7 killed at Ft Hood shooting

[chabouk]

Nobody made Hasan do what he did. He acted alone. If we accept that he was somehow controlled, then we have to accept that Right-to-Life forced Eric Rudolph to bomb abortion clinics. I rejected that: both criminals acted as individuals.

Nobody made the 9/11 not terrorists do what they did either.

I don't think you intended to do so, but you're agreeing with me.

[chabouk]

Nobody made Hasan do what he did. He acted alone. If we accept that he was somehow controlled, then we have to accept that Right-to-Life forced Eric Rudolph to bomb abortion clinics. I rejected that: both criminals acted as individuals.

This is complete nonsense. Right-to-Life did not advocate bombing every abortion clinic out of existence.

You have focused on my use of "Right-to-Life", and missed the point: there are RTL groups, rightly described as fringe elements, that call for killing abortionists and destroying their clinics.

Just to be clear, when I said "Right-to-Life", I wasn't referring to National Right to Life Committee, I was referring to various groups that promote violence.

[Purplehood]

Purplehood, I have grappled with your post since I read it earlier today. I greatly respect your insights, and can't thank you enough for your 24 years of service to this country.



But I must, respectfully of course, say that many of your answers reminded me of the same answers that antis give when the subject is allowing concealed carry on college campuses, parking lots, and other gun-free zones. Granted, the scenarioes are a bit different as you seem to be specifically discussing military-issued firearms being carried under general order from military command. But some of the basics of your argument fall flat to me either way:

In the US it is a world of difference ... There are dependents (spouse and children) everywhere.

There are spouses and children around police officers' off-duty lives. And many of us CHLers have spouses and children. What makes the military so different that having weapons - treated and stored properly of course - around spouses and wives is more dangerous in a military context?

There are young servicemembers that are out for the first time in their "adult" lives, couldn't afford college and are now learning to work during the day and party during the night. How do you secure weapons in the barracks, base-housing or worse yet, off-base housing (which is more common than you might think)?

Again, how is off-base housing any different from a LEO storing weapons at his/her private residence? Or a CHLer or any citizen with a shotgun? As for the fears of young service members out on their own for the first time, drinking and partying, etc. Well, I have the same answer for you that I gave to the University of Texas president in a letter earlier this year .... in a nutshell, don't let anyone under 21 participate; don't let anyone who has been drinking participate. These are already laws in the civilan world; structure a military carry policy similarly.

Do you want Moms and Dads toting their M-16/M-4 to the Commissary, PX (the mall) or the Base Hospital while carrying a couple of squealing toddlers?

My personal thought on this is military personnel should be carrying holstered sidearms while stateside, not slinging their long guns everywhere they go. For on-base housing, perhaps a secured area for each barraks to keep the long guns etc? (not sure if this is already done?).

The Military would than have to look at liability issues. How do you provide, inspect and insure that all weapons are secure at a married-couples base or off-base residence? What do we do when Pvt. Such-and-Such goes UA or AWOL with his/her weapon?

Again, similar concerns are easily and routinely overcome in the LEO and civilian worlds. As for liability, that is a red herring used by every company that prohibits their licensed employees from carrying.

I have no intention to be rude. But I suspect that you have never experienced the Military lifestyle for any period of time, and I mean nothing derogatory in that. But it is a completely different world, and after reading your responses I stand by mine.

[57Coastie]

Purplehood says,,

But it is a completely different world, and after reading your responses I stand by mine.

While I have exchanged PMs with you concerning this issue, Purplehood, in order to avoid personalizing this too heavily, I can see it is time to go public, although briefly. I can no longer remain silent. I will not repeat your quite valid points, but I do want to at least publicly show you that you have support out there, from one who has been there. As one who shares your length of service, as one who at one time or another has served with every other branch of service at home and abroad, I suggest that you have shown the same valor here on this forum you showed during your service overseas in combat zones. One does not step into this forum arguing that there is indeed a place where "Any gun, Any time, Any place" just does not apply. It takes an iron heart and nerves of steel to do that.

That I also know from experience,

I salute you for both your military service and for your service to this group,

Jim

[Oldgringo]

While I have never served in uniform, I have worked on enough military installations around the country the past 40 years to know that it is indeed a different world in the military. I salute the men and women in uniform for keeping me and mine free and safe.

Let's not let this thread degenerate to an us vs. them debate.

[Purplehood]

While I have never served in uniform, I have worked on enough military installations around the country the past 40 years to know that it is indeed a different world in the military. I salute the men and women in uniform for keeping me and mine free and safe.

Let's not let this thread degenerate to an us vs. them debate.

Agreed. In fact, I personally would like to hear from Vets regarding this issue that disagree with me.

[5thGenTexan]

I don't know about anyone else but I'm getting real tired of the news agencies PC garbage of referring to the "suspected" Fort Hood shooter. When you are shot and apprehended with the weapon in hand you are not a SUSPECT you are a MURDERER.

[marksiwel]

While I have never served in uniform, I have worked on enough military installations around the country the past 40 years to know that it is indeed a different world in the military. I salute the men and women in uniform for keeping me and mine free and safe.

Let's not let this thread degenerate to an us vs. them debate.

Agreed. In fact, I personally would like to hear from Vets regarding this issue that disagree with me.

Time for a new thread maybe?


http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1110/p02s15-usgn.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After reading this, would it be okay to "Profile" in the military to avoid problems like this.
30-40 Year Old
Unmarried
Super Religious
Had a history of speaking out against the war and being confrontational about it
Sounds like he or others like him should atleast get a Once over from the Authorities

[Purplehood]

I suspect that we (to include the FBI) are so worried about being PC that even when the facts are staring us in the face, we try to ignore them. I believe that if I had been monitored trying to contact White Supremacists while in the Military, that I would have been out on my posterior in a heartbeat with a BCD (Bad Conduct Discharge or Big Chicken Dinner).
This could have been avoided. The authorities not only dropped the ball, they treated it like a hot potato and tossed it off the court and took it out of play.

[Lodge2004]

Agreed. In fact, I personally would like to hear from Vets regarding this issue that disagree with me.

I don't disagree with you...it is a different world. CHL on post/base just doesn't feel right. Sure I could explain better, but I'd probably ramble for several pages.

That said, I was always uncomfortable with the lack of people carrying a live weapon with so much inventory around. Can remember issuing baseball bats to soldiers guarding containers filled to the brim with M60's, M16's etc...

Don't general officers get issued a personal sidearm? Isn't that where the Colt Commander originated? Why couldn't we expand that to include Company/Battalion/Brigade Commanders?

[57Coastie]

To perhaps lighten things up, take a look at the editorial cartoon on this page of the Houston Chronicle.

http://www.chron.com/news/opinion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

[casingpoint]

Baseball bats would have been an excellent instrumentality to put Hasan down with.

[Pete92FS]

Baseball bats would have been an excellent instrumentality to put Hasan down with.

If you could get close enough - be like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

[A-R]

I don't know about anyone else but I'm getting real tired of the news agencies PC garbage of referring to the "suspected" Fort Hood shooter. When you are shot and apprehended with the weapon in hand you are not a SUSPECT you are a MURDERER.

The news agencies must report Hasan as a "suspected" or "alleged" gunman because he hasn't yet been convicted of anything, and to do otherwise is to open themselves up to a huge libel lawsuit if, in fact, he was not the killer (not likely, but media has to cover themselves on this). Remember Richard Jewell? He was absolutely unequivocally the madman who tried to blow up the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta ... until he wasn't. Mr. Jewell will live comfortably the rest of his life off the libel and slander lawsuit settlements with the big media outlets.

Often in these mass shootings, the shooter is reported as just that "the shooter" or "the killer" because said person is already dead. And, as we all know, dead people don't sue. But this case - and the guy in Orlando - are unique in that the "suspects" were captured ALIVE.

So, until a court of law pronounces these very much alive people guilty, they are "suspected" or "alleged" murderers.

If there's anything I learned in 4 years of journalism education and 10 years as a practicing journalist, it's never to risk libeling a living person no matter how sure everyone is that they did it.

[edmart001]

I am not a vet, but I have a son who is. While I will not try to speak for him, I do agree that during my visits to Fort Benning, it did indeed seem to me to be a much different world and I agree that CHL on post is probably not the right answer in that world.

I remember a phone call with my son shortly after he had completed training and was assigned to 3ID. When his Mom asked what the barracks was like he replied, "Mom, it's a lot like a college dorm, but you've really got to always remember that everyone here is trained to kill and many have done so before and are very efficient at it - so we all really have to be careful with name-calling".

I also note the after return from each of his two deployments to Iraq, there were always events of soldier on soldier violence, which often resulted in a fatality. To this, my son said, it's difficult to transition back and some folks just can't do it. Others come home to wives and girl friends who are shacking up with someone else, personal finance in a mess, no family support and for some, the Army is their family.

I really salute all those who have volunteered to serve, past and present, but I can certainly see how having a multitude of personal weapons on post and readily available might not be the best answer.