Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: FORT HOOD

  1. #1
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    It was on FOX NEWS and I didn't catch the name, but my first reaction was, "what if everyone was wearing a handgun?"

    Now that it comes up, US military bases are GUN FREE ZONES. Its sad to think our soldiers are safer at an OC cookout than in the MIDDLE OF A MILITARY BASE. I mean the only responder was a CIVILIAN cop?

    maybe the next malik will allow them time to check weapons out of the armory?

    I mean, "there is no way to prevent this type of shooting"

    Try having the 42 victims ARMED next time.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , Puerto Rico, USA
    Posts
    73

    Post imported post

    Gun free populations are always the best ones to shoot up.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    519

    Post imported post

    The civilian cop himself was reportedly killed in the exchange of gunfire.

    Edit about 8 AM Friday:
    Shooter survived and is in custody, contrary to official reports that he was killed. Others taken into custody released. Looks like a single shooter. First responder, reportedly a civilian, female police officer, shot the single shooter and was herself wounded. She has reportedly survived and is recovering in a nearby hospital.



  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    Simmonsjoe I am thinking the same thing...... Too bad the news will more than likelyNevershed light on the auestion of why the hell were the soldiers not armed!!!!!!! instead of being shot like fish in a barrel!???

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    az, ,
    Posts
    685

    Post imported post

    iv been saying this for waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too long!! it is f***ing retarded to check your firearms into the armory while on post. the military and all its wisdom thinking, "oh you can only shoot in a controlled and safe environment" is just stupid.

    ironically enough i was just talking to my buddy in ft bliss saying how i would never live on base because i cant have MY guns, guess what he says... "who cares man nothing would ever happen on base this is like the safest place you can be"



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    r6-rider wrote:
    iv been saying this for waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too long!! it is f***ing retarded to check your firearms into the armory while on post. the military and all its wisdom thinking, "oh you can only shoot in a controlled and safe environment" is just stupid.

    ironically enough i was just talking to my buddy in ft bliss saying how i would never live on base because i cant have MY guns, guess what he says... "who cares man nothing would ever happen on base this is like the safest place you can be"

    If you live in the barracks you have to turn them into the armory, if you live off post or on post housing you are allow to keep firearms in your home. Even if we were not allowed I would still store my weapons in my home.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    az, ,
    Posts
    685

    Post imported post

    oops your right i mixed my words up (post, barracks)

  8. #8
    Lone Star Veteran Gator5713's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Aggieland, Texas, USA
    Posts
    593

    Post imported post

    The problem isn't so much if you can have them in your home (be your home a house or the barracks) but the fact that you still are not allowed to CARRY!!! In todays incident, having a gun in your house would not have helped ANYBODY! ONLY arms AT HAND could have stopped/prevented this from happening!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    Gator5713 wrote:
    The problem isn't so much if you can have them in your home (be your home a house or the barracks) but the fact that you still are not allowed to CARRY!!! In todays incident, having a gun in your house would not have helped ANYBODY! ONLY arms AT HAND could have stopped/prevented this from happening!
    Agreed, but the military does not like us to have that ability. They do not mind us over seas having weapons and being professional. Yet they do not want us to have control over our safety while on post, main reason. We are not allowed to carry while in Uniform. I do think its wrong of them to not allow us to carry while in civys.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  10. #10
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    On a purely technical level, they are absolutely correct. There is no way to prevent a determined attacker from committing an act such as this. But I can guarantee you it sure would have been a lot less tragic with a majority of armed people at the scene. Instead of 11 dead, we most likely would have had 1-2 dead.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    Stateside aint the only places where the Military disarms their people.Even personnel deployed to war zones aint allowed access to weaps/ammo. In 2004, when I was working at Vandenberg AFB CA, some of the Airmen I worked with got deployed to Afganistan and they told me when they got back that while in Afganistan their M16s were locked up in one building and the ammo was locked up in another building on the opposite side of the base from the rifles.
    Plus, there was only one key for each locker and 2 different officers had those.The Airmen hadno doubt had those weaps and ammo been needed either one or both officers would’ve either been missing or would’ve been unable to find the key(s). I guess the Air Force didnt learn anything from the Tet Offensive in 1968 when Tan Son Knut Air Base was partially over-run by VC and dozens of unarmed US Airmen were killed without having a chance to defend themselves.

    It looks like the Army has'nt learned anything from the past either.

    It’s criminal to keep Military personnel unarmed and helpless no matter where they are, especially when you consider that Military personnel and bases are ofton targets of terrorists. Hell, keeping the troops unarmed probably encourages attacks.
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    Whenever there is an accidental discharge or someone gets shot, officers heads roll. It is a career killer at the very least. I guess they don't want to pay out those survivors bennies. I've seen guys guarding American Express officers with M16's, but no bolt carrier or ammo. Not even a very good club. I've guarded combat loaded tanks with nothing to shoot at the Baader-Meinhof but my finger. The policy sucks, but will never change.



    jim

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    Huck wrote:
    Stateside aint the only places where the Military disarms their people.Even personnel deployed to war zones aint allowed access to weaps/ammo. In 2004, when I was working at Vandenberg AFB CA, some of the Airmen I worked with got deployed to Afganistan and they told me when they got back that while in Afganistan their M16s were locked up in one building and the ammo was locked up in another building on the opposite side of the base from the rifles.
    Plus, there was only one key for each locker and 2 different officers had those.The Airmen hadno doubt had those weaps and ammo been needed either one or both officers would’ve either been missing or would’ve been unable to find the key(s). I guess the Air Force didnt learn anything from the Tet Offensive in 1968 when Tan Son Knut Air Base was partially over-run by VC and dozens of unarmed US Airmen were killed without having a chance to defend themselves.

    It looks like the Army has'nt learned anything from the past either.

    It’s criminal to keep Military personnel unarmed and helpless no matter where they are, especially when you consider that Military personnel and bases are ofton targets of terrorists. Hell, keeping the troops unarmed probably encourages attacks.
    Our weapons had to be clear and we had to have the mag out of the weapon when in our rooms, dining facility and a few other places, other wise we carried ready to shoot. They never took our ammo or weapons away from us when I was In Iraq or Afghanistan, at least the Infantry was trusted enough to keep us ready to fight. I seen a few solider carry their weapon with no ammo on them but they worked on the FOB and where not a combat MOS. Stateside we are screwed though unless you live in on post housing. I still think it is very wrong that they do not allow us to carry when not in uniform.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  14. #14
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    When I was with the 24 SPS in Panama we cops were billeted within 75 yards of SPO (That's the base police station, yall) and from wakeup to full armament of the entire squadron would have taken maybe 15 minutes. Onliest thing was, due to the idiot treaty we signed with Omar Torrijos, the selector switch was blocked from the full auto position by an aluminum grip insert. A Peerless handcuff key made a dandy improvised screwdriver, we all figured out though; and everybody knew how to get to FA if need be. Still, unless you were the Duty Investigator off-duty meant unarmed.

    SO, how much anybody wanna bet that the Antis try to play this as a shooting in a place full of guns and really step in it when the "no off duty weapons" policy gets thrown intheir faces??

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Hmm, I used to carefully skirt "Deadly Force Authorized" barriers as we did our jobs on strategic assets.

    I can't believe that the poor guys that we watched drilling at 0h-dark-thirty were unarmed. One that impressed me was the sight of two Marines, dressed only in skivvies, at a dead run BACK-TO-BACK on the deck of the assist ship. I hope to God that their weapons were charged.

    We might give them, our servicemen, more than their ration of snit at times but Colonel Nathan Jessep's monologue in A Few Good Men is spot on. He said:
    Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    What will be lost on most of the media is that the gunmen knew his victims would be unarmed because of military policies. He went to a building, (a processing center) where he knew a large number of targets would be available.

  17. #17
    Regular Member ODA 226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Etzenricht, Germany
    Posts
    1,598

    Post imported post

    zack991 wrote:
    Huck wrote:
    Stateside aint the only places where the Military disarms their people.Even personnel deployed to war zones aint allowed access to weaps/ammo. In 2004, when I was working at Vandenberg AFB CA, some of the Airmen I worked with got deployed to Afganistan and they told me when they got back that while in Afganistan their M16s were locked up in one building and the ammo was locked up in another building on the opposite side of the base from the rifles.
    Plus, there was only one key for each locker and 2 different officers had those.The Airmen hadno doubt had those weaps and ammo been needed either one or both officers would’ve either been missing or would’ve been unable to find the key(s). I guess the Air Force didnt learn anything from the Tet Offensive in 1968 when Tan Son Knut Air Base was partially over-run by VC and dozens of unarmed US Airmen were killed without having a chance to defend themselves.

    It looks like the Army has'nt learned anything from the past either.

    It’s criminal to keep Military personnel unarmed and helpless no matter where they are, especially when you consider that Military personnel and bases are ofton targets of terrorists. Hell, keeping the troops unarmed probably encourages attacks.
    Our weapons had to be clear and we had to have the mag out of the weapon when in our rooms, dining facility and a few other places, other wise we carried ready to shoot. They never took our ammo or weapons away from us when I was In Iraq or Afghanistan, at least the Infantry was trusted enough to keep us ready to fight. I seen a few solider carry their weapon with no ammo on them but they worked on the FOB and where not a combat MOS. Stateside we are screwed though unless you live in on post housing. I still think it is very wrong that they do not allow us to carry when not in uniform.
    Like Zack said. I was stationed at Taji, Iraq for three years and EVERYONE was required to carry a weapon with one full magazine attached to the buttstock of the weapon if your primary weapon was a rifle. Most everyone else had a pistol with1 mag in a mag carrier.

    EVERYONE ON THE FOB WAS ARMED! 24/7/365!

    Bitka Sve Reava!
    B-2-10 SFG(A)/ A-2-11 SFG(A) 1977-1994

  18. #18
    Regular Member Harper1227's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lorton, VA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    zack991 wrote:
    r6-rider wrote:
    iv been saying this for waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too long!! it is f***ing retarded to check your firearms into the armory while on post. the military and all its wisdom thinking, "oh you can only shoot in a controlled and safe environment" is just stupid.

    ironically enough i was just talking to my buddy in ft bliss saying how i would never live on base because i cant have MY guns, guess what he says... "who cares man nothing would ever happen on base this is like the safest place you can be"

    If you live in the barracks you have to turn them into the armory, if you live off post or on post housing you are allow to keep firearms in your home. Even if we were not allowed I would still store my weapons in my home.
    Depends which base as well. when I lived on Fort Meade only NCO's could keep their guns in their homes. Guess they didn't think 'lower enlisted' were responsible enough.

    But, this is just a sad story all around. I dont want to take away from the tragedy by bitching about what I couldn't do. It really breaks my heart. all we can do is wonder 'what if?' :?and hope it doesn't ever happen again.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    I just got word today when discussing this with a SF (Air Force Cop) that they will be allowed to carry when off duty on base.

    My primary weapon is a M9 as a 6C and I see about 10 times the outside the wire time as these folks and due to me not being a LEO I imagine I will not be able to carry while on base. At least here in the AOR I have access to my own weapon as one of two squadrons on base that does not use the armory as we have our own weapon safes. I can actually arm up faster than the cops here. Stateside, different story.

    The problem with taking the risk and carrying on base as a military member is the harsh penalty to your career if this were to be discovered.

    V/R

    Live from the Middle East!

  20. #20
    Regular Member UtahJarhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    The Air Force doesn't have a ton of training on the M16 from what I've heard, and perhaps their time is better used elsewhere, but I figure if you were to go to a warzone, you should be given however much training is required to be proficient and safe with your gun/rifle.

    In regards to the Airmen guarding the American Express officers, that's just morally wrong... talk about a false sense of security...

    Most Marines don't know this, but there's a Marine Corps Order that was issued a long time ago that states any Marine that is to stand guard will stand guard with a fully functional weapon with ammo on his person. Usually the weapon must be kept in condition 4 until it's needed unless it's a known combat zone. A commandant once said any Marine standing post without a fully functional weapon or without having ammunition shouldn't be standing the post to begin with, and I agree with the man 100%.

    The way most Marines stand guard as Firewatch or as weekend duty without a weapon is (if I remember correctly) the wording of the order. It states standing guard I think and when you're standing duty on the weekends, it's supposedly in an administrative capacity.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    Similar to the post-9/11 debate over arming airline pilots in the cockpit - the advertised disarmed condition of the general population on military installations is an invitation to this type of terrorist act.

    At least ONE designated person per every increment of 10 personnel( duty officer, CQ, etc) should be assigned to carry a side-arm concealed specifically to twart this type of act. This pool of undercoverpersonnel should have a special security classifcation similar to an access security clearance in order to eliminate unstable, disgruntled, or questionable risk factors.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    Rush Creek wrote:
    Similar to the post-9/11 debate over arming airline pilots in the cockpit - the advertised disarmed condition of the general population on military installations is an invitation to this type of terrorist act.

    At least ONE designated person per every increment of 10 personnel ( duty officer, CQ, etc) should be assigned to carry a side-arm concealed specifically to twart this type of act. This pool of undercoverpersonnel should have a special security classifcation similar to an access security clearance in order to eliminate unstable, disgruntled, or questionable risk factors.
    That may work but in reality cause more issues, other soldiers are going to be pissed that they are having to rely on hidden police to protect them verses them protecting themselves. If there is another shooting and not one of those personal are there to doing what they where meant to do then it only enforces my point. Either give everyone the ability to protect themselves out of uniform or not at all.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    463

    Post imported post

    zack991 wrote:
    Rush Creek wrote:
    Similar to the post-9/11 debate over arming airline pilots in the cockpit - the advertised disarmed condition of the general population on military installations is an invitation to this type of terrorist act.

    At least ONE designated person per every increment of 10 personnel ( duty officer, CQ, etc) should be assigned to carry a side-arm concealed specifically to twart this type of act. This pool of undercoverpersonnel should have a special security classifcation similar to an access security clearance in order to eliminate unstable, disgruntled, or questionable risk factors.
    That may work but in reality cause more issues, other soldiers are going to be pissed that they are having to rely on hidden police to protect them verses them protecting themselves. If there is another shooting and not one of those personal are there to doing what they where meant to do then it only enforces my point. Either give everyone the ability to protect themselves out of uniform or not at all.
    ...And what do you do about military bases where civilians out number military? I happen to work on one such military base...civilians out number military5 to 1. I would venture to say I'm as good a shot as, if notbetter than,the vast majorityof themilitary stationed here too (and the rent-a-cop gate guards too)...I would be more than willing to go thorugh whatever certification/qualification process they wanted to throw at me to be able to carryon post.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    fully_armed_biker wrote:
    zack991 wrote:
    Rush Creek wrote:
    Similar to the post-9/11 debate over arming airline pilots in the cockpit - the advertised disarmed condition of the general population on military installations is an invitation to this type of terrorist act.

    At least ONE designated person per every increment of 10 personnel ( duty officer, CQ, etc) should be assigned to carry a side-arm concealed specifically to twart this type of act. This pool of undercoverpersonnel should have a special security classifcation similar to an access security clearance in order to eliminate unstable, disgruntled, or questionable risk factors.
    That may work but in reality cause more issues, other soldiers are going to be pissed that they are having to rely on hidden police to protect them verses them protecting themselves. If there is another shooting and not one of those personal are there to doing what they where meant to do then it only enforces my point. Either give everyone the ability to protect themselves out of uniform or not at all.
    ...And what do you do about military bases where civilians out number military? I happen to work on one such military base...civilians out number military5 to 1. I would venture to say I'm as good a shot as, if notbetter than,the vast majorityof themilitary stationed here too (and the rent-a-cop gate guards too)...I would be more than willing to go thorugh whatever certification/qualification process they wanted to throw at me to be able to carryon post.
    I never said civilians shouldn't be allowed, I think everyone should go through a free class for those who wish to carry on post. It would make no sense to not allow both to have this right to protect themselves.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    One of the many reasons I couldn't support McCain or Bush. They
    both cannot see how dangerous it is to be unarmed targets.
    Even when they catch people scoping out bases they don't
    have the common sense to change policy.
    Israel has no problem with people walking the streets or going
    in for a cup of coffee with a gun slung on their back, and I bet they
    also are loaded and work.
    Virginia & Georgia have no problem with a GI carrying, only the commander
    and chief can't stand it.

    I guess we should all be greatfull that Nancy and BHO haven't gotten around
    to enacting a similar policy banning civilian police from enforcing laws on
    military bases to make things even with off base law.
    Lets hope the paralysis protects the 72 virgins from him.

    Is it double jeopardy if you try him in military court where he has a lot less
    rights first? Would like to go for the firing squad for this offense in time of war.

    Can the state of Texas charge him for shooting police on federal property?
    They have the death penalty express lane.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •