Large institutions like the US military, in their haste to address scandals, are sometimes criticized for imposing policies that answer the accusations of critics rather than defending the virtues or protecting the freedoms of their members.  (This was the case when the Air Force issued “Religious Guidelines” in 2005, for example.)  Fort Hood, in its reaction to the recent massacre, may have made itself vulnerable to that accusation.

The Army Times reports that Fort Hood has “tightened” its firearm policy.  Notably:

The policy [requiring personal weapons registration] also applies to soldiers living off post and civilian hunters if they plan to use a gun at Fort Hood.

Those who enter the post must tell guards if they have a weapon with them.

Post officials say they will increase enforcement and inspection, and those who don’t comply face penalties.

The “new policies” restrict gun-owning Soldiers without making any changes that would prevent another massacre.

While the changes were reportedly made in response to the Fort Hood massacre, it is unlikely they would have prevented it, nor is there any indication the new policies could prevent a repeat occurrence.  Because he lived off post and didn’t hunt with his new pistol on base, Hasan would not have been required to register his weapon.  Also, it is unlikely he would have told the gate guards he was carrying a weapon if he planned to use it in a massacre.  Even if he did, the new policy does not restrict bringing guns on post; it merely requires Soldiers to announce the fact that they are.

The only change that might have impacted the massacre is the “new” policy that officials will “increase…inspection[s].”  Presumably, this means that those entering the base will face random inspections, and they will be punished if they are found transporting firearms without announcing them.  However, since all bases already conduct such searches, this isn’t actually anything new.  Hasan was bypassed in the random inspections already occurring at Fort Hood.

In short, the policies at Fort Hood make life more difficult for law-abiding Soldiers who legally own and transport firearms, without effectively increasing security or decreasing the likelihood that another such massacre could occur.  Other than allowing the Army to say they did something, the “new policies” don’t substantially improve the situation.