement duties on land and at sea.) I was also in another unit that regularly deployed to the sandbox, yearly requiring firearms training.

That said, the only time I ever carried a weapon was inside a war zone, and although I have received some pretty cool training, I've shot far more rounds downrange, and had far more experience shooting in the civilian world. Other than a dozen times at the range, usually yearly, the range was a place I was always trying to get them to send me to, usually without success. No money for that sort of thing, you know.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

Alright, all you "OMG ARE YOU NUTS, YOU WANT TEACHERS TO CARRY FIREARMS?!" people; put this in your pipe and smoke it. The last couple of days, there has been a post going around the internet with a list of incidents where private citizens/off-duty cops/etc. prevented shootings from being worse than they otherwise would have been at schools, malls, etc. There were no sources on those stories, though; so I dug them up. I'd say there is DEFINITELY a case to be made that we should arm teachers that are comfortable with it, and have appropriate training.

A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Mid ... e_shooting

A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
Can't find a source for this one. Probably because it wasn't big news since it was prevented, and most news sources wouldn't be in English?

A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia ... w_shooting

A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting

A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
Can't find. Probably under-reported due to no deaths? Possibly a bogus one, who knows.

A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/the-a ... the-media/

At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.
http://www.infowars.com/report-armed-ma ... -shooting/

There are probably a LOT more incidents like this that virtually no one has ever heard about if nobody was killed, but for obvious reasons, that's a difficult thing to verify.

I'd have to agree, somewhat. During my 6 years in the Navy, I had very few opportunities to fire live rounds downrange. But I had quite a bit more experience and training in the Army Reserves, and I had lots of training and range time in the Marines.

_________________

If you're in an a regular army infantry or cavalry unit you're going to spend a fair amount of time out on a firing range.

While in the Cav, I went to range:
At least twice a year to qualify on my assigned weapon.
Once a year for bradley gunnery.
Once a year for range training on a squad automatic weapon.

And then there were the odd ones like firing the AT-4 anti tank weapon, MK 19 Grenade launcher (lots of fun btw).

There was also plenty of time training on these weapons where we never fired them. And in the context of this thread, weapons safety was always discussed when they were checked out for any type of the above training.

_________________
Member formally known as AC59

In another thread on this very page, people are saying how we can't afford to run our schools the way Finland does.

We cant' afford better teachers, but we can afford to arm the ones we do have?

_________________
If you're walking on thin ice, you might as well dance.................................................Mom