Fort Hood Shooting - who needs a gun onbase?

imported post

Hasan had a Va. CHP - note that is past tense, it expired 2 years hence.

Did he have Texas permit and if he did, so what? He was an aberration. What he did was not a tragedy, it was an outrage!

Many have predicted that there would be more such incidents in gun free, victim rich zones. When will people wake up? You cannot legislate safety and respect for life, you must, however, be prepared/allowed to defend it.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Hasan had a Va. CHP - note that is past tense, it expired 2 years hence.

Did he have Texas permit and if he did, so what? He was an aberration. What he did was not a tragedy, it was an outrage!

Many have predicted that there would be more such incidents in gun free, victim rich zones. When will people wake up? You cannot legislate safety and respect for life, you must, however, be prepared/allowed to defend it.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Too bad Grape isn't a politician... need someone there in DC to beat sense into those morons

imported post

Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter, says Muslims in US military should follow him. http://www.wtkr.com/news/sns-ap-us-fort-hood-muslims,0,1587960.story

The posting on the Web site for Anwar al Awlaki, who was a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, said American Muslims who condemned the attacks on the Texas military base last week are hypocrites who have committed treason against their religion.

Awlaki said the only way a Muslim can justify serving in the U.S. military is if he intends to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal."

"Nidal Hassan (sic) is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people," Awlaki wrote.

Click to expand...

imported post

one "good" thing if anything good could come out of this

a friend's facebook update

FN Herstal Five-Seven Tactical Pistol with extended clips and a .357 S&W Magnum... hummm... no wonder he got off 100 rounds. Jack arse. Perhaps I'll start to open carry myself to protect myself from idiots like Hasan.

Click to expand...

please ignore the fact that she called them "clips" and consider this: Sheis a friend of mine from the Army. Shes a big gun person but never been a fan of carrying. Even dragged her to an OC dinner once and she left her gun at home -for shame! So, this is a pretty big win. I will have to try to get her to another dinner - with a gun this time.

imported post

Harper1227 wrote:

one "good" thing if anything good could come out of this

a friend's facebook update

FN Herstal Five-Seven Tactical Pistol with extended clips and a .357 S&W Magnum... hummm... no wonder he got off 100 rounds. Jack arse. Perhaps I'll start to open carry myself to protect myself from idiots like Hasan.

Click to expand...

please ignore the fact that she called them "clips" and consider this: Sheis a friend of mine from the Army. Shes a big gun person but never been a fan of carrying. Even dragged her to an OC dinner once and she left her gun at home -for shame! So, this is a pretty big win. I will have to try to get her to another dinner - with a gun this time.

Click to expand...

Couldn't you just ask her nicely? :lol:

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Harper1227 wrote:

one "good" thing if anything good could come out of this

a friend's facebook update

FN Herstal Five-Seven Tactical Pistol with extended clips and a .357 S&W Magnum... hummm... no wonder he got off 100 rounds. Jack arse. Perhaps I'll start to open carry myself to protect myself from idiots like Hasan.

Click to expand...

please ignore the fact that she called them "clips" and consider this: Sheis a friend of mine from the Army. Shes a big gun person but never been a fan of carrying. Even dragged her to an OC dinner once and she left her gun at home -for shame! So, this is a pretty big win. I will have to try to get her to another dinner - with a gun this time.

Click to expand...

Couldn't you just ask her nicely? :lol:

Yata hey

Click to expand...

obviously not! i am a gun totting mad (wo)man!! she must bend to my will. :lol:

you're a smarty pants!! but in reality it would be nice if she joined the ranks.. the more the merrier ya know!

imported post

Harper1227 wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Harper1227 wrote:

please ignore the fact that she called them "clips" and consider this: Sheis a friend of mine from the Army. Shes a big gun person but never been a fan of carrying. Even dragged her to an OC dinner once and she left her gun at home -for shame! So, this is a pretty big win. I will have to try to get her to another dinner - with a gun this time.

Click to expand...

Couldn't you just ask her nicely? :lol:

Yata hey

Click to expand...

obviously not! i am a gun totting mad (wo)man!! she must bend to my will. :lol:

you're a smarty pants!! but in reality it would be nice if she joined the ranks.. the more the merrier ya know!

Click to expand...

My mama taught be to be polite and courteous to all women, especially those with guns. :uhoh: Consequently, I say both please and thank you - just ask DoubleTap. :lol:

BTW - thank you for the recognition.

Perhaps it would be beneficial to get your friend to sign up for the Va-Alerts. That way she can see first hand what is happening around Va. I think the more she is exposed to us, the more it will rub off on her - that and we are not a difficult group to like.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Harper1227 wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Harper1227 wrote:

...

Click to expand...

Couldn't you just ask her nicely? :lol:

Yata hey

Click to expand...

...

Click to expand...

My mama taught be to be polite and courteous to all women, especially those with guns. :uhoh: Consequently, I say both please and thank you - just ask DoubleTap. :lol:

BTW - thank you for the recognition.

Perhaps it would be beneficial to get your friend to sign up for the Va-Alerts. That way she can see first hand what is happening around Va. I think the more she is exposed to us, the more it will rub off on her - that and we are not a difficult group to like.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

I told her to get on the board. I am trying to get her involved. We'll see. She has agreed to come to the next OC dinner in Sterling.

imported post

1. In my opinion, Heller applies to all U.S. territory; if it applies in DC, then it applies on the grounds of Ft. Hood, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and Yosemite Park. The Constitution takes precedence over the Code of Military Justice, the Code of Federal Regulations, and any statutes.

2. When I first heard about that shooting, I was driving somewhere listening to the radio. I heard that it was in Texas, and that twelve people had been killed and another so many injured. My first thought was, "How can this be? Texas has three guns to every adult, and ninety percent are carrying. That kind of casualty rate couldn't be possible." Then the radio guy said that it was on the grounds of Ft. Hood, and I thought, "Oh, well, of course, a U.S. military reservation, where people are required to be defenseless. That explains it."

imported post

Sorry - my post was off topic, I'll send a PM instead.

imported post

Looking at this from a different direction I wonder what would the result have been if everyone in there had been armed. There was enough confusion with only one shooter but if everyone had been armed would they have realized who the BG was before shooting back. I am afraind that if eeryone in there had been armed that the death toll may have been much higher. Think about if you are in a crowd of people and someone starts shooting. You look around and see someone shooting at people how are you going to determine if he is the BG or a GG especially when all are wearing the same uniform.

Not to make judgements on what did actually happen or how it could have been prevented or lessened but just throwing out if you have a crowd of armed people and something breaks out then how do you determine who to defend and who to take out.

imported post

Allha AkbarPT111 wrote:

Looking at this from a different direction I wonder what would the result have been if everyone in there had been armed. There was enough confusion with only one shooter but if everyone had been armed would they have realized who the BG was before shooting back. I am afraind that if eeryone in there had been armed that the death toll may have been much higher. Think about if you are in a crowd of people and someone starts shooting. You look around and see someone shooting at people how are you going to determine if he is the BG or a GG especially when all are wearing the same uniform.

Not to make judgements on what did actually happen or how it could have been prevented or lessened but just throwing out if you have a crowd of armed people and something breaks out then how do you determine who to defend and who to take out.

Click to expand...

:banghead:

This is almost exactly the same argument that is used by the antis in wishing to continue denying the right to self-defense in schools, shopping centers etc, etc, etc.

There are too many documented cases of GG with guns getting the job done.
Guns Save Lives!

All anyone need do is use their eyes, ears and common sense, Know your target.

In this case perhaps the one shouting Allha Akbar and spraying bullets was the BG.
The female LE Sgt. was able to make that assessment.

But to answer your question - I think Hasan would have likely picked a softer target or used a different method, IED perhaps. Oh no wait, that is illegal!

Yata hey

imported post

mpg9999 wrote:

HankT wrote:

Doesn't the base commander already have the authority regarding weapons use on the military installation?

What's this gun free zone stuff? There are plenty of guns at Ft. Hood.

Can't you take your concerns about military regs through some channels or something?

Click to expand...

This was before I started carrying, but I seem to recall at my old guard base CHP holders were allowed to leave their guns locked in the car while on base.

Click to expand...

I wrote the Sergeants Association which is a lobbying group for the Air Force. You can see a sample letter that I wrote in the general forum at this link. Not a very active response from the vox populi.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/33853.html

I wish more people would send this stuff out, I did my part!

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Allha AkbarPT111 wrote:

Looking at this from a different direction I wonder what would the result have been if everyone in there had been armed. There was enough confusion with only one shooter but if everyone had been armed would they have realized who the BG was before shooting back. I am afraind that if eeryone in there had been armed that the death toll may have been much higher. Think about if you are in a crowd of people and someone starts shooting. You look around and see someone shooting at people how are you going to determine if he is the BG or a GG especially when all are wearing the same uniform.

Not to make judgements on what did actually happen or how it could have been prevented or lessened but just throwing out if you have a crowd of armed people and something breaks out then how do you determine who to defend and who to take out.

Click to expand...

:banghead:

This is almost exactly the same argument that is used by the antis in wishing to continue denying the right to self-defense in schools, shopping centers etc, etc, etc.

There are too many documented cases of GG with guns getting the job done.
Guns Save Lives!

All anyone need do is use their eyes, ears and common sense, Know your target.

In this case perhaps the one shouting Allha Akbar and spraying bullets was the BG.
The female LE Sgt. was able to make that assessment.

But to answer your question - I think Hasan would have likely picked a softer target or used a different method, IED perhaps. Oh no wait, that is illegal!

Yata hey

Click to expand...

The anti's aren't the only ones to make that argument. When the cops show up at a crime scene where a BG has been subdued by a GG, don't they initially assume all armed individuals are potential BGs and take precautions accordingly (i.e. disarm, handcuff, etc), then sort things out? I've read a number of posts about such actions.

Suppose that at Ft Hood, there had been just one other individual who was armed and able to defend against Hasan. His/her gunshot(s) might have sounded like any other, and if they were confronted 1st by the LE, she might have shot them before Hasan, or maybe been shot by Hasan while confronting that individual.

If two or more individuals were armed when Hasan began firing, it's unlikely that they would identify Hasan as the threat or respondsimultaneously. One indivudal responding just a tad later than anothermight see only an earlier responder with a gun and shoot at him/her, and hopefully, not be shot by either the perp or another responder.

Things could get messy quickly.

Seems like there should have been a few MPs in the room.

imported post

2a4all wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Allha AkbarPT111 wrote:

Looking at this from a different direction I wonder what would the result have been if everyone in there had been armed. There was enough confusion with only one shooter but if everyone had been armed would they have realized who the BG was before shooting back. I am afraind that if eeryone in there had been armed that the death toll may have been much higher. Think about if you are in a crowd of people and someone starts shooting. You look around and see someone shooting at people how are you going to determine if he is the BG or a GG especially when all are wearing the same uniform.

Not to make judgements on what did actually happen or how it could have been prevented or lessened but just throwing out if you have a crowd of armed people and something breaks out then how do you determine who to defend and who to take out.

Click to expand...

:banghead:

This is almost exactly the same argument that is used by the antis in wishing to continue denying the right to self-defense in schools, shopping centers etc, etc, etc.

There are too many documented cases of GG with guns getting the job done.
Guns Save Lives!

All anyone need do is use their eyes, ears and common sense, Know your target.

In this case perhaps the one shouting Allha Akbar and spraying bullets was the BG.
The female LE Sgt. was able to make that assessment.

But to answer your question - I think Hasan would have likely picked a softer target or used a different method, IED perhaps. Oh no wait, that is illegal!

Yata hey

Click to expand...

The anti's aren't the only ones to make that argument. When the cops show up at a crime scene where a BG has been subdued by a GG, don't they initially assume all armed individuals are potential BGs and take precautions accordingly (i.e. disarm, handcuff, etc), then sort things out? I've read a number of posts about such actions.

Suppose that at Ft Hood, there had been just one other individual who was armed and able to defend against Hasan. His/her gunshot(s) might have sounded like any other, and if they were confronted 1st by the LE, she might have shot them before Hasan, or maybe been shot by Hasan while confronting that individual.

If two or more individuals were armed when Hasan began firing, it's unlikely that they would identify Hasan as the threat or respondsimultaneously. One indivudal responding just a tad later than anothermight see only an earlier responder with a gun and shoot at him/her, and hopefully, not be shot by either the perp or another responder.

Things could get messy quickly.

Seems like there should have been a few MPs in the room.

Click to expand...

LEOs reduce the danger to the lowest common denominator - can't fault them for that - it gives them time to sort things out.

Admit I get tired of hearing "things could get messy", "might', "maybe" and "I feel".
Very seldom does the GG get the short straw with the police response units - yes it has happened, but extremely infrequently.

The only attack on an armed group in this country that I can recall is when a lone gunman drove into a parking lot at a police station and opened fire. The police didn't shoot any of their non-uniformed comrades.

Meanwhile, I'll favor the pro arming side over the disarmed. Think that it is a strong deterring factor.

Perhaps what our government fears is having an armed populous and the military outside of their walled compounds.

Yata hey

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Looking at this from a different direction I wonder what would the result have been if everyone in there had been armed.

Not to make judgements on what did actually happen or how it could have been prevented or lessened but just throwing out if you have a crowd of armed people and something breaks out then how do you determine who to defend and who to take out.

Click to expand...

1. If everybody would have been armed, the attacker would have chosen another location. His goal was to kill as many people as he could. Hard to do that when others are also armed and will shoot back. Many accounts of this shooting like many other mass shootings portray a methodical attack upon individuals, not an uncontrolled pull of the trigger and spray shots everywhere type of attack. If you are sitting in a room and someone jumps up on a table and starts shooting, I think it is pretty obvious who the shooter is.

2. The army by nature is a crowd of people. Enemy action can take place anywhere from any direction. If your unit is walking down a road and one guy starts to shoot at his comrades, eventually people will figure things out as they react to the direction and location of the sound of gunfire and take that person out. That's what the army does for a living.

3. There appears to be a confusion of reality here. When a "good guy" shoots, he might mistake and shoot the wrong person or the bullet might travel and accidently hit an innocent person. What happens when the bad guy Shoots? The physics of bullets don't change only our perspective. Maybe some of the people the bad guy kills were not the one's he was aiming at, but were "innocent" of his intent. We call one friendly fire, but the other just enemy fire. In reality the same thing is happening and the bad guy is responsible for all carnage, and the best thing to do is end it as soon as possible.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Looking at this from a different direction I wonder what would the result have been if everyone in there had been armed.  There was enough confusion with only one shooter but if everyone had been armed would they have realized who the BG was before shooting back.  I am afraind that if eeryone in there had been armed that the death toll may have been much higher.  Think about if you are in a crowd of people and someone starts shooting.  You look around and see someone shooting at people how are you going to determine if he is the BG or a GG especially when all are wearing the same uniform.

Not to make judgements on what did actually happen or how it could have been prevented or lessened but just throwing out if you have a crowd of armed people and something breaks out then how do you determine who to defend and who to take out.

Click to expand...

The situation you described is very similar to a combat zone. While friendly fire does happen, it is relatively rare. Keep in mind many of these soldiers had been in similar situations before, and were trusted to make the right decisions overseas, why were they not trusted at home?

The fact that the shooter was wearing the same uniform complicates the matter, but I highly doubt other armed soldiers present would have complicated the matter. Multiple armed civilian officers responded, as well as armed MPs in uniform, and there were no reports of friendly fire. If MPs are trusted to make the right decisions, why aren't the rest of the soldiers?

imported post

essayons wrote:

PT111 wrote:

Looking at this from a different direction I wonder what would the result have been if everyone in there had been armed. There was enough confusion with only one shooter but if everyone had been armed would they have realized who the BG was before shooting back. I am afraind that if eeryone in there had been armed that the death toll may have been much higher. Think about if you are in a crowd of people and someone starts shooting. You look around and see someone shooting at people how are you going to determine if he is the BG or a GG especially when all are wearing the same uniform.

Not to make judgements on what did actually happen or how it could have been prevented or lessened but just throwing out if you have a crowd of armed people and something breaks out then how do you determine who to defend and who to take out.

Click to expand...

The situation you described is very similar to a combat zone. While friendly fire does happen, it is relatively rare. Keep in mind many of these soldiers had been in similar situations before, and were trusted to make the right decisions overseas, why were they not trusted at home?

The fact that the shooter was wearing the same uniform complicates the matter, but I highly doubt other armed soldiers present would have complicated the matter. Multiple armed civilian officers responded, as well as armed MPs in uniform, and there were no reports of friendly fire. If MPs are trusted to make the right decisions, why aren't the rest of the soldiers?

Click to expand...

I am not sure friendly fire is quite as rare as you make it sound and what it relatively rare. I am sure it is covered up a lot and actually should be. There is a case being discussed on the board now about police shooting the guy who called 911 so it is always a possibility. The big difference in trusting MP's in this case would have been in numbers trying to determine BG vs GG. I don't know how many were in the center, seems like it was 300 but may have been much less and there were civilians all ripe for a total mess unless like some have maybed that he possibly have chosen a different venue for his stunt. There is no guarantee that he would have. If he had planned to die it would have been the ideal place by choosing that location he would have caused much more carnage with sure death to himself.

Try setting off a firecracker on a crowded dance floor and see how many people get injured. I have seen that in action.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

essayons wrote:

PT111 wrote:

Looking at this from a different direction I wonder what would the result have been if everyone in there had been armed. There was enough confusion with only one shooter but if everyone had been armed would they have realized who the BG was before shooting back. I am afraind that if eeryone in there had been armed that the death toll may have been much higher. Think about if you are in a crowd of people and someone starts shooting. You look around and see someone shooting at people how are you going to determine if he is the BG or a GG especially when all are wearing the same uniform.

Not to make judgements on what did actually happen or how it could have been prevented or lessened but just throwing out if you have a crowd of armed people and something breaks out then how do you determine who to defend and who to take out.

Click to expand...

The situation you described is very similar to a combat zone. While friendly fire does happen, it is relatively rare. Keep in mind many of these soldiers had been in similar situations before, and were trusted to make the right decisions overseas, why were they not trusted at home?

The fact that the shooter was wearing the same uniform complicates the matter, but I highly doubt other armed soldiers present would have complicated the matter. Multiple armed civilian officers responded, as well as armed MPs in uniform, and there were no reports of friendly fire. If MPs are trusted to make the right decisions, why aren't the rest of the soldiers?

Click to expand...

I am not sure friendly fire is quite as rare as you make it sound and what it relatively rare. I am sure it is covered up a lot and actually should be. There is a case being discussed on the board now about police shooting the guy who called 911 so it is always a possibility. The big difference in trusting MP's in this case would have been in numbers trying to determine BG vs GG. I don't know how many were in the center, seems like it was 300 but may have been much less and there were civilians all ripe for a total mess unless like some have maybed that he possibly have chosen a different venue for his stunt. There is no guarantee that he would have. If he had planned to die it would have been the ideal place by choosing that location he would have caused much more carnage with sure death to himself.

Try setting off a firecracker on a crowded dance floor and see how many people get injured. I have seen that in action.

Click to expand...

Well the option that you seem to suggest is to leave their/our protection to the LEO/MPs.

Surely the military is not going to start providing MP or contract security for military personnel, civilian employees, dependents and contractors any more than public sector LE can possibly accomplish that.

So that puts your question right back where we were before the Ft. Hood outrage - LE responding after the fact, within minutes.

If you cannot defend yourself, you are defenseless!!

Yata hey

imported post

I have been following this story from the earliest reports and am amazed at the "what if etc." comments. I don't need to do, what if, because I have an every day example to look at. In every news coverage you see of the Israeli army they are armed (always) -. As I understand it so are the citizens. As a result, you seldom see a lone gunman charge a crowd and start firing. Their antagonist prefer the launching of rockets from a relative safe distance or prompting some not too bright knot head into carrying a backpack full of explosives into a crowd and setting it off. Since we are currently facing an enemy that springs from relatively the same source the only subject for discussion should be why would the tactics be different. The answer, of course, is because we make ourselves vulnerable by our own bone headed policies.

I further witnessed a discussion on one of the "all the news till ya puke" channels in which one of the comments was that "The 2nd Amendment didn't apply in the Fort Hood situation because you give up certain of your rights when you join the military". I grew up in a military family and subsequently served myself and have heard this rubbish for years. My problem has always been that I believed it. For some reason this time it struck me as pure nonsense. I can't say that I read my enlistment contract all that well but I'm relatively sure that it made no mention to forfeiting any constitutional rights. I know for certain that in my limited reading of the constitution I have never seen any language that suggests that these rights are valid unless you join a military unit. In fact I can imagine the horse laugh that would have met the initial leaders of our army if they had tried to require that soldiers not carry their weapons unless ordered to do so. He!! all of them brought their own with them.
Rant Off. Carry on.