I can't find a single thing in the previous 18 posts with which I disagree, so I'll add another twist:
In the wake of this report, how many non-violent innocents such as those with PTSD, depression, alcoholism, and other results common among those who've served our country will be slap-labeled and denied their Second Amendment rights in yet another pathetic attempt to stop "the nutcase factor?"
There's only one sure way to stop a nutcase who arms himself with a gun and enters a "gun-free zone" with the intent to inflict murder and mayhem: With force.
The problem is, now he's armed in this theoretical "gun-free zone" while the rest of us unwilling victims, er, "law-abiding citizens" have been disarmed, and are thereby no longer capable of taking him down.
What's really behind this (rotting) upside-down cake approach to defending military installations, anyway? Let the nutcase shoot people until he runs out of bullets? That smacks of Saddam Hussein's human shields. Is that how installation commanders are "protecting" the men, women, and children on their installation?
More than likely it's a simple case of a commander following the JAG's advice on how to limit the service's liability when it comes time for lawsuits. "Well, Ma'am, I'm sorry your son died. However, we have a standing "no firearms" policy on base." :banghead: