7 killed at Ft Hood shooting

[A-R]

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.

Purplehood, I have had the honor and privilege to be accompanied to a few military installations, often by a retired Colonel (my father in law). Also am the proud cousin of an active-duty US Army Captain. But I readily admit that my knowledge of military life ends there, with exception of a few movies I've seen .

I would very much like to know more detail about why you feel that military personnel carrying sidearms is such a bad idea. I challenged some of your assertions because they sounded so much like the assertions of those who're against campus carry, and I did go to college and know that "world" very well and completely disagree with those assertions in the academic world. I'm honestly curious why it is so different for military, who are already trained in how to effectively and safetly utilize firearms (more than can be said for many people who privately own firearms).

I am not a "guns everywhere all the time" type of person. Without special clearance, I don't think unauthorized civilians should be allowed to carry on base (CHL or not); however, I do wish there was some sort of well-regulated "check in" procedure so that I could have my firearm with me when I drive to the base - secure it with MPs or whatever - and then retreive it on my way out. As it stands now, anytime my wife and mother in law want to go to a PX I either can't go, or have to leave my guns at home

But I do feel a number of current "gun free zones" should not be gun free. Even if I don't like the idea of every idiotic Tom, Dick, and Harry carrying a gun, I am willing to allow them to do so (assuming of course they are properly licensed and criminals and other wackos are excepted) if I too am allowed to more fully exercise my rights under 2A. This is the current system in "unlicensed gun free zones" like 95% of the places we go in our daily lives. Why should schools, company parking lots, etc be any different? For that matter, why should military posts be any different (again, assuming proper levels of security and clearance)?

[A-R]

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.

Interesting, thoughtful, and worthwhile post. Thank you. Gonna have to soak in some of this and let it simmer in the old brain a while.

[ELB]

I have experienced the "military lifestyle," for 23+ years, four more as cadet, and another four as a retiree, and there is no good reason that military people cannot be armed, particularly with pistols, in uniform or not, particularly NCOs and officers. It is a matter of will, training and trust. There is also no good reason that CHL holders on base, military, civilian, retiree, whatever, cannot be armed on base or post.

You watch. No one's head will roll because American troops at the biggest army post in the world, directly focused on fighting terrorist-fueled wars on several continents, were left unarmed and without adequate security, and especially with a known risk running around in their ranks. The military has decided it is much more politically acceptable to take casualties like this than run the risk of a ND by one of its armed soldiers or visitors.

[joe817]

The military has decided it is much more politically acceptable to take casualties like this than run the risk of a ND by one of its armed soldiers or visitors.

I thought about posting this comment a couple of days ago then decided against it, but I've reconsidered.

How many more Americans will die because of "political correctness" being an overriding factor rather than the safety and well being of not only our service men and women stationed worldwide, but also of all the citizens of these United States?

I am deeply saddened by this.

[bdickens]

"U.S. Monitored Fort Hood Suspect Before Shooting"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10inquire.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have to wonder about this. A different article I read said that the FBI had monitored the ten attempts of Hasan to contact a radical Imam who had just been released from prison. They felt there was no threat and never notified the Army.

A commissioned officer on active duty in the Army tries to communicate with the enemy and the FBI sees nothing wrong with this. I thought they knew what treason was and would see something to investigate in this area. I would have assumed they are aware of psychological warfare (PSYOPS) since they have used it. The primary duty of this major was to treat soldiers who might be having mental problems from their war, and they saw no problem in his contacting the enemy. Someone has a LOT of explaining to do.

The Keystone Cops didn't want to see a problem with Maj. Jihad contacting the enemy.

[Oldgringo]

I was able to fondle a FN 5.7 in the Tyler Gander Mountain today as well as see the ammo commercially available for the pistol. It was pretty neat, but for $1200 you could get a couple or three other pistols in varying calibers?

[A-R]

$1,000 to $1,200 price I keep seeing quoted for the Five-seveN must be a suggested retail price or something. You can buy one for $855 here ... http://www.gtdist.com/ProductDetail.asp ... 3868929120" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[stroo]

I have no problem with gun free zones under certain conditions one being that the party responsible for the zone ensure that it is gun free. Courts, airports, maybe military bases (they are a different world) arguably should be gun free because of the particular circumstances. Courts and airports generally go to great lengths to attain gun free status by imposing significant security screening. I have been on a couple of military bases, my son in law is a Marine, and the security at those bases was nothing like a court or an airport's security. It would be pretty easy to bring a gun on the bases I have been on, particularly if you are stationed there. So for those you who think it is too difficult to have limited numbers of people carrying concealed or otherwise, do you think it would be easier to set up screening like they do for courts and airports?

If we want gun free zones, then we should make sure they are gun free!!

[5thGenTexan]

"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."

AustinRealtor believe me with the impact of that little law school in your namesake City on my family over the years I get the libel implications. However I don't believe Jewell was caught setting the timer of the bomb as it went off. I have no problem with the use of suspects when there is not clear cut irrefutable evidence of the act I think getting shot while holding and firing the "smoking gun" would be hard to claim innocence. To be libel it has to be NOT true, of course anyone with a handsome bank account or a 50/50 shot at winning can find a lawyer willing to argue anything in a lawsuit. That was one of the reasons I avoided the second of the family business' I just hate feeling slimey and arguing a lie leaves me feeling like a pile of goo.

[edmart001]

If we want gun free zones, then we should make sure they are gun free!!

I agree with this also.

It is also my understanding that a lot of discretion about how "gun free" of personal weapons an installation is is actually left up to the commander and some commanders are more serious about the subject than others.

Some of these bases are huge. Fort Hood is the largest in the nation. Fort Benning (where my son was stationed when not deployed) is the second largest. As I understand it, people go hunting in the woods on both of these bases and bring personally owned weapons on post to do so. So I guess there are already procedures in place to allow for individuals to have personal weapons on base - but I'm also pretty sure it's just not an option for everybody because there's probably significant paperwork and approvals required and the requests of some folks will just never be approved.

But to me the bottom line is what happened at Fort Hood can happen anywhere. If someone decides to go kill-crazy for whatever reason and is willing or wants to be killed in the process, folks are going die whether there are guns around or not.

[casingpoint]

I believe it has been firmly established on this board that gun control does not work.

[A-R]

"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."

AustinRealtor believe me with the impact of that little law school in your namesake City on my family over the years I get the libel implications. However I don't believe Jewell was caught setting the timer of the bomb as it went off. I have no problem with the use of suspects when there is not clear cut irrefutable evidence of the act I think getting shot while holding and firing the "smoking gun" would be hard to claim innocence. To be libel it has to be NOT true, of course anyone with a handsome bank account or a 50/50 shot at winning can find a lawyer willing to argue anything in a lawsuit. That was one of the reasons I avoided the second of the family business' I just hate feeling slimey and arguing a lie leaves me feeling like a pile of goo.

I agree with you, except that none of these newspaper editors or TV producers were THERE. Sure they can take authorities' word for it, and that would likely provide them legal cover in most cases. But authorities all but declared Jewell the culprit and he's now a rich man because the media ran with it. Again, I agree the suspect in this case is basically caught red-handed. But on something this explosive, that is not enough. At a minimum, the media will wait until the suspect is formally charged.

[A-R]

I have no problem with gun free zones under certain conditions one being that the party responsible for the zone ensure that it is gun free. Courts, airports, maybe military bases (they are a different world) arguably should be gun free because of the particular circumstances. Courts and airports generally go to great lengths to attain gun free status by imposing significant security screening. I have been on a couple of military bases, my son in law is a Marine, and the security at those bases was nothing like a court or an airport's security. It would be pretty easy to bring a gun on the bases I have been on, particularly if you are stationed there. So for those you who think it is too difficult to have limited numbers of people carrying concealed or otherwise, do you think it would be easier to set up screening like they do for courts and airports?

If we want gun free zones, then we should make sure they are gun free!!

I like your thought process here. Gun free ONLY IF truly gun free. But I would add some legal liability to that and say that if you're going to declare your premises to be "gun free" and - through negligence of you or your representatives proven in a court of law - someone sneaks a gun into your premises and commits a crime, then YOU are legally liable (civil court, not criminal) for any harm caused to me or other unarmed citizens in your premises.

The #1 reason most gun-free zones are made gun free is fear of legal liability. Let's turn that around 180 degrees and put the responsibility to make a gun free zone ACTUALLY gun free on these people. Then see what happens ...

[KD5NRH]

I believe it has been firmly established on this board that gun control does not work.

Sure it does: I controlled two guns for most of the day today, and they didn't hurt anybody.

Well, unless you count the Blackhawk's front sight digging into my leg, but that was more of a lack of control at that moment.

[Dudley]

I have no problem with gun free zones under certain conditions one being that the party responsible for the zone ensure that it is gun free.

The penalty should be an eye for an eye.

If someone is a theft victim in a gun free zone, the politicians who made the policy should reimburse them.

If someone is injured in a gun free zone, the politicians who made the policy should be injured in kind.

If someone is raped or murdered in a gun free zone...