Ft hood

[wildcat]

ONE GUY WITH A CHL COULD HAVE STOPPED 43 people getting shot by this asshole muslim.

 

[SouthTex]

An Army base no less... it escapes me to think more than just the civilian security police would be armed.

Condolences to the thousands of soldiers, civilians and family members who were touched by yesterday's tragedy at Fort Hood.

 

[wildcat]

Fn 5.7

It seems most were shot in the stomach. As a doctor he would know, as my training illustraded, high velocity is most effective with hydro shock. Send him to Turkey where they still do public beheading.

 

[Fleetman]

I hope when he awakens the nurses/doctors will do all they can to elevate his pain and discomfort....I wholeheartedly volunteer to assist in any way I can to ensure his demise!

 

[Texas1911]

I don't know if CHLs apply to military installations for military personnel. All personal firearms are usually stored in the armory. It's up to the Base Commander to make that call.

 

[Texas1911]

It seems most were shot in the stomach. As a doctor he would know, as my training illustraded, high velocity is most effective with hydro shock. Send him to Turkey where they still do public beheading.

He was a head doctor, not a surgeon.

 

[Tired Retired]

Just a comment from a retired military officer.... The US Military hasn't allowed their personnel to walk around bases with weapons since probably the Indian wars 125 years ago. Several reasons exists all of which I agree with. It may not be easy to connect the dots from Thursday's situation to what I am about to say, but think about this for a few monutes... The biggest reason for not arming all troups in our home bases is rooted in our Constitution keeping the military under civilian control. While we all consider it unthinkable in America, other countries (particularly ones that keeps their troups armed on base) have issues with military coups on a regular basis. Additionally, most installations in CONUS do not stockpile enough weapons to arm everyone on the base - they usually only keep enough weapons (and ammo) to conduct range and field training. Now, this has a down side (troups are not as familiar with the weapons) but the up side is fewer ND's going off. And trust me, like every population group, there are a few in our military who have ND's no matter how much training they get!

Remember, military installations are GENERALLY safer, lower crime, more controlled environments that are populated with people who are generally pre-screened and a "higher cut" above what you find walking down the street on the civilain side of the street. There are far fewer shootings, armed robberies and murders on our bases.

Also remember that the Officer Munley was there in less 2 1/2 minutes (yep, no "911, will you hold please?"). She's a real hero and needs to have the nation's praise and support while she recovers.... what a girl!!!

 

[GI-John]

Soldiers huddled up around a cell with live feed out in our remote training site, Chow hall as quiet as a library and the MWR with all channels on the same station. Was a sad day.

 

[wrtanker]

+1 with TiredRetired. I'm on active duty in VA. We don't even have a range here on Ft. Monroe (no combat units, no training mission). All us REMFs don't have assigned weapons and there aren't any assigned to the unit (TRADOC HQ).

As for a CHL, Army posts are federal property and a state CHL wouldn't fly (I assume). I know that getting caught on post with an undeclared weapon is a very bad thing. The Soldiers genreally responded to the situation very well from what I've heard. Just an all-around bad situation. Officer Munley is indeed a hero. My prayers for all...

 

[SC-Texas]

Tired Retired,

Ft., hood is a gun free criminal engterpsie zone and like ost such zones, it is where massacres occur on a routine basis.

sorry, but not allowing CHLs on post contributed to the turd's (I refuse to type his name) ability to conduct his massacre.

 

[Tired Retired]

SC-Texas, I learned along time ago not to argue with my father, my wife or a lawyer, so you will not get an argument from me. I will just wave the Stars and Stripes!

I think it’s given that everyone who posts in this forum is a big supporter of positive gun ownership. I am a big supporter of the 2nd amendment. I have been a civilian street cop and I am a retired military officer. I (like so many others here) can say that I have done my time both overseas and on our own US streets with their "lower economic projects war zones". So please understand when I say that it really is a different "world" onboard a military base.

Now, let's go over the several "truths" and facts that happened the other day:
1) A determined individual, with intent to do harm, did procure and introduce two firearms to a federal facility against Title 18 USC.
2) That the said individual did use those two firearms to inflict bodily harm to approximately 40 unarmed victims,
3) That within 2 1/2 minutes of the start of the incident, trained law enforcement personnel did confront and disable the said individual which caused the assault to end.
4) That the following day a gunman in Orlando shot up a business and it took several HOURS for the individual to be taken into custody by law enforcement. (geez, I wonder if there were any CHL gun carriers in that building?)
5) According to the UCR compiled by the FBI (to back up personal knowledge of the "environment" on several military installations), the violent crime rates onboard any and all military installations within the US are FAR below the national average and also far below cities with similar populations of Ft Hood (50,000 personnel assigned).

The answer is not that everyone (including nuts like this wacko) carrying a gun, the answer is deterrence and response - and that is what he got. Having 10 people in the room (or half the base personnel) armed may have ended the confrontation a few seconds sooner than the 2 1/2 minutes, but not by much. It’s just like being in a war zone overseas - one minute a local is smiling at you and handing you a bottle of water. The next minute the same person is shouting a religious phrase as he pulls an AK47 out of his robes and start shooting at you. Our people there have to REACT, just like Officer Munley reacted the other day. Any person who did have a CHL and was armed would have to do the same thing - REACT. The gunman would have still gotten off his shots and people would have still died - just like those that die overseas where everyone is armed.

Agree or disagree, that’s just the way I see it. And I have think skin (and my wife says a thick head) so I am sure I can survive getting blasted by those who may see things differently.

But I do have one question if you would begrudge me an answer - for the sake of our military members who serve you keep all Americans safe (and our rights intact) and their families who sacrifice so much, do you mind explaining why you say that the Ft Hood is a criminal enterprise zone and that massacres occur on a routine basis? It didn't seem that way the last time I visited that post...

 

[Hill Country]

I have to agree with most of what Tired said, but IMHO there are additional logistical considerations to the military carrying weapons in (relatively) secure areas.

Weapon security is always a consideration so what do you do with your weapon while you're doing PT, or laying in the mud under your track, or any of the other activities incompatable with carrying?

My grandson - now on his third deployment to Iraq - and I were talking not long ago and I asked him why everyone in the pictures he had sent had a lanyard on their pistol. He said it was increadable how many ways GI's had found to lose weapons.

And - this may be the bottom line - it is a PITA to drag a weapon around all the time and keep it secure. In Viet Nam there was not only no requirement to carry a weapon in rear areas, but no one wanted to, anyway. Most units had an arms room - often just a CONEX - but you could get your weapon out any time - people were constantly going on/off guard or going outside the wire. Just ask and they'd give you a 60 or 79 as well. But who wanted to drag all that hardware around - how are you going to secure it while you use the latrine, and you lose it, you buy it.

Sometimes, too, carrying a weapon was - let's say - inappropriate. My last tour involved wearing civilian clothes and while I could conceal the M36 Smith I was issued, why bother when you're surrounded by real guns. <G> And should you be discovered carrying concealed (even though I had orders authorising it) it kind of spooked people because it just wasn't commonly done - and that could cause real problems.

I agree that it is a shame that there weren't some armed guys at Ft Hood last week, but the military works in ways hard to understand until you've been there and I don't think there is any anti-gun bias at work.

 

[brickboy240]

I don't even understand why we allow muslims to serve in the military...why is this?

Wanna bet the Israleis do NOT let them serve in the IDF....for the same reasons.

Its just too risky...I don't care who's feeling get hurt. We keep hearing al lthese stories about how native-born muslims that spend their entire lives growing up in certain countries only to become radical when they grow up and cause mayhem. Both in Britain and now here.

Should we risk it? I say no.

They let this guy in the Army, knew he was trouble and literally did nothing. Our valuable soldiers were sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and that just burns my hide...sorry!

- brickboy240

 

[Texas1911]

I don't even understand why we allow muslims to serve in the military...why is this?

Because they have the right just the same as anyone else?

My friend is an officer in the Army, is Muslim, and completely supports the wars. He speaks 5 different dialects and languages from that region of the world, and has done untold amounts of work to promote our mission there.

Let's not jump to labels because of the actions of a handful. It's no different than saying we should ban guns because the same nutjobs go shoot up a place with one.

Israel is it's own country, and has it's own issues, ergo it can have it's own policies, however draconian. That's for Israelis to decide for themselves.

 

[DCortez]

I'm not sure who brought it up, but, you can openly serve in the military as a radical muslim. However, you cannot serve in the military as openly gay.

 

[Big country]

I'm not sure who brought it up, but, you can openly serve in the military as a radical muslim. However, you cannot serve in the military as openly gay.

I Have thought about this. But I can kind of understand the whole "don't ask don't tell" policy but on the other hand how can you be in our nations military and openly support the enemy we are fighting against. And to be be clear I have no problem with Muslims in the military. I have heard several Soldiers and Marines talking about guys that they served with that were Muslim and said they are damn good Soldiers/Marines and that they saved there ass a time or three.

 

[Texas1911]

I'm not sure who brought it up, but, you can openly serve in the military as a radical muslim. However, you cannot serve in the military as openly gay.

There's alot of hypocracy with the entire gay thing.

It's all political correctness, and frankly from what I've seen political correctness is what enabled this to happen in the first place. The military is so afraid of labeling it a holy war that they won't do anything about the radical muslim sect, but enough people don't care if gays are barred from serving, so that's acceptable.

 

[DCortez]

but enough people don't care if gays are barred from serving, so that's acceptable.

No wonder the Gay Rights movement is still pissed.

 

[wrtanker]

There are radical Catholics in Northern Ireland who are terrorists. There are enthusiastic Catholics in this country but they are not terrorists. Should we ban Catholics from serving because of the radical terrorists in Northern Ireland?

As for gays, that's a whole 'nother subject and no way to equate the two. However, who can serve when and where is more a matter of the politicians than the military. Just ask any commander who has gotten a letter from a congressman complaining about the treatment of "little Johnny." The military has no problem maintaining it's ranks, it's the politicians who like to use the military for social engineering.