Ronan Farrow’s question already makes as much as anything on MSNBC. Is there any possible situation in which you are being shot at by an armed gunman in which having less guns would help?
Ret Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford is one of the more recognizable Fort Hood survivors and clearly the wrong person to ask. Lunsford respectfully takes apart the Gun Free Zone status of bases pointing out that military personnel are trained and have taken an oath and should be armed, especially since disarming them certainly does not stop shootings.
If MSNBC had done its research, looking beyond skin color, they probably never would have invited him.
Lunsford had been unarmed and was shot once in the head and six times in his body. He played dead and then tried to escape, but was shot again in the back. The bullet is apparently still there.
You can see why he would favor having a gun.
Lunsford has also spoken out against Holder’s failure to charge Muslim terrorist Nidal Hasan as a terrorist.
“Not only am I disappointed [in Holder], I’m embarrassed. Mr. Holder needs to understand the repercussions of his actions,” Lunsford said, adding that perhaps the attorney general should visit troops overseas in Afghanistan or Iraq to better understand how and why service men and women do what they do.
Lunsford also expressed outrage at the fact that some victims are financially struggling, but because of the categorization of the shooting as a “workplace shooting,” he and those other victims are not entitled to combat-related benefits they would have received had they been injured overseas. To make matters worse, Hasan has continued to receive paychecks over the past four years.