Ft. Hood: A Gun-Free Zone

[Care4all]

sure, lets arm the entire base, including the other muslim radical soldiers, or other crazy men and women, that may be on these bases as soldiers or enlisted men....or officers

i don;t see that as a solution, nor rational....i could be wrong, but i don;t.

 

[Missourian]

sure, lets arm the entire base, including the other muslim radical soldiers, or other crazy men and women, that may be on these bases as soldiers or enlisted men....or officers

i don;t see that as a solution, nor rational....i could be wrong, but i don;t.

And now we're right back to "we arm them to the teeth over there, but can't trust them with a simple sidearm here."

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[KittenKoder]

So......It's an Army post, yet none of these highly trained military personnel can carry?

...

I don't think you understand the power of gun-free zones. Just look at what criminals do when confronted with a gun-free zone sign:

We all know that criminals obey the law, just like their victims.

 

[theHawk]

So......It's an Army post, yet none of these highly trained military personnel can carry?

A Gun-Free Zone at Ft. Hood
by Jacob G. Hornberger

With the massacre at Ft. Hood, we once again see the consequences of gun control.

Remember what the gun controllers say: that once gun control is imposed, would-be murderers will obey the gun-control law by resorting to some other form of murder. At least the killers won’t use a gun, the gun-controllers exclaim, because gun possession is now against the law.

Yet, once again that reasoning hasn’t panned out at Ft. Hood, any more than it panned out at Virginia Tech, Columbine High School, Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, or, for that matter, on the streets of Washington, D.C., the gun-control, murder capital of America.

Hornberger's Blog - November 2009

Military personnel have a job to do when stateside, they can't carry a weapon with them everywhere they go. There is no reason a soldier should have to arm up to go to the dentist. It's not as simple as "letting them arm up". If they were required to arm up before the day started each soldier would have to go to the armory, wait in line to arm up and do weapons check. This would have to happen before and after their shift. This is what the MPs already do, and it adds hours to their already long shift.
The police on any military base are usually very quick to respond, but they can't be everywhere. Sure, it would be nice to have an MP on every street corner or at every building on a military base but its simply not possible due to manpower and budget. I don't see our beloved Congress and President passing a new budget to pay for all that, their priorities lie with socialized medicine.

 

[Terry]

Right.

But you'd think that you'd have some MPs or LEs or whathaveya within striking distance, rather than having the civie cops come in to put that nut down.

They were civilian security FOR the base.

I've never heard of civilian security on a military installation, stateside at least anyway.

All the AF bases I was at had plenty of SP's (MP's) to handle the load.

Maybe other branches are different.

The Military with cuts in manpower from Congress over many years has left most installations hard press to man all security points on installations especially with the deployment rate as it is. For our SP (now referred in the AF as SF)and MP's to be able to man priority resources the DoD went to civilian hire so to speak. These people only man the Entry Points to installations and nothing else. The stand at the gate and check ID's basically.

I've lived on many Air Force bases and the crime rate is very low with most of the crimes committed by sponsors of Active Duty. Not saying all but a big majority are. I guess when you hear of an Active Duty member killing their spouse it is a shocker therefore it sticks to ones mind and can actually lead one to believe that crime is rampant in the Military.

Army might have more because they lowered their standards for admission to include some people with a criminal record. (case by case)

Army would do themselves a lot of good if they improved the Quality of Life issue and a few other areas where retention and recruitment are high without lowering the standards.

We can go on and on with this subject but many has dropped the ball with this one by allowing this Major to continue on with his bad performance record and yadda yadda yadda.

Active Duty Military know how to take care of their own and get the job done if we can only get the political leaders to get out of the way.

On any installation especially Army where they have one building that will have a lot of Military in one area at a time should without a doubt have Firearms, guards, or a few on duty armed to the hilt.

Chow halls too...can you imagine the Chef at the Chow Hall armed? Yeah Gi's would not complain about the food then. Ok Ok I was just trying to lighten my mood with that one.

 

[logical4u]

I've heard this topic being discussed a few times. One side thinks all active duty personal should be carrying a side arm while on duty, others think the opposite.

I'm in the middle, yes I think at least all Military should have to qualify with a weapon. Some career fields in the AF haven't fired a weapon since Basic Training.

As of now I think the reason why they all are not carrying weapons is for a few reasons. Most installations are a small town within a town. Schools, stores and such. I know all installations has a force protection plan based on many different scenarios. When someone is bent on committing harry carry there isn't must you can do. Most of our force protection plans are geared to an attack where a truck with explosives would ram past the gates. I suppose you can bet your sweet butt that all force protection specialist are redesigning their plans to include what happened at Ft. Hood.

I just don't see how a Military Gate personal could have foreseen this guy doing that. There should I think at least be in each building two individuals armed at all times. This probably could have saved many lives. Perhaps that plan will be adopted.

At least THOSE charged WITH security of the base shoulda been armed? But here we are at a quandry? *WE* are at war? Correct?

(Yeah I understand that certain politicals think we are NOT, but we have folks overseas taking HEAT...in COMBAT meaning we are AT WAR)...

Therefore as any war we have ever been in WWII being a striking example? Arm 'em period until our folks are home and the situation is resolved over there...

Why should our posture change just because the guns aren't blazing in the CONUS? Seems to me we had a glaring example last week. The Jhihadists will stoop at any weakness.

The Jury is still out as to whether this guy acted ALONE, or at the behest of others...but the fact is the mindset exists. This guy proved it regardless of circumstance...many died as a result.

ARM 'Em. Period.

That will not change from herin. Seems this was a wakeup call. Sad but true. These islamists are entrenched everywhere.

MY .02 and you DO cite a good opinion, T...But I take it from a different mindest.

The PC shit has to STOP. We are at WAR the last time I checked..(<--NOT Directed at YOU, T)...

The mindset was FIRMLY entrenched with Maj. Hassan. Have a look at this slide deck he did.

Some background on the deck first.

As a senior-year psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic of his choosing as a culminating exercise of the residency program.

Instead, in late June 2007, he stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a copy of the presentation obtained by The Washington Post.

Hasan's presentation lasted about an hour. It is unclear whether he read out loud every point on each slide. If typical procedures were followed, his adviser would have supervised the development of his project, said people familiar with the practice

Here's the slide deck: Hasan on Islam - washingtonpost.com

Note the following slides:

Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote:

"If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]

The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"

Under the "Conclusions" page, Hasan wrote that

"Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam," and that "Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly -- will vary!"

The final page, labeled "Recommendation," contained only one suggestion:

"Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."

Let us remember that 'he' did not use peace to object. He, as an officer could have resigned his post; he did not. He volunteered for military service knowing the state of the world and that we were involved with military actions 'against muslim areas' at the time he joined the military. He chose 'not' to be a conscientious objector, but a weapon for jihad, based on his previous words and actions.

He is a loser and the people that he shot are the ones that should have their stories told. "They" are the true victims here, and their families.

 

[Terry]

At least THOSE charged WITH security of the base shoulda been armed? But here we are at a quandry? *WE* are at war? Correct?

(Yeah I understand that certain politicals think we are NOT, but we have folks overseas taking HEAT...in COMBAT meaning we are AT WAR)...

Therefore as any war we have ever been in WWII being a striking example? Arm 'em period until our folks are home and the situation is resolved over there...

Why should our posture change just because the guns aren't blazing in the CONUS? Seems to me we had a glaring example last week. The Jhihadists will stoop at any weakness.

The Jury is still out as to whether this guy acted ALONE, or at the behest of others...but the fact is the mindset exists. This guy proved it regardless of circumstance...many died as a result.

ARM 'Em. Period.

That will not change from herin. Seems this was a wakeup call. Sad but true. These islamists are entrenched everywhere.

MY .02 and you DO cite a good opinion, T...But I take it from a different mindest.

The PC shit has to STOP. We are at WAR the last time I checked..(<--NOT Directed at YOU, T)...

The mindset was FIRMLY entrenched with Maj. Hassan. Have a look at this slide deck he did.

Some background on the deck first.

Hasan's presentation lasted about an hour. It is unclear whether he read out loud every point on each slide. If typical procedures were followed, his adviser would have supervised the development of his project, said people familiar with the practice

Here's the slide deck: Hasan on Islam - washingtonpost.com

Note the following slides:

Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote:

"If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]

The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"

Under the "Conclusions" page, Hasan wrote that

"Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam," and that "Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly -- will vary!"

The final page, labeled "Recommendation," contained only one suggestion:

"Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."

Let us remember that 'he' did not use peace to object. He, as an officer could have resigned his post; he did not. He volunteered for military service knowing the state of the world and that we were involved with military actions 'against muslim areas' at the time he joined the military. He chose 'not' to be a conscientious objector, but a weapon for jihad, based on his previous words and actions.

He is a loser and the people that he shot are the ones that should have their stories told. "They" are the true victims here, and their families.

He is a traitor, no matter the reason he is a traitor. Hang him! Firing Squad!

 

[Care4all]

sure, lets arm the entire base, including the other muslim radical soldiers, or other crazy men and women, that may be on these bases as soldiers or enlisted men....or officers

i don;t see that as a solution, nor rational....i could be wrong, but i don;t.

And now we're right back to "we arm them to the teeth over there, but can't trust them with a simple sidearm here."

That makes no sense whatsoever.

only YOU are making this about trust....

I'm certain those on base don;t feel as you do on this topic...at least most of them don't....

they've never been armed on base other than the military police, and i lived on them off and on for 20 years....you having this opinion, is not going to change such situation imo and seems politically opportunistic....of you ....not that trying to take advantage of the situation is not something many would do or most would do to support their opinions on this issue....

as you pointed out, though not purposeful, i did the same by just casually calling an armed community, the wild wild west....

 

[Care4all]

At least THOSE charged WITH security of the base shoulda been armed? But here we are at a quandry? *WE* are at war? Correct?

(Yeah I understand that certain politicals think we are NOT, but we have folks overseas taking HEAT...in COMBAT meaning we are AT WAR)...

Therefore as any war we have ever been in WWII being a striking example? Arm 'em period until our folks are home and the situation is resolved over there...

Why should our posture change just because the guns aren't blazing in the CONUS? Seems to me we had a glaring example last week. The Jhihadists will stoop at any weakness.

The Jury is still out as to whether this guy acted ALONE, or at the behest of others...but the fact is the mindset exists. This guy proved it regardless of circumstance...many died as a result.

ARM 'Em. Period.

That will not change from herin. Seems this was a wakeup call. Sad but true. These islamists are entrenched everywhere.

MY .02 and you DO cite a good opinion, T...But I take it from a different mindest.

The PC shit has to STOP. We are at WAR the last time I checked..(<--NOT Directed at YOU, T)...

The mindset was FIRMLY entrenched with Maj. Hassan. Have a look at this slide deck he did.

Some background on the deck first.

Hasan's presentation lasted about an hour. It is unclear whether he read out loud every point on each slide. If typical procedures were followed, his adviser would have supervised the development of his project, said people familiar with the practice

Here's the slide deck: Hasan on Islam - washingtonpost.com

Note the following slides:

Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote:

"If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]

The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"

Under the "Conclusions" page, Hasan wrote that

"Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam," and that "Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly -- will vary!"

The final page, labeled "Recommendation," contained only one suggestion:

"Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."

Let us remember that 'he' did not use peace to object. He, as an officer could have resigned his post; he did not. He volunteered for military service knowing the state of the world and that we were involved with military actions 'against muslim areas' at the time he joined the military. He chose 'not' to be a conscientious objector, but a weapon for jihad, based on his previous words and actions.

He is a loser and the people that he shot are the ones that should have their stories told. "They" are the true victims here, and their families.

Not defending the man, but HE DID PURSUE RESIGNING, and even spoke to a lawyer about arranging such, but the lawyer told him, in his situation because the military spent soooooo muchhhhhhh on his schooling to become a doctor and the shortages of such, the lawyer advised that he could not get out of his contract....is what i heard on the 24/7 news.

 

[Ravi]

sure, lets arm the entire base, including the other muslim radical soldiers, or other crazy men and women, that may be on these bases as soldiers or enlisted men....or officers

i don;t see that as a solution, nor rational....i could be wrong, but i don;t.

And now we're right back to "we arm them to the teeth over there, but can't trust them with a simple sidearm here."

That makes no sense whatsoever.

I guess she's not being PC enough for you.

 

[logical4u]

Sure, when we send them to a foreign war zone, we arm them to the teeth, give them grenades, claymores, 50 caliber machine guns and mortars...but not here...HERE they can't be trusted with loaded side arms because it will be the "the wild west".

It's a shame we can't carbon freeze them ala Han Solo and just thaw them out when we need them..."It case of war...defrost."...that would be safer, keep the Libs happy and like C3PO said, they'll be well protected in there.

you are being silly. it has nothing to do with trust?

We are NOT IN A WAR ZONE here in the USA and on our bases.....?

So what?

If it's not a trust issue what does your "wild west" comment have to do with exactly?

Americans can carry a concealed weapon off military bases and it hasn't turned into the wild west as the Libs cried and clamored it would.

In fact, violent crime is at a 35 year low, murder rates are at a 43 year low and firearm murders of police officers are at a 50 year low.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ens-less-violent-crime-and-murders-again.html

​

35 years ago I was 2 years old, so these stats proclaim the safest America in my lifetime.


Military personnel should have the same right-to-carry as American civilians...only more so.

The "wild, wild west" had a problem with people NOT carrying guns. The criminals caused trouble because the locals did not stand up to them. If everyone packed, you would be amazed at how fast manners would come back in style. Respect would be given for the knowledge the person you are looking at could "end you". The fact that our population is armed is a DETERENT to criminals that would do greater harm to citizens if they could easily target those that they KNEW to be unarmed or communities that were unarmed. "G*d created man, but Sam Colt made them equal". Our nation was built on the ideal that each citizen had the G*d given right to defend themselves, their families and their property. Take that away and we are just another banana republic with a tyrant in charge.

 

[KittenKoder]

... so confusing ... people use fear to rule yet do not understand it at all. Then again, maybe they do and they would rather the masses fear the criminals ... for those who are interested in public safety:

The one thing keeping criminals from over running the country is their fear of getting shot, not just by cops but by law abiding citizens. Take that fear away ... what do you think will happen?

 

[Terry]

... so confusing ... people use fear to rule yet do not understand it at all. Then again, maybe they do and they would rather the masses fear the criminals ... for those who are interested in public safety:

The one thing keeping criminals from over running the country is their fear of getting shot, not just by cops but by law abiding citizens. Take that fear away ... what do you think will happen?

Thread Killer.

 

[Care4all]

... so confusing ... people use fear to rule yet do not understand it at all. Then again, maybe they do and they would rather the masses fear the criminals ... for those who are interested in public safety:

The one thing keeping criminals from over running the country is their fear of getting shot, not just by cops but by law abiding citizens. Take that fear away ... what do you think will happen?

Do you think that some other people on base being armed would have stopped this man from trying to kill those military guys?

I don't.

I think he would have planned his rage, in another manner....with a riffle from a rooftop or with a bomb or whatever.

 

[Missourian]

sure, lets arm the entire base, including the other muslim radical soldiers, or other crazy men and women, that may be on these bases as soldiers or enlisted men....or officers

i don;t see that as a solution, nor rational....i could be wrong, but i don;t.

And now we're right back to "we arm them to the teeth over there, but can't trust them with a simple sidearm here."

That makes no sense whatsoever.

only YOU are making this about trust....

I'm certain those on base don;t feel as you do on this topic...at least most of them don't....

they've never been armed on base other than the military police, and i lived on them off and on for 20 years....you having this opinion, is not going to change such situation imo and seems politically opportunistic....of you ....not that trying to take advantage of the situation is not something many would do or most would do to support their opinions on this issue....

as you pointed out, though not purposeful, i did the same by just casually calling an armed community, the wild wild west....

Once again I implore Admin to add a tap dancing emoticon.

First you say allowing servicemen and women the same right to carry as the civilian population would make military bases like "the wild west".

I say - we trust them to be armed to the teeth overseas but we don't trust them to carry a simple sidearm over here?

You say "sure, lets arm the entire base, including the other [M]uslim radical soldiers, or other crazy men and women".

I say - we arm them to the teeth over there with none of these concerns, but they can't be trusted to carry a sidearm over here?

You have yet to make one argument to support your position.

Here's my very simple question to you:

If it's not about trust, what is it about?​

 

[KittenKoder]

... so confusing ... people use fear to rule yet do not understand it at all. Then again, maybe they do and they would rather the masses fear the criminals ... for those who are interested in public safety:

The one thing keeping criminals from over running the country is their fear of getting shot, not just by cops but by law abiding citizens. Take that fear away ... what do you think will happen?

Do you think that some other people on base being armed would have stopped this man from trying to kill those military guys?

I don't.

I think he would have planned his rage, in another manner....with a riffle from a rooftop or with a bomb or whatever.

Rage ... funny thing, it's completely irrational, you cannot plan it, so failed connection there.

As for the "sniper" route, they have to plan and organize a lot really, to pull it off successfully, which means the act is not of anger and always leaves signs, if these signs were paid more attention to none of the sniper crimes in the US would have been nearly as successful. So no, that wouldn't have been effected by increasing the number of guns in law abiding hands.

However, the rage attacks and wild craze attacks like this would have been stopped easier. There is no way around it, guns in the hands of those who obey the law can benefit any situation in which a criminal will have a gun, and criminals will always have access to guns.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

For the slow. The US military does not now and has not anytime in the recent past ( going back a lot of years) allow uniformed troops to carry personal weapons in the United States. They do not arm the base and send out soldiers on everyday jobs and missions with loaded weapons and have not in quite some time.

Each Command identifies critical areas and establishes security for those areas. This includes things like arming the personnel that work there, providing separate armed Guards for the facility or area, creating reaction forces of armed troops with communication and weapons to react to assigned hot spots as needed.

No command authorizes uniformed personnel to conceal carry personal weapons nor to openly carry loaded weapons that are not issued for the express purpose of a duty assignment.

And to further break your balls, I seriously doubt that a deployment center before this shooting had any reason for Commands to even CONSIDER an armed guard there or a reaction force. I doubt they change their opinion on that either.

Anyone that actually thinks arming every soldier and Marine with loaded weapons in the United States is either stupid or crazy or both. Hell in conflict zones they have so many accidental discharges as to boggle the mind. All you do by allowing them all to go about armed for no good reason is increase the number of accidental shootings.

Now I would be all for a return to pre World War Two conditions where the weapons and some ammunition was stored at the barracks. In case needed.

 

[Ravi]

For the slow. The US military does not now and has not anytime in the recent past ( going back a lot of years) allow uniformed troops to carry personal weapons in the United States. They do not arm the base and send out soldiers on everyday jobs and missions with loaded weapons and have not in quite some time.

Each Command identifies critical areas and establishes security for those areas. This includes things like arming the personnel that work there, providing separate armed Guards for the facility or area, creating reaction forces of armed troops with communication and weapons to react to assigned hot spots as needed.

No command authorizes uniformed personnel to conceal carry personal weapons nor to openly carry loaded weapons that are not issued for the express purpose of a duty assignment.

And to further break your balls, I seriously doubt that a deployment center before this shooting had any reason for Commands to even CONSIDER an armed guard there or a reaction force. I doubt they change their opinion on that either.

Anyone that actually thinks arming every soldier and Marine with loaded weapons in the United States is either stupid or crazy or both. Hell in conflict zones they have so many accidental discharges as to boggle the mind. All you do by allowing them all to go about armed for no good reason is increase the number of accidental shootings.

Now I would be all for a return to pre World War Two conditions where the weapons and some ammunition was stored at the barracks. In case needed.

I'm going to have to break down and rep you for that.

IMO, the safest place on the planet is a military base simply because it is too hard to get into. And this guy was a one in a zillion fuckhead...who had every right to be on base, sadly.

 

[Ravi]

Well, I owe you one RGS, I've given out too much in 24.

 

[Care4all]

And now we're right back to "we arm them to the teeth over there, but can't trust them with a simple sidearm here."

That makes no sense whatsoever.

only YOU are making this about trust....

I'm certain those on base don;t feel as you do on this topic...at least most of them don't....

they've never been armed on base other than the military police, and i lived on them off and on for 20 years....you having this opinion, is not going to change such situation imo and seems politically opportunistic....of you ....not that trying to take advantage of the situation is not something many would do or most would do to support their opinions on this issue....

as you pointed out, though not purposeful, i did the same by just casually calling an armed community, the wild wild west....

Once again I implore Admin to add a tap dancing emoticon.

First you say allowing servicemen and women the same right to carry as the civilian population would make military bases like "the wild west".

I say - we trust them to be armed to the teeth overseas but we don't trust them to carry a simple sidearm over here?

You say "sure, lets arm the entire base, including the other [M]uslim radical soldiers, or other crazy men and women".

I say - we arm them to the teeth over there with none of these concerns, but they can't be trusted to carry a sidearm over here?

You have yet to make one argument to support your position.

Here's my very simple question to you:

If it's not about trust, what is it about?​

your solution of arming soldiers on base is not a solution at all imo. I'll end with that missourian...you can read what retired gunny sgt said, I have experienced it, and agree with what he said.

Care