Disgusting op-ed in DMN

[baldeagle]

The Dallas Morning News published an op-ed in today's Points section entitled "The Gun That Hasan Used" by Lee Hancock, a staff writer. I wrote this letter to the editor in response. I'm certain it will not be published verbatim so I'm publishing it here as well.

This op-ed is the most disgusting, biased opinion piece about guns that I have ever read. It has no relation to reality and is based purely on emotion. It should never have passed the editor's desk.

For example, the author makes the point that Hasan killed almost as many people in ten minutes as Charles Whitman did in 90 minutes. If ever there was a case of comparing apples to oranges, this is it. Whitman was firing from hundreds of feet away at moving targets separated by distance and obscured at times by buildings, trees and other objects of cover. Hasan was inside a room packed with people where every bullet was almost certain to hit someone and there was very little cover.

Comparing the two events would be similar to comparing accident statistics at a car race to the same statistics on the freeways. Hasan's hit rate of 68 shots for two people (when he was outside) are representative of an individual who is very inexperienced with firearms, making his hit rate inside the building even more obviously distorted by the crowded conditions and lack of cover. Furthermore, when you fire at armed adversaries out in the open, your accuracy goes down due to adrenalin and fear. None of those conditions existed inside the building.

Her assertion that the FN57 is the most accurate handgun in the world is quickly disputed by simply googling "most accurate handgun in the world". It's a purely subjective claim based upon marketing fluff. The "best" guns and the "best" calibers are hotly disputed subjects in the gun community and no manufacturer has earned the crown of "best" or "most accurate". Every gun and every caliber has its fans.

She closes the article by claiming that we "let it" (happen), a clear reference to her desire for gun control. Hasan, and Hasan alone bears full responsibility for his actions. There are leaders in the US Army who are culpable (and should be punished), because they allowed political correctness to influence their personnel decisions. The US military is also culpable for its insane policy of disarming trained military personnel on base.

More to the point, however, disarming law abiding citizens in a vain attempt to stop a tragedy from happening induces much greater tragedies. If even one person inside the building had been armed, Hasan's slaughter could have been stopped much sooner. If they had all been armed, it's likely Hasan wouldn't even have bothered trying. By disarming all military personnel, the Army turned its highly trained soldiers into helpless victims.

Finally, gun control has precious little to do with stopping tragedies and a great deal more to do with enabling tyrannies. Tyranny cannot exist so long as the people are armed. Our founding fathers knew that. It's past time that Americans renewed their interest and knowledge in the founding of our nation and understood the principles upon which this nation was founded.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

[2farnorth]

Very well said. I haven't been willing to pay for a DMN for many years. Their political leanings and endorsements have put me off.

[WildBill]

Baldeagle - Most people, even when they disagree with an opinion, don't take make the effort to respond. You stated your case well. I hope that they print it in full.

[bigmoney]

[E.Marquez]

The US military is also culpable for its insane policy of disarming trained military personnel on base.

You do know, the Military had nothing to do with your point? Yes??

That was your president of the United States that did that. He signed the federal prohibition keeping us from carrying legally owned licensed weapons on federal property. Not the Military. Thank President Clinton for that action.

And trust me, I agree we, the military screwed up enough on the hassan deal as it is, dont need any extra cow poo thrown our way for stuff we didnnt do.

[tacticool]

Commander in Chief

Shame on Clinton. Double shame on Bush for not repealing it.

[E.Marquez]

Commander in Chief

Shame on Clinton. Double shame on Bush for not repealing it.

You do know there is another president involved in this no repealing part,, yes? One say in current position after a mass causality murderess assault at a military post that likely could have been less mass causality producing if this policy did not exist or had been repealed.. To the very least after the event.. like say, right after, or next month, or June of 2011, yes, June would be good,, I'd consider it a B-day present from the Commander In Chief. . .

[RiverCity.45]

Bear n mind that "op-ed" stands for opinion-editorial...neither of which are intended to be fact-based reporting. Opinions are like...well, you get the idea. Everyone has one and no one thiers stinks.

[tacticool]

It's interesting that some people think the tool used is more important than his religious or other motivations.

This is not a truck forum, but I think most people here are logical enough not to focus on the make and model of the vehicle used for the UNC terrorist attack.

[baldeagle]

The US military is also culpable for its insane policy of disarming trained military personnel on base.

You do know, the Military had nothing to do with your point? Yes??

That was your president of the United States that did that. He signed the federal prohibition keeping us from carrying legally owned licensed weapons on federal property. Not the Military. Thank President Clinton for that action.

And trust me, I agree we, the military screwed up enough on the hassan deal as it is, dont need any extra cow poo thrown our way for stuff we didnnt do.

I was not aware of that. Thanks for correcting my error.

I have since learned (by googling) that the 5.7x28 round used in the FN 57 pistol is a relatively weak round (low weight, low muzzle energy, high velocity round) that would not stand up to the .357 Sig rounds that my carry weapon fires. The hype from liberals on this gun is incredible, and they have even gotten some police chiefs to weigh in by calling it a "cop killer" (which is ridiculous.)

[jimlongley]

My reply:

You hit the nail right on the head, unfortunately it was one sentence buried way toward the end of the article: "Due to Army rules, he had every reason to believe no one else would be armed." In other words, he was alone in a target rich environment, a shooting gallery sponsored by the US Army.

There is a reason why the great preponderance of these mass killings take place in locations where the victims are not likely to be armed, in other places the victims have a tendency to shoot back, and we know, from empirical evidence ( Jeanne Assam for one) that when the victims get to shoot back, the shootings end quickly. The Luby's massacre had the effect of galvanizing one person to become a prime mover in the campaign for concealed carry in Texas, Suzanna Gratia Hupp, and its lessons should not be ignored.

Despite the supposed ease of operation and low recoil, and having shot one many times I find the 5.7 not much easier to handle than my old fashioned .45, Hassan could have carried out his mini-jihad with just about any firearm, all he had to do is avoid being stopped while reloading, which could as easily be accomplished by simply using more than one gun, as we have seen others do in the past.

As an officer, Hassam was required to regularly qualify with the service handgun, so he could not have been as unknowing as portrayed, and he evidently did a great deal of research prior to carrying out his little Pyrrhic sneak attack. One has to wonder just who else was involved, advising him, or was he just a lone mole? Either way, he was determined to do this heinous act, and that made him virtually impossible to stop.

Brevity begs that other errors and misstatements in the article be left as is (the 5.7 uses magazines not "clips" and the difference is vast.) but here we have an excellent example of a situation that could never have been stopped by even outright bans on full capacity magazines or "easy to fire" handguns. Hassan was in a position that would have allowed him to buy a firearm even under the most draconian of US gun laws that ever existed, including the "High Capacity Magazine" ban that expired some years ago, which, BTW, did not result in the massive uptick in such shootings that the Brady bunch predicted. As a military officer, Hassan would have been exempt from the restrictions imposed on civilians. Hassan was a determined assassin and his rampage was only cut short by superior firepower.

Hassan's lasers, which such a big deal was made about, appear not to have profited him much, just taking it down to hit ratios as you did, I know many shooters who score much better on paper targets without lasers, and when he moved outside, where the ranges were longer, he started missing much more.

It didn't matter which gun Hassan used, he would have killed many, and he deserves to be stood in front of a firing squad.

Jim Longley

[E.Marquez]

My reply:

You hit the nail right on the head, unfortunately it was one sentence buried way toward the end of the article: "Due to Army rules, he had every reason to believe no one else would be armed." In other words, he was alone in a target rich environment, a shooting gallery sponsored by the US Army.

again, no sir i respectfully disagree.. again, still, this is not an ARMY policy, but a presidential one.

As an officer, Hassam was required to regularly qualify with the service handgun,

No sir, as an officer in general he would have been required to qualify at most annually, no more, and that is with a basic rifle OR M9 not specifically a M9 only. I have many officers in our DIV HQ that are issued only an M16 or M4.

Secondarily as a Doc, he would not in general been required to do even that unless deploying. Im aware of what the regs say, annual, regardless of rank, enlistments, officer or duty position. I also know from 25 years of contiguous service reality is, most DOC's, and many officers in general of flag rank and higher, do not bother qualifying annually.

As a military officer, Hassan would have been exempt from the restrictions imposed on civilians.

No sir, Military members in no way have ever been given an exception from any state or federal law when it comes to weapons control, restriction.
So unless your talking about military weapons available from an Arms room (something that is very controlled and would not have gotten him a weapon to use in this manner) than your mistaken

It didn't matter which gun Hassan used, he would have killed many, and he deserves to be stood in front of a firing squad.

Jim Longley

Absolutely agree.

To Jim Longley and others who read this reply, nothing I said above is meant as a flame, just trying to keep misconceptions or other mistaken opinion from clouding the issue. In this very thread we have cast stones on a publication which made mistakes in there "facts" I figured we should strive for the same error free reply's as possible.

[speedsix]

The US military is also culpable for its insane policy of disarming trained military personnel on base.

You do know, the Military had nothing to do with your point? Yes??

That was your president of the United States that did that. He signed the federal prohibition keeping us from carrying legally owned licensed weapons on federal property. Not the Military. Thank President Clinton for that action.

And trust me, I agree we, the military screwed up enough on the hassan deal as it is, dont need any extra cow poo thrown our way for stuff we didnnt do.

..."the Military" knew how screwed up he was and had enough to put him in a safe place where he couldn't hurt anyone...and they looked the other way...you line soldiers are the best in the world...a lot of the brass stink...and being politically correct and ignoring all the signs that screamed "Terrorist" cost a lot of folks their lives...the military had EVERYTHING to do with that happening...


...the idea that soldiers should be disarmed while in garrison sucks, too...we've become WAAAAAAAY to civilized when we render helpless those whose whole purpose in life is to protect us...no matter WHO let it happen...in a room with that many soldiers, SOME of them should have been armed...

...p.s.---I was told way back when that when the Clintons visited a base, all the firing pins were removed from all unsecured weapons(used in parades, etc.)...of course I never could verify that...seems they were worried about something other presidents had no reason to fear....

[E.Marquez]

The US military is also culpable for its insane policy of disarming trained military personnel on base.

You do know, the Military had nothing to do with your point? Yes??

That was your president of the United States that did that. He signed the federal prohibition keeping us from carrying legally owned licensed weapons on federal property. Not the Military. Thank President Clinton for that action.

And trust me, I agree we, the military screwed up enough on the hassan deal as it is, dont need any extra cow poo thrown our way for stuff we didnnt do.

..."the Military" knew how screwed up he was and had enough to put him in a safe place where he couldn't hurt anyone...and they looked the other way...you line soldiers are the best in the world...a lot of the brass stink...and being politically correct and ignoring all the signs that screamed "Terrorist" cost a lot of folks their lives...the military had EVERYTHING to do with that happening...

...the idea that soldiers should be disarmed while in garrison sucks, too...we've become WAAAAAAAY to civilized when we render helpless those whose whole purpose in life is to protect us...no matter WHO let it happen...in a room with that many soldiers, SOME of them should have been armed...

Thank you for the vote of confidence, but please understand nothing I wrote is disagreeing with what you just posted.
I tried (failed?) to separate the general statement of culpability and address the specifics of who disarmed Military members on a Military post (federal property, post office, post, ect)
My point was and is, the US Military leadership did not make that decision. Then President Clinton did, follow on presidents kept the status and have not seen fit to rescind nor adjust that policy.

[speedsix]

...the bottom line is those who should be first...again came in last...it's shameful and disgraceful that they were shot like guppies in a Gatoraid with no defense...by a man who should have been under lock and key...or already drummed out of the military...and as to the Commander-in-Chief...y'all deserve MUCH better than y'all have had...for quite some time...I'd say since the early 80s...

http://markknapp.multiply.com/journal/item/384" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;