USA Today Editors: Carrying Guns Won’t Make Military Safer
Guns Save Lives is not supported by ads and is ran as an independent project. If you support this project please consider supporting us on Patreon. Registration takes just a moment and even $1 is a massive help in continuing our work. Thank you so much.
It’s been my opinion, as well as the overwhelming opinion of our readers (see our poll on the issue) that military personnel should be able to carry firearms while working on US soil.
Military personnel are allowed to carry firearms when off-duty and off base as long as they adhere to local laws, so why not when they are most vulnerable – at work?
However, the editorial staff at USA Today thinks that idea is crazy and will only result in more deaths. According to an editorial on their website entitled, “Guns galore won’t make military bases safer: Our view“:
The overriding concern of those who wrote the rule was safety — the idea that ubiquitous guns, mixed with young soldiers in stressful conditions, could lead not just to accidental shootings but also to fistfights escalating to gunfire, or to more suicides, which already plague the military.
As horrific as mass shootings are at military installations, they’re rare. Starting with the 2009 spree at Fort Hood by Maj. Nidal Hasan, there have been three in five years…
…If the goal is more guns in capable hands, the military could arm soldiers willing to go through the same sort of training MPs have to undergo. That would be expensive, time consuming and steal attention from other duties. But it would be far safer than arming everyone all the time, and in some situations, it might work.
What do you think? Do you agree with the USA Today editorial team?