Shooting at Ft. Hood (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!

Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.

I'm sure you already know this, but you're a moron.

Why? Because I think people who are trained to handle weapons should have them in plentiful supply?

Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!

Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.

I'm sure you already know this, but you're a moron.

Why? Because I think people who are trained to handle weapons should have them in plentiful supply?

No, because name-calling is what the left does.

BTW, I was in the military for 2 years, including a year in a war zone. At no time was I issued a weapon to carry around or keep in my locker. I was in logistics, so while technically in a war zone, I was only issued a weapon when I had guard duty or if there was a practice alert...luckily, there was never a "real" alert.

I carried a loaded weapon all the time in Iraq and Afghanistan, never went anywhere without it. That's what "the left" has done for you, **** Cheney.

Where were you, Grenada?

I'm a little older...okay, a lot older. Vietnam, Qui Nhon to be more specific. But lived/worked in a fenced-in compound. There was little to no danger in daylight. I never left the compound at night, aside from pulling guard duty elsewhere a few times.

I disagree with you a LOT (probably about 90% of the time). But thank you for your service.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!

Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.

I'm sure you already know this, but you're a moron.

Why? Because I think people who are trained to handle weapons should have them in plentiful supply?

Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!

Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.

I'm sure you already know this, but you're a moron.

Why? Because I think people who are trained to handle weapons should have them in plentiful supply?

No, because name-calling is what the left does.

BTW, I was in the military for 2 years, including a year in a war zone. At no time was I issued a weapon to carry around or keep in my locker. I was in logistics, so while technically in a war zone, I was only issued a weapon when I had guard duty or if there was a practice alert...luckily, there was never a "real" alert.

I carried a loaded weapon all the time in Iraq and Afghanistan, never went anywhere without it. That's what "the left" has done for you, **** Cheney.

Where were you, Grenada?

I'm a little older...okay, a lot older. Vietnam, Qui Nhon to be more specific. But lived/worked in a fenced-in compound. There was little to no danger in daylight. I never left the compound at night, aside from pulling guard duty elsewhere a few times.

I was in the early days of Iraq and Afghanistan, but most of my time was outside the wire anyway. I carried a sidearm at all times, and either a 203 or a shotgun outside. Luckily I never had to fire the 203, no way I could hit anything with that. Not sure where Qui Nhon is, will look it up. My Dad and three uncles were over there, but they were Navy. My uncle was a fighter pilot, he doesn't like to talk about it with anyone. He killed a lot of people I'd guess.

 

[SteevieG]

Honest question, and I'm not trying to be like MOP- I just don't know the answer, but: didn't they change security tactics at Fort Hood and other military bases after the last attack? In order to prevent this very sort of thing from happening again?

Did they change the security measures on the West side of Chicago where there are ten shootings a day?

If you live on Fort Hood you can have a gun in your domicile, as long as you register it with the base. If you don't live on base you could probably sneak one in if you were wanting to confront someone (which seems to be the case here). This is a base with 40k troops, you can't search every car.

The reason this story or any story about a shooting on a military base, is they are pretty infrequent as compared to the general population. Also considering what happened at Fort Hood a few years back, it becomes a monster story.

I'm not saying the bolded is incorrect, but my son is stationed at and lives on Fort Hood. He heard shots from where ever he was yesterday then was ordered into lock down. He leaves his personal gun at our house when he goes back after leave/vacation because he is not allowed to have it on the base.

Not that it matters, but my wife and I knew about this before any news outlet reported it.

ETA: He was there in 2009 also, having just returned from deployment.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Honest question, and I'm not trying to be like MOP- I just don't know the answer, but: didn't they change security tactics at Fort Hood and other military bases after the last attack? In order to prevent this very sort of thing from happening again?

Did they change the security measures on the West side of Chicago where there are ten shootings a day?

If you live on Fort Hood you can have a gun in your domicile, as long as you register it with the base. If you don't live on base you could probably sneak one in if you were wanting to confront someone (which seems to be the case here). This is a base with 40k troops, you can't search every car.

The reason this story or any story about a shooting on a military base, is they are pretty infrequent as compared to the general population. Also considering what happened at Fort Hood a few years back, it becomes a monster story.

I'm not saying the bolded is incorrect, but my son is stationed at and lives on Fort Hood. He heard shots from where ever he was yesterday then was ordered into lock down. He leaves his personal gun at our house when he goes back after leave/vacation because he is not allowed to have it on the base.

Not that it matters, but my wife and I knew about this before any news outlet reported it.

ETA: He was there in 2009 also, having just returned from deployment.

Here is the Department of the Army policy:

The carrying and use of privately owned firearms by Department of the Army military and civilian personnel on the installation, while performing official duties, is prohibited.

The regulation does state, however, that individuals residing in privatized family housing, bachelor enlisted quarters or bachelor officer quarters may store their registered firearms and ammunition -- not in excess of 1,000 pounds -- within their quarters.

Firearms and other projectile-firing weapons stored in quarters must be unloaded and secured in a locked container such as a gun cabinet or gun case. They can also have a trigger-locking or action-blocking device. Firearms that cannot be stored in this manner must be kept in the service member's unit-designated arms room.

The regulation also mandates that privately owned firearms cannot be carried into or stored in any troop barracks or transient quarters. Such firearms and ammunition must be stored in the designated arms room of the unit to which the service member is assigned or attached, or if on temporary duty.

This confirms what I was saying:

WASHINGTON — The suspected gunman in the Fort Hood shooting was not required to have his weapon registered with the military since he lived off post, Army Secretary John McHugh said Thursday.

Soldiers who bring weapons on to Fort Hood, though, are required to register those weapons as soon as they report to the post.

"He lived off post," McHugh said during testimony before a Senate committee. "We try to do everything we can to encourage soldiers to register their personal weapons, even when they live off post. We are not legally able to compel them to register weapons when they reside off post."

Soldiers who live in the barracks are required to keep their weapons in an armory, but those who live off post or in base housing can keep their weapons at home.

The argument now from the gun nuts is that Soldiers should be able to carry firearms on their person, on base. I have no idea what the logic is to that, it wouldn't have helped in this situation as the MPs were on scene to handle.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Honest question, and I'm not trying to be like MOP- I just don't know the answer, but: didn't they change security tactics at Fort Hood and other military bases after the last attack? In order to prevent this very sort of thing from happening again?

Did they change the security measures on the West side of Chicago where there are ten shootings a day?

If you live on Fort Hood you can have a gun in your domicile, as long as you register it with the base. If you don't live on base you could probably sneak one in if you were wanting to confront someone (which seems to be the case here). This is a base with 40k troops, you can't search every car.

The reason this story or any story about a shooting on a military base, is they are pretty infrequent as compared to the general population. Also considering what happened at Fort Hood a few years back, it becomes a monster story.

I'm not saying the bolded is incorrect, but my son is stationed at and lives on Fort Hood. He heard shots from where ever he was yesterday then was ordered into lock down. He leaves his personal gun at our house when he goes back after leave/vacation because he is not allowed to have it on the base.

Not that it matters, but my wife and I knew about this before any news outlet reported it.

ETA: He was there in 2009 also, having just returned from deployment.

Here is the Department of the Army policy:

The carrying and use of privately owned firearms by Department of the Army military and civilian personnel on the installation, while performing official duties, is prohibited.

The regulation does state, however, that individuals residing in privatized family housing, bachelor enlisted quarters or bachelor officer quarters may store their registered firearms and ammunition -- not in excess of 1,000 pounds -- within their quarters.

Firearms and other projectile-firing weapons stored in quarters must be unloaded and secured in a locked container such as a gun cabinet or gun case. They can also have a trigger-locking or action-blocking device. Firearms that cannot be stored in this manner must be kept in the service member's unit-designated arms room.

The regulation also mandates that privately owned firearms cannot be carried into or stored in any troop barracks or transient quarters. Such firearms and ammunition must be stored in the designated arms room of the unit to which the service member is assigned or attached, or if on temporary duty.

This confirms what I was saying:

WASHINGTON — The suspected gunman in the Fort Hood shooting was not required to have his weapon registered with the military since he lived off post, Army Secretary John McHugh said Thursday.

Soldiers who bring weapons on to Fort Hood, though, are required to register those weapons as soon as they report to the post.

"He lived off post," McHugh said during testimony before a Senate committee. "We try to do everything we can to encourage soldiers to register their personal weapons, even when they live off post. We are not legally able to compel them to register weapons when they reside off post."

Soldiers who live in the barracks are required to keep their weapons in an armory, but those who live off post or in base housing can keep their weapons at home.

The argument now from the gun nuts is that Soldiers should be able to carry firearms on their person, on base. I have no idea what the logic is to that, it wouldn't have helped in this situation as the MPs were on scene to handle.

This is, in fact, the MP's job.

 

[PatsWillWin]

From the CNN article on the female MP who ended the shooting:

The MP arrived in the parking lot about four minutes after the first 911 call, and she began to look for the suspect with other law enforcement officers. A short time later, she saw the suspect.

"He was approaching her at about 20 feet. He put his hands up, then reached under his jacket, pulled out the (semiautomatic) and she pulled out her weapon," the lieutenant general said.

"She engaged, and then he put the weapon to his head and he died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound," Milley said.

The shooting spree was over in about 15 or 20 minutes. The investigation into what spurred Lopez's violent revolt promises to take much longer.

Just found the timeline interesting. She arrives four minutes after the first 911 call which, presumably would've been made just a couple of minutes after the shooting began. Took her 10-15 minutes to find him. I wonder if he stopped shooting for awhile and was blending in or something.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Former Major Nidal Hassan has requested to join the ISIS in prison.