• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

FORT HOOD

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
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" :question::banghead:

Try having the 42 victims ARMED next time.
 

markand

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
512
Location
VA
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.
 

BJA

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
503
Location
SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Simmonsjoe I am thinking the same thing......:banghead::banghead: 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!???
 

r6-rider

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
684
Location
az, ,
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"

:banghead:
 

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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"

:banghead:
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.
 

Gator5713

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
591
Location
Aggieland, Texas, USA
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!
 

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
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.
 

Huck

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Evanston, Wyoming, USA
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.
 

Sealgar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
38
Location
, ,
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
 

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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.
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
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. :cool: 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??
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
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.
 

JT

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
224
Location
, Mississippi, USA
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.
 

ODA 226

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
1,603
Location
Etzenricht, Germany
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!
 

Harper1227

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
387
Location
Lorton, VA
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"

:banghead:
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.
 

PointofView

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
118
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
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!
 

UtahJarhead

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
312
Location
Ogden, UT, ,
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.
 
Top