Fort Hood Shooting Once Again

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Wow, this almost sounds like admission that gun free zones don't work.

Uncertainty about whether there are armed personnel present may indeed help in most circumstances for perpetrators seeking a "soft" target, but it won't help with suicidals like these that don't care whether or not it's a soft target situation.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Wow, this almost sounds like admission that gun free zones don't work.

Ft. Hood a gun free zone? There are thousands of firearms inside of Ft. Hood. That makes about as much sense as calling Afghanistan a gun free zone. There are probably more guns per capita on Ft. Hood than damn nearly anywhere in the country. They just limit bringing privately-owned firearms on base, as they should with nearly 20% of soldiers returning from Iraq suffering from PTSD.

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Wow, that was a huuuuuge stretch.

Regards,

D-Ray

You're right, that was a big stretch. Perhaps Tom would like to explain what he thinks would be gained by on duty uniformed military being armed, rather than the current policy. Must have something to do with style/fashion of the uniform, and that's why he mentioned it.

[JBS...]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Ft. Hood a gun free zone? There are thousands of firearms inside of Ft. Hood. That makes about as much sense as calling Afghanistan a gun free zone. There are probably more guns per capita on Ft. Hood than damn nearly anywhere in the country. They just limit bringing privately-owned firearms on base, as they should with nearly 20% of soldiers returning from Iraq suffering from PTSD.

Military police are the only ones that are in possession of weapons all others are locked down. How long did it take for the the MP to confront him.... 20 mins?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by JBS...

Military police are the only ones that are in possession of weapons all others are locked down. How long did it take for the the MP to confront him.... 20 mins?

Would you prefer everybody, including the 20% returning from Iraq with PTSD/depression, to be armed? It would make Dodge City look like a kindergarten class.

I spent three years in Fulda, Germany during the height of the Cold War (the place where WWIII was projected to start if the balloon went up). American soldiers who patrolled the East German border did so with empty weapons. Their ammunition remained in a sealed box in their vehicles. They faced an Article 15 (dishonorable) discharge if the seal on their ammo boxes were broken when returning to base from patrol (and it was inspected every time). They didn't want to risk a trigger-happy GI starting WWIII. This should tell you how much the military trusts GI's with loaded weapons outside a war zone.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by JBS...

Hey 13 i'm elevating you to my "Liberal Head" avatar. You now are living rent free.

Check it out your right between Andrew and the Koch brothers, Congratz

Ha ha ha That's funny JBS, hope you don't mind if I post it once in a while. I can even see underdog in your thumbnail avatar.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Would you prefer everybody, including the 20% returning from Iraq with PTSD/depression, to be armed? It would make Dodge City look like a kindergarten class.

I spent three years in Fulda, Germany during the height of the Cold War (the place where WWIII was projected to start if the balloon went up). American soldiers who patrolled the East German border did so with empty weapons. Their ammunition remained in a sealed box in their vehicles. They faced an Article 15 (dishonorable) discharge if the seal on their ammo boxes were broken when returning to base from patrol (and it was inspected every time). They didn't want to risk a trigger-happy GI starting WWIII. This should tell you how much the military trusts GI's with loaded weapons outside a war zone.

Don't expect this crowd to comprehend this, Pat. I'd almost be willing to bet that someone here thinks WWIII should have been allowed to happen.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

I would not have a problem with active duty military personnel carrying a sidearm when in uniform and on duty.

Veterans, that's something else.

Originally Posted by Zeke

I'm not one who universally lauds the military or those in uniform but I have no issue with the above.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Wasn't the murderer active duty military? With all the PTSD, depression and anxiety disorders among returning soldiers, having them all armed sounds like a recipe for mass carnage.

+1 to all of the above.

And, no I'm not necessary contradicting myself. Those "in uniform and on duty" could easily be screened for those suffering from combat induced PTSD. The Army knows who has been exposed to combat and been diagnosed with PTSD and who hasn't. The problem is that he bought a weapon outside the military sphere of influence and brought it on base.

If he indeed was suffering from mental illness, how did he manage to purchase a weapon from a civilian supplier?

Correct that and you might have something.

Dave

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Ft. Hood a gun free zone? There are thousands of firearms inside of Ft. Hood. That makes about as much sense as calling Afghanistan a gun free zone. There are probably more guns per capita on Ft. Hood than damn nearly anywhere in the country. They just limit bringing privately-owned firearms on base, as they should with nearly 20% of soldiers returning from Iraq suffering from PTSD.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Would you prefer everybody, including the 20% returning from Iraq with PTSD/depression, to be armed? It would make Dodge City look like a kindergarten class.

I spent three years in Fulda, Germany during the height of the Cold War (the place where WWIII was projected to start if the balloon went up). American soldiers who patrolled the East German border did so with empty weapons. Their ammunition remained in a sealed box in their vehicles. They faced an Article 15 (dishonorable) discharge if the seal on their ammo boxes were broken when returning to base from patrol (and it was inspected every time). They didn't want to risk a trigger-happy GI starting WWIII. This should tell you how much the military trusts GI's with loaded weapons outside a war zone.

Well finn what is it? your contradicting yourself in the same thread and page.
When guns are locked up there intended use is not available. If ammo is locked up for available guns there rendered useless.

So yeah a gun free zone does exists at Fort Hood.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

+1 to all of the above.

And, no I'm not necessary contradicting myself. Those "in uniform and on duty" could easily be screened for those suffering from combat induced PTSD. The Army knows who has been exposed to combat and been diagnosed with PTSD and who hasn't. The problem is that he bought a weapon outside the military sphere of influence and brought it on base.

If he indeed was suffering from mental illness, how did he manage to purchase a weapon from a civilian supplier?

Correct that and you might have something.

Dave

Because of laws tying the hands of psychiatrist to inform superiors and law enforcement.