John Farnam comments on Ft. Hood

General General Discussion
1

I don’t always agree with JF, but I knew he’d be all over this:

6 Nov 09

Profession of Arms?

Learned helplessness in the military.

Had Wednesday’s serial murders at Ft Hood taken place just outside the Base
in the City of Killeen, TX, the murder suspect would likely have been
gunned-down immediately by several Texas CHL holders.

Tragically, the murders took place in a “gun-free zone” (aka “criminal
empowerment zone”), because in America, among those claiming to be active
members of the “Profession of Arms,” no one is armed!

Reaction from the idiot Press were predictable:

They sought out anyone who would comment on the subject of personal weapons
on base. One representative fell into their trap and tried to defend Base
rules that require “… anyone on Base with a weapon must have it
out-of-reach and unloaded.” However, as we all know, any gun that is “perfectly
safe” is “perfectly useless,” and its owner is “perfectly helpless.”

Base commanders apparently believe everyone should be disarmed and always
ready to be victimized, rather than (Heaven forbid!) armed, trained, and
prepared.

Interesting philosophy, and it obviously “worked” perfectly! Curious
that the murder suspect himself apparently didn’t pay much attention to that
particular rule. Imagine that!

The fact is that the best, and only really effective, deterrent to criminal
violence is good and decent people who are constantly armed and prepared.
That practice has significantly discouraged all criminal activity every
time it has been tried.

It works. Nothing else does!

Years ago, in all branches of the US Military, officers and staff NCOs were
always armed with a pistol, on base, off base, in uniform, or not. Being
ever “armed and ready” was considered a point of honor! To be unarmed was
to be incapable of performing one’s duty. Such a thing would be
dishonorable. Back then, we didn’t have mass murders on military bases!

Under today’s “enlightened” policy, even star-wearers are unarmed and
helpless, foolishly relying upon some ill-defined “reactionary force” to
protect them, a force that will predictably arrive long after the damage has
been done. Who own personal weapons, have local CCW permits, and acquire
training outside the “System,” are now classified as “gun-enthusiasts” and
are thus highly suspect from that point forward, lumped in with lepers and
child-molesters.

So long as professing practitioners of the “Profession of Arms” are
pathologically frightened of guns and suspect of each other, we can look forward
to more such mass murders of the defenseless. And, I promise you, all will
take place in “gun-free zones.”

As always, the real villain here is arrogance, the kind of personal vanity
the ever precludes us from sincerely admitting we’re wrong and that we need
to change directions.

Learned helplessness? Not a formula for victory!

/John

2

My thoughts and prayers have been with those killed and wounded and their families. I can not understand how someone turns and does this to his friends, co-workers, and the very patients he was supposed to be “helping”.

That being said, I guess it was certainly a good thing it wasn’t a well planned coordinated attack by multiple gunman with more powerful weapons. Even though I found the number of casualties suprisingly high given a sole shooter with a pistol, I feel it most definately could have been much worse.

I did find it interesting that the shooter was stopped by a CIVILIAN LEO. My former dept used to do some force on force training on Fort Jackson, and it always struck me funny that once passed the gate, we were about the only ones I ever saw armed on a military base of thousands.

-RD62

3

Yesterday at 3:42 I posted this in the locked Ft. Hood thread:

For those of us that CCW, and I realize the soldiers didn’t have that option legally, we can learn some things.

  1. Gun-free zones aren’t
  2. Always carry
  3. Practice and maintain proficiency with your weapon

I have trained with John, and I read his blog page regularly. He puts a great deal of common sense in his tactical thinking.

M_P

4

“Years ago” could use some context I think. My knowledge only goes back the last 25 years, but CCW and ALL carried ON AND OFF DUTY is bunk. My retired Marine Col bud would say the same back through the 70’s. Of course we used to settle points of honor arguments with duels and flog our soldiers. Maybe we should bring those things back to.

I carried CCW on and off duty for most of 15 years before I retired, at my own risk on duty, but my COC sure didn’t know, and that was in a Infantry BN. Also this is a Army policy not a post policy. Finaly, there are/were not enough issue pistols to make this a true statement.

I support the ideals, but making leading or false statements to support your point nullifies what you have to say in my book.

5

As someone who spent over twenty years as a US Army officer and five years as a defense contractor (15 of those 25 years at Ft Hood), I can say that I certainly would have felt more secure being able to carry a concealed weapon on post.

A couple of minor points:

  1. Mr. Farnam is quoted as saying,

“Years ago, in all branches of the US Military, officers and staff NCOs were
always armed with a pistol, on base, off base, in uniform, or not. Being
ever “armed and ready” was considered a point of honor! To be unarmed was
to be incapable of performing one’s duty. Such a thing would be
dishonorable. Back then, we didn’t have mass murders on military bases!”

My direct experience was from 1981 to 2006, and I can tell you with certainty that Mr. Farnam’s statement would not have been true during that time period. I believe that as recently as the 1970s, Army officers and NCOs performing certain specific duties (staff duty officer, staff duty NCO, etc) for limited periods of time did carry sidearms. I’ve even heard colorful anecdotes about why this practice was discontinued. Perhaps Mr. Farnam is referring to that earlier period of time.

  1. Mr. Farnam refers to Ft Hood as a “base”. Ft Hood is a post, not a base. In the Army a base is a circular piece of steel into which a mortar tube fits. I find it hard to believe that anyone with any significant knowledge of the United States Army could have made such an error, especially several times in the same paragraph.
6

Minus the ultra lame and way over the top comparison of society thinking of gun owners as similar to child molesters, which was beyond stupid, and makes the author sound equally stupid (making him hard to take seriously) this was a good article.

I was completely un-aware of the fact that our military bases had also fell victim to the current idiot trend in the United States. If four days ago you would have asked me if I thought anything like this could ever happen at a military base, I would have said no, as I assumed that there was no such thing as a gun free zone on military bases, and that at least MP’s were always armed.

Talk about insanity!

If anyone wants to join our movement feel free. It’s the movement to resist at all costs, and refuse to adapt to the dumbing down of America!

7

Something clearly needs to change. In the past many Army posts have managed to have decent hunting programs with good safety track records . This might ( maybe ) be the the wake-up that starts the right people moving in the right direction.
CCW rules in the various branches and locations might never look like Vermont , or Arizona , or Maine – but the Virginia Tech and Chicago model just cost a lot KIA and WIA. There’s got to be a better way.

8

Without a doubt, there are several places: Chicago, New York City, and several other “urban” areas where lawful ownership of firearms for anything other than shooting birds is regularly maligned as being an epidemic that is not acceptable in any “civilized” society.

9

I live outside of NYC, and I still stand by what I say. Yes your right, people take it weird, but not to the degree this wing nut is spewing.

10

[i]Hyperbole (pronounced /hʌɪˈpə:rbəli/[1], from ancient Greek “ὑπερβολή”, meaning excess or exaggeration) is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

Hyperbole is used to create emphasis. It is a literary device often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech.[/i]

JF is often guilty of hyperbole, but the sentiment that military brass and politicians distrust our own service members with firearms rings true.

11

There are alot of folks who would rather be friends with Roman Polanski than a CCP holder.:wink:

Many were reporting on this story.

12

+1 DMR, I too carried CCW at my own risk extensively circa '82-'84. Just as soon as we got BDU’s. Once when drawing post pay officer duty and cashing paychecks I signed for $42K in cash for an afternoon. Squeezed an N frame Smith under my Greens cause I didn’t want to rely only on the MP standing nearby. But all that was verbotten.

During the local (Ft Lewis) TAMMS course I got to know a couple SGTs from 2/75 and got to talking guns. They related stories of them commonly carrying concealed routinely and it was tolerated by their chain of command for a time. A change of battalion commander however had ended that.

13

Never heard of this guy. But for this point I could not agree more

14

From what I understand, in the old, old (like WWI or earlier) days, officers carried a pistol whenever they wanted. To tell them otherwise would have been considered very disrespectful and a serious insult.

15

Probably at least up through WW2 I would guess.

John is not so young anymore [I talked with him at SHOT this past Jan and was amazed at how much older he looked than when I trained with him in around 2000] and he was probably speaking of when our fathers or grandfathers served.

16

Old Texan,
Major John Farnam is a US Marine, retired. The Marine Corps does use the term Base, and not Post. John did a combat tour in Vietnam a long time ago.
Semper Fidelis,
Tipy

17

I was actually in a tactical carbine class instructed by John today. Fun stuff.

Awesome guy!

18

Just supports the adage - “when seconds count, the Police are only minutes away”.

Hypothetically, if someone had been carrying in a forbidden zone and had capped the perp and put an end to the massacre, would said person be hailed as a hero or prosecuted for illegal carry?

19

Anyone who has spent time in the military would realize if something bad happens there is ALWAYS a knee jerk reaction to “fix” the problem.

If someone commits suicide the answer is more suicide prevention classes.

If someone is sexually harassed the answer is more sexual harassment classes.

If someone crashes their bike the answer is more classes.

While I was in Germany two people died on the same weekend in separate motorcycle accidents. I walk into the barracks after riding that morning, and the CQ asks me for my license. Everyone with an M endorsement had to forfeit their licenses until they completed another licensing test. So my bike remained parked until I PCS’d. I could no longer drive a car or military vehicle.

With that said if you ever think big Army is going to let little joe waltz around post with a gun tucked under their belt you are insane. They already do not let joe keep his own guns in his own barracks room. They do not let joe have knives bigger than what comes on a small swiss army knife. Joe cannot even go on leave without filling a dozen safety pledges, vehicle inspection, counselings, risk assessment, et cetera.

20

Doesn’t he shoot an XCR himself?

M_P