• #5
    Can someone explain why mass shootings tend to happen in gun free zones? Sounds like where armed citizens aren't allowed, armed felons can move and act freely.
  • #53
    @BobFromDist9 - you seem to know very little about weapons and the military.

    1.) Your issued weapon stays under lock and key until either you go to the firing range, or you're being deployed.

    2.) Even if you have your weapon, ammunition either meets you at the firing range or is received during deployment.

    3.) Know what you're talking about before making such an assumption, it sounds condescending and ignorant on many levels.
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more replies

  • #9
    Maybe not all soldiers need to be armed. But certainly more need to be. When it takes fifteen minutes for an armed response on a military base, that's way too long.
  • #60
    The MP who shot him arrived within four minutes of the 911 call being place. Jesus F'n Christ it's not like you can stick someone in a fax machine and just download them to the site of the shooting.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #255

    Check out this book, its a good read

    Why the Left Hates America: Exposing the Lies That Have Obscured Our Nation's Greatness
    by Daniel J. Flynn
  • #42
    Isn't it interesting that these shooters only turn their guns on themselves WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE WITH A GUN SHOWS UP?

    I honestly cannot understand how so many people fail to grasp what natural law places squarely in front of our noses.
  • #41
    Definition of Irony:

    Spending weeks or months training soldiers how to handle firearms and defend our country...then not letting these same highly trained individuals carry firearms.
  • #176
    It's more like one week of training for the run of the mill sure you want the all in Uniform and all armed? How are you going to figure out who started shooting first and who was just being a hero as bodies are falling.
  • #214
    @LEC Last time I checked, basic training is 6 weeks minimum and you do not graduate unless you are proficient with your weapon.
  • #254
    I see LEC, so it would somehow be different or worse than if a plain clothes psycho began shooting in public and more than one Concealed Carry permit holder responded? Seems to me that if someone goes on a 'shooting rampage', they tend to stick out as the person who is hurling bullets indiscriminately rather than the people taking cover or running for their lives.
  • #51
    Just a couple days ago I made the case that it would be easy for something like this to happen again. Sadly, I was proven correct.

    Gun-free zones are a failure and the death tolls continue to rise. It doesn't work for schools, malls, theaters or military bases.

    Unarmed, Armed Forces....SMH.

    In addition, this points again to our continued need to address mental health, in the military especially. While there is a need both in the civilian world and in the public the urgency of addressing the needs of the military is paramount.
  • #28
    This is just too much. the fact that you can not have a weapon on a military base makes no sense. Had 30 or 40 people been properly armed in either of the Fort Hood instances the event would have ended much faster.
    Put yourself in the shooters shoes for a moment. You want to shoot a bunch of people for whatever reason. Where are you going to go to do it? A place where you will be confronted by say 50 people that are equally as armed as you, or someplace where you know that no one will be armed? I think the answer is pretty clear.
  • #30
    Agree. At present service members would have to worry to their company areas to draw weapons and ammunition from their armory/gun room. If not enough off-duty APs, MPs or SPs could be found, gates would have to be locked down and the personnel manning them would have to be directed to the active shooter(s) area. Either they allow open carry, or they need to divide every military installation into at least 4 quadrants and place two fuel-efficient vehicles with personnel equipped with rifles, pistols, and kevlar armor, with cell phones and radios, on permanent 'guard duty' and ready to respond for 4 hour shifts each. This would at least ensure a faster reply time if open carry is eliminated as an alternative. These 'guard duty' personnel could either be stationery- or be made 'roving patrols' with each set of vehicles coming behind the other at staggered times, to prevent anyone from obtaining their fixed hours and routes.
  • #32
    @GedankPol @URBS typo '....service members would have to TRAVEL to their company areas to draw weapons and ammunition...." OMISSION "...divide military installation into at least 4 quadrants and place two fuel-efficient vehicles at EACH quadrant with personnel equipped with rifles...."
  • #40
    I agree but even with the roving patrols the potential is there for a gunman to take command of a closed area with many people inside and turn it into a hostage situation where the security personnel outside are unable to fire in because of the innocents. It would then take a sniper and all that would cost ime and possibly lives.
    So I think that the open carry is the best alternative but as you say in lieu of that anything will be better than what we have now.
    I know here at Fort Bliss the majority of the Security Personnel are outside hired and not the MPs we used to see. The gates are manned by the duty Bn. Not sure if this is the same at Hood or not.
  • #52
    @URBS I agree with you and my suggestion was 'either they allow open carry or..." because I'm thinking that given this Administration's being 'in sync' with Clinton-type thinking, they probably won't go for the open carry option. Sigh.
  • #175

    Have you been in the service? Very few of those soldiers are well trained so that's why they have automatic m16s so they can all spray bullets. Odds are lots more people would have died because if they are all in Uniform, how are you going to tell which one started it?
  • R Load more replies

  • #17
    A military base is not much different than any other large complex or town. When a shooter first begins, then only people who know for sure what is happening are those who see it. Anyone else would hear shots and wonder what the noise is. Those who see will call for help at first chance then wait until first responders show up. During that first few minutes anything can happen and other people having guns may or may not be able to help until later on. I remember back in the military the first thing we did upon hearing a gunshot was hit the deck and try to figure out what was going on. They had the chance to keep shooting until we decided they were hostile, located them and returned fire.
  • #14
    I agree that military personnel should be able to open carry... Any responsible adult that is qualified and legal should be able to open carry!!! As it stands, I as a CHL holder have to go home and secure my gun and then go on post... It is ridiculous and very inconvenient... I live at Ft. Hood and have been here for the 2009 and this shooting... It makes me not wanna go on post at all...
  • #136
    The pentagon has had this policy for as long as i can remember. Its in place for a reason too. Anyone who has served knows that the lower ranks are not filled with the best and brightest. You get lots of societal dregs who serve one term. They should adjust the policyof on-base carry to a privilege of rank, E6 or higher
  • #137
    @Poltal what about civilians? Like I said "responsible"... I went through extensive handgun training among other things when getting my CHL and I believe I should be able to carry anywhere... The state of Texas issued it to me, I need to be able to protect myself and my children at any given time... Obviously Ft. Hood (where I have to frequent) is not as safe as we'd like it to be....
  • #138
    @dani2800 I cant dictate pentagon policy, but I suppose they could do it the same way. Once you have worked on post for 5 years or so, and take a DOD gun safety course, go for it!
  • #224
    ! is true that there are some not so bright people in the military, most of them are REMFs. Contrary to popular belief, the more intelligent people make the best infantrymen. I think the bigger reason to not allow everyone to carry is the age and the excess of testosterone.
  • #6
    soldiers be allowed to carry guns openly on military bases? now lets think for a minute.
    Soldiers, Guns, Military Bases?
  • #61
    Yes what could ever happen if a soldier carried a loaded firearm on a military base. Please don't refer to this story to see. Because, you know, it's about a soldier on a military base carrying a weapon. I'm sure it has no bearing on your argument.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #21
    I like our representative's spelling of the word must! The distortion of the word muss be similar to how they distort everything else.
  • #62
    It was an MP who ended this within four minutes of the 911 call being placed. It seems a lot are conveniently forgetting this.
  • #83
    @Ets101592 if you're suggesting that a four minute response time is unacceptable then I can't help you. Everyone should be so lucky. This was an exceptional response by the MP's involved.
    When seconds count? Yes, the what if society. This isn't Tombstone and this isnt' 1867.
  • R Load more replies

  • #87
    Everyone should be able to carry weapons, open, covered, stuck up their butts! Its NOT the gov's call in any form at all!
  • #143
    All that would result from everyone carrying weapons would be more folks thinking they have the ability, right, and "duty" to make life and death decisons and/or the right to murder someone.........based on their "opinion" or perception of societal events. Human beings are far too fallible and mistake-prone to ALL be given the ability to end another person's life with one little trigger-pull..........without serious, ongoing, consistent training, practice, and testing. 95% of the gun-owning public buys weapons to prop up their lack of self-image and to provide themselves with a false sense of importance......and anyone who can think and percept objectively know this, as a gun owner/user who actually listens to the typical delusionary self-appointed hero ravings of most folks at any gun range you want to frequent.

    The MIlitary recognizes the overall fallibility of human beings, even of their own trained soldiers, and this is why the necessary weapons-control laws that are in place at all military establishments have been in place since before WWII.
  • #227
    If most people carried their guns UP their butts, I wouldn't mind one bit, problem is, will their guns and their heads fit in the same orifice.
  • #228
    @Unfit2serve ...the military knows a little more about who should carry guns than politicians and right wing bloggers. Experience is a rather good decision maker.
  • #75
    Liberalism at its finest. No matter how many people get killed because of "gun free zones", leftists will still swear that that the way to prevent killings is to have more "gun free zones." It's liberal mentality. Admitting how totally illogical their ideas are would make them realize how ALL their ideas are equally insane.
  • #59
    I love "SHELIA JACKSON LEE" comment

    OMG!!! She is so stupid!!!
    The people who elected her, deserve to have her!!!!!!!!
  • #29
    Of course it does. For one thing, the US Armed Forces keep armed men at the gates whenever they are open for traffic. Are the guards at the gate any more dangerous than other service members who've also been trained on the use of firearms? Especially members of the security forces, like AP's, MP's, and SP's, even though they may not be on duty at the time? It makes sense and would either prevent future mass shootings like this or enable US service members to take down anyone with homicidal intentions immediately.
  • #72
    I would allow each platoon sergeant and each platoon leader to carry and here is why. I retired from the army in 1995 and in 1991-1993 served as a drill sergeant training future combat soldiers. When I first started you could cuss and belittle privates. We were very strict and hard on them the first 3 weeks till we started Basic Rifle Marksmanship. The reason we were hard is to see how they handled stress. At the end of my tour as a drill sergeant the army was moving to a kinder/gentler basic training. No yelling at privates and they even were giving stress cards so that the drill sergeants would leave them alone for 30 minutes so they could collect themselves. Now fast forward to what we have now. Massive cases of suicide, spousal abuse, and PTSD. Why? Because of our liberal pussy congress not allowing the army to do it's job. We lost the authority to separate those who could make it and accepted everyone because we didn't want congressional investigations. Here ya go congress. Now are you going to throw money at this and try to make it go away? No-you just ignore the 22 suicides a month that are on going for our Iraqi and Afghanistan veterans. If we are to arm soldiers let it be the leaders-not lower enlisted. And when you have a soldier receiving treatment for PTSD you better do your damn job and keep him/her away from weapons. That is common sense!
  • #103
    Probably some truth in that. But it is also true that in previous military the enlisted were involved in conflicts they believed in, WWII, Korea, even Viet Nam the soldiers believed in. Another thing is the fact that no conflict has lasted as long as Iraq, Ten-Years. Soldiers are subject to deployment for greater periods of time and are never off the hook to be deployed into combat situation that continued uninterrupted. The never ending non-war probably more than anything contributes to increase in suicide rate.
  • #144
    Agreed. We train our soldiers to the most effective, efficient, "hard" killing machines on the planet. We have been the best at this in the world for years. Unfortunately, we nor anyone, has ever invested the time, or has even has the ability, to effectively find a 100% reliable way to de-program our fighting force and re-insert our folks with a guarantee they can function back in society.......and the folks that aren't best-suited emotionally or mentally to begin with, that you described, are paying for it with their minds and lives and creating a wake of societal wreckage behind them. You are right on the mark with your suggestion of just WHICH military folks might be armed.
  • #170
    @Unfit2serve And now that Obama has cut the military AGAIN, just wait till our next war when troop deployments become longer and more frequent. But getting back to the meat of the issue arm the leaders and provide them with armbands to signify that they are allowed to carry weapons. These arm bands would be just as sensitive and controlled as ID cards, so that no one could easily duplicate them by wearing fake rank to walk around and search for targets of opportunity.
  • #206
    Sounds like a feasible plan. It looks as if the top brass has enough pressure on them now to actually consider changing policy........
  • #230
    Part of what you say is correct, I got out of the Army because I thought it was getting too soft, (long before you got out). I agree that E-5 and above could carry loaded side arms if they were combat trained.
  • R Load more replies

  • #13
    This could be another example of a failed Psychiatric Health system. If it's bad in the civilian sector, you can bet it's worse in the military.
    My heart goes out to those who lost someone and wishes for speedy recoveries for those injured.
  • #173
    There is no evidence based way of predicting future behavior. Most suicidal patients don't give out the "I'm going to kill myself" or for the homicidal/suicidal patient, "I'm so angry I am going out and killing random people." And biologic variability when it comes to meds. And they can work fine for a while...cascading effect of many factors. We seem to think we can prevent this or the copy cat effect. Somewhat I am sure, but psychiatry, be it military or civilian is not a "hard science". No scan or blood test can predict suicidal or homicidal behavior.
  • #203
    @Willozwisp The world as we know it, is subject to mathematics. You cannot get away from that, fact is fact.
    It is statically higher that someone whom is depressed will commit suicide than someone whom isn't. Same thing with homicide and behavior indicative of it. People don't just commit suicide out of the blue on a whim. There is usually evidence of severe depression and family more often than not will notice it in some form or another.
    Post traumatic stress disorder is a very real thing and there are many soldiers that suffer from it. Through the years it's been called many things, exhaustion, battle fatigue, she'll shock among some. It's been around for a long time, though treatment recognizing it and treating it is severely lacking.
    The blame for this can be directly attributed to societies views on mental health. They view it as weakness. It's not.
  • #205
    @Willozwisp "There is no evidence based way of predicting future behavior. Most suicidal patients don't give out the "I'm going to kill myself" or for the homicidal/suicidal patient, "I'm so angry I am going out and killing random people."
    Actually there is symptoms of it in those people's behavior, so this is false. If there weren't patterns, the there wouldn't be such thing as profilers. They exist in the FBI and also civilian police departments. And suicidal people will often exhibit symptoms of depression.

    "We seem to think we can prevent this or the copy cat effect."
    We can. It falls on the family to recognize symptoms in their behavior and act on it.

    "No scan or blood test can predict suicidal or homicidal behavior."
    Can it predict the act? No, that's absurd and I'm not arguing that point. Can it show chemical imbalances revealing psychiatric disorder? Yes. Yes, it can.

    "Somewhat I am sure, but psychiatry, be it military or civilian is not a "hard science"
    Due to societies accepted viewpoint on it. Psychiatric medicine has come a long long way in America and treatment is a thousand times better than it used to be. If society would quit viewing poor mental health as a weakness, it would come even further.
  • #216
    @Fishbone345 "He saw a psychiatrist last month and showed no "sign of any likely violence either to himself or others," McHugh said."

    I guess you have a different type of practice than I do and education. Many are able to hide it very well, especially from family. Especially in the military with a "different" type of culture. Could the mental health system and workers on base have missed obvious clues. Surely. But to imagine you can put all the warning signs together and intervene?
    w"hile suicidal ideation and particularly a suicide plan is considered a strong predictor of suicide risk, but as it is often erroneously assumed, the opposite, a denial of suicidal ideation or plan, is a very poor predictor by itself that the risk of suicide is low."
    "Past suicidal behavior is sometimes not helpful in a suicide risk assessment, since Isometsa and Lonnqvist [15] have reported from a large group of studied suicides that about 62% of male suicides and 38% of female suicides died on their first suicide attempt."

    "Angry impulsivity has been repeatedly found to be chronic high suicide risk factor, which in the presence of certain situations [6,8,18–20], mood states, or anxiety can become a precipitant of suicidal behavior. Other chronic risk factors for suicide include being of male gender, living alone, owning a hand gun, or a history of significant chronic pain."

    The angry impulsivity seems, according to Jan Fawcett, MD, to be a defining factor. I would agree.

    "From the clinical practice point of view, the greatest lack is the relative dearth of clinical or biological markers to detect an individual at acute risk of suicide. Given the difficulty in predicting behavior in an individual, this may always be a limited area of knowledge. However, every piece of information relevant to detecting acute high-risk states for suicide is valuable in our efforts to prevent suicide in our patients."

    Since suicide can occur across a wide spectrum of diagnoses it is still a work in progress. But that is just one view.
  • R Load more comments...