In either scenario, the killing could have been stopped earlier had law-abiding citizens been able and prepared to defend themselves and others against the perps.
At Fort Hood, that's a place where people have guns and know how to use them. And the perpetrator was stopped. However, he was not stopped before getting quite a few people killed in the meantime.
It appears to me that no matter how many people you've got with guns (even on the biggest military base around in the U.S.), a person can end up killing a bunch of people in the general public -- no matter what.
The people at Fort Hood know how to use them, but they do not have guns. They were all unarmed except for the first POLICE responders. Hasan was taken down by two cops who arrived on the scene and were able to assess the situation and respond appropriately. EVERYBODY ELSE except for the shooter was UNARMED. In case you didn't know, on a military base all the guns are kept locked up - not carried around by the soldiers.
And yet - these statistical anomolies notwithstanding - in every state where the right to concealed carry has been expanded the rate of violent crime and murder has gone down. The highest per capita murder and violent crime rates are in heavily democrat states and cities that have the most draconian anti-gun laws. Mass shootings are much more likely to occur in locations where people are not allowed to carry guns. You never hear of this type of thing happening in a gun store or at a shooting range. I wonder why that is?
“At Fort Hood, that’s a place where people have guns and know how to use them.”
That’s disinformation worthy of a gun banning socialist. The soldiers on base didn’t have guns because that was not permitted. Only the shooter and the police were armed. If the soldiers had been armed, the jihadist would have been taken out much sooner, and many fine people would still be alive.
Seriously, how could you not know this? It’s only been talked about several times a day here since the shootings occurred.