7 killed at Ft Hood shooting

[karder]

This is certainly a complicated issue. Good points have been made both for and against allowing the troops to be armed. Bottom line is that it is very hard to stop a guy on a suicide mission. Be it a shooter, bomber, whatever. When a guy decides he is going to die in the process of killing "the enemy", this creates a whole new security problem. We are not used to this in the western world, though it is frequent in the middle east. This wasn't Fort Hood's fault, or the commander's fault, or the gun's fault, or even Islam's fault. One guy decided to kill a bunch of people and planned to die in the process. There are certainly lessons to be learned, including not allowing active duty military to have on-line discussions with people or organizations who represent themselves as enemies of the U.S. I hope that this individual is tried and executed quickly, although I do understand this won't be the case.

[A-R]

With all this talk on my mind about certain military personnel who really cannot be trusted with guns, except when training or facing the enemy, I ran across this quote today. Speaks VOLUMES ...

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
George Washington

Now, I'm not saying you strap an M9 onto the hip of every 18-year-old private. Heck, they wouldn't qualify for a CHL, much less be capable of competently open carrying a loaded sidearm. But personnel of a proper age, maturity, discretion, and ability (to be determined by DOD) should be allowed to open carry a sidearm on post during their daily routine. Perhaps some should even be required to do so, but again I would leave that up to DOD to decide particular policy. And those with a CHL should be allowed to keep their personal firearms on base, secured (behind "double locks" and subject to inspection) in their residence or private vehicle at all times until off base.

Anyway, reading that quote from ol' George just really struck a chord with me.

Many of those folks you describe live in the barracks and don't have POV's. Who are you going to appoint to do all this inspecting? Sorry, I will stop.

Notice I didn't say "inspected every time" I said "subject to inspection" .... my non-military background is showing here, but don't you have someone of a higher rank inspecting barraks from time to time? And just because someone lives in the barracks and may not have a personal vehicle, doesn't mean they can't propertly secure a firearm in an approved lockbox or small safe of some kind, privately purchased of course.

Anyway, these are all just details and should be left to DOD. The point is, it is easy to simply dismiss these ideas as "trouble waiting to happen". But - as I tried to point out with the GW quote above - easy ain't always right. And taking away a free person's rights because of what he MIGHT do with those rights is simply unAmerican. I get that the military is "different", but as has been discussed earlier, if an authority is going to take away self-defense rights then they darn sure better make CERTAIN that they provide an airtight defense for those people whose self-defense rights they are taking away.

[casingpoint]

This wasn't...Islam's fault

As I noted before, it's only Islamic terrorism when it happens in foreign countries. Here, it's just a "cowardly act." Right

Coming to yuor neighborhood: http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2009/1535/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Keith B]

With all this talk on my mind about certain military personnel who really cannot be trusted with guns, except when training or facing the enemy, I ran across this quote today. Speaks VOLUMES ...

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
George Washington

Now, I'm not saying you strap an M9 onto the hip of every 18-year-old private. Heck, they wouldn't qualify for a CHL, much less be capable of competently open carrying a loaded sidearm. But personnel of a proper age, maturity, discretion, and ability (to be determined by DOD) should be allowed to open carry a sidearm on post during their daily routine. Perhaps some should even be required to do so, but again I would leave that up to DOD to decide particular policy. And those with a CHL should be allowed to keep their personal firearms on base, secured (behind "double locks" and subject to inspection) in their residence or private vehicle at all times until off base.

Anyway, reading that quote from ol' George just really struck a chord with me.

Many of those folks you describe live in the barracks and don't have POV's. Who are you going to appoint to do all this inspecting? Sorry, I will stop.

Here is my thought on this. I am not in the military but there are a lot of times that I can't carry either. Now, with that said, there are many times a person would not be able to carry or it would not be convenient to carry due to changing clothes, PT, yadda yadda. No different from when I go to my office and can't carry, work out at the gym, yadda yadda. that doesn't mean that I should not be allowed to carry when I can.

My thoughts are allow CHL's in the military to be able to carry on base when it works. It may be a little bit of a hassle for those that have to store their weapons at the armory, but why restrict them from having them when they can?

[stroo]

Purplehood,

You keep talking about how difficult it would be for a CHL to take care of a gun on post. Would you be willing to undergo the type of personal screening you go through when going to court or going on a flight with correspondingly thorough vehicle searches everytime you came onto base?

[karder]

This wasn't...Islam's fault

As I noted before, it's only Islamic terrorism when it happens in foreign countries. Here, it's just a "cowardly act." Right

Coming to yuor neighborhood: http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2009/1535/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As Americans, freedom of religion is one of our countries founding principals. I am not Muslim, and certainly not supportive of Jihadist theology. I do understand your point, and I do agree that, at least by my definition, the Fort Hood shooting does count as an act of terrorism. I know others would dispute that label. Still, I personally wouldn't blame Islam for this incident anymore than I would blame Christianity for the actions of the guy who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart. These are individuals who are using God to justify their actions. The same is true in the middle east, only the problem is obviously much deeper rooted and more pervasive. I know it is hard to separate the religion from the actions, but we must. People can pray to whoever they want to, but they can't go out and commit atrocities and say "it's not my fault, it was God's will". Regardless of his motivations, the Major is a murderer and I hope he is dealt justly.

[Purplehood]

Purplehood,

You keep talking about how difficult it would be for a CHL to take care of a gun on post. Would you be willing to undergo the type of personal screening you go through when going to court or going on a flight with correspondingly thorough vehicle searches everytime you came onto base?

Let me be totally frank here. I realize that I am espousing a double-standard here. From my perspective I am sure that I could handle carrying with a CHL on base with all of the difficulties that would arise. So to answer your question, Yes, I would be willing.
But what I have experienced living on and off base while both single and married has led me to believe that you cannot treat each Military member fairly and equally.

Single, living on base
How do you secure your weapon in the barracks while asleep or in the shower? Do we need to leave a guard in each squad-bay to watch over folks weapons? Small safes and locking cables will not work in the barracks. They would simply walk off. Theft is always a problem.

Single, living off base
Now you are an NCO or Junior Officer and allowed to live off base. Lets assume that you are of age for a CHL. Your weapon at your residence is your personal responsibility and I accept that. Now assume that having a CHL on base means being able to carry it on base.
How much extra time are you willing to allow yourself for screening entering the base? I don't know how many times as a young jarhead that I got silly-drunk, slept for an hour and had to be up at 0430 hours for PT on base. Wow, I need to modify my lifestyle. Say I am not a party-dog and I have no problem with getting places on time and getting up a little early to go through screening.
Most of the "real" services (LOL) require you to attend unit PT. No matter how skilled you are, I guarantee you are not going to be able to carry while doing a typical PT session. Period. Now you have to turn your weapon into the Armory, which means more time getting their early and more time picking it up again and being able to return to duty in a timely manner. (This would also apply to every servicemember, married or not, living on base or not)

Married, living on base or off-base
The Military can and does specify what you can and cannot do in your residence, more so on base than off, but they are legally able to do so in either case. If CHL were authorized on base, the CO would without a doubt have to establish regulations on the care and safekeeping of the weapon in your residence. What safe or other security measures would be specified. Inspection protocols would have to be established. Inspectors would have to be assigned. All of this can be accomodated, but the biggest issue that is always going to pop-up is cost-effectiveness. Does the Commander with a finite-budget want to assign personnel (Military or Civilian) to conduct inspections? I wager that the CO would be extremely hard-pressed to do so. And realize this: Nothing in the military can be done on an ad hoc, just take care of it basis. Everything has to be codifed and regulated. People and dollars have to be provided to ensure that regulations are followed.

The intangible problem.
This one is going to set folks off, but in my view it is a grim reality. There are a lot of dirtbags in the military. They eventually get weeded out (but not always) but create hate and discontent for those willing to follow the rules. Because everybody pays in the Military when someone screws up.
Barracks thieves are rampant. Fights and drunks are common. Young newbie troops and grizzled veterans forget to secure their gear all the time. In a military environment where everyone knows your business, this can lead to a potentially fatal mistake when a loaded weapon gets lost or stolen.
One thing about a base and firearms that I have noted is this: If you are carrying a weapon you are on duty, doing training with it or are Military Law Enforcement. An MP can quickly figure out who should be handling a Military firearm and who is doing something that they shouldn't with a private firearm. You don't see private weapons unless they are being transported to and from the Armory and/or the Range. Someone carrying one around is a warning sign.

Arming Officers and NCO's. I tend to agree with this idea. I know that it would cause great hate and discontent for many of those assigned these tasks to do so in a peacetime garrison environment (for example, Ft Hood). See my previous examples above about checking in or out weapons from the Armory, securing them during PT, and the extra time and effort involved in an already busy duty day.

I will admit that from time to time over the years I thought it necessary to improve security on a personal level in garrison. But I also realize that it would take a fundamental change in procedures and time and personnel and ultimately unit budgets to accomodate. And I am willing to bet that that is not going to happen easily.

[A-R]

Purplehood, I greatly respect your service to your country and your steadfast position on this issue. While we disagree, and there are items within your most recent post which I disagree and could attempt to pick apart, I think I've said my peace. Others will ultimately decide this issue, and I doubt either of us will get a direct vote on it anyway. I appreciate your insight and convictions.

[casingpoint]

I personally wouldn't blame Islam for this incident anymore than I would blame Christianity for the actions of the guy who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart.

Not all of Islam is at fault here, but some long running factions most assuredly are. Perhaps you missed this when I posted it earlier. It lays the religious link right out:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.ar ... pub822.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And this, my favorite, written no long after 911 and published in the NY Times before it turned a blind eye to the problem:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/magaz ... s-war.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[srothstein]

Please explain to me how I am going to run in my PT shorts, t-shirt and tennis shoe with my weapon. Have you ever been in a unit that tried it?

You got to run in PT shorts? When I was in, our PT uniform was our fatigue uniform without the shirt or hat. I remember many times when we would fall in for morning formation and the commander would tell us to remove our shirts and hats and then we would go for a run. I also remember running in full uniform while carrying a rifle. It really is possible to go through a unit's full PT routine while armed.

I also hated those days and really am glad the Army has change to proper running gear for PT. Combat boots are really hard on the feet and legs when you run long distances in them.

To be honest, of all the time I was in, the only parts about being disarmed that bothered me were the checking of private weapons into the arms room instead of keeping them in my barracks room. I never complained about it, because the part that bothered me wasn't where it was kept but the hassle of getting it when I wanted to shoot. The truth is that I accepted all of these impositions and many more because that is what you do when you are a soldier. You understand that you give up many of your rights in order to serve. We may be asking why the soldiers were disarmed, but I bet the thought doesn't even cross most of their minds.

As to the academic discussion of why they get disarmed and whether or not it is right, I will add a few minor points. I know why the issue weapons are kept in the arms room. It is truly the only way to keep track of the government property. There are way too many cases of property being lost or stolen (or pawned). Look at how the public reacts when a police van is broken into and weapons are stolen. Consider the same thing multiplied by the number of soldiers and the reputation of the military.

On the private weapons, there are a lot of points. If I were a base commander, my soldiers would obey whatever the state laws are. I would let people with a CHL carry. I would probably still restrict the possession in barracks (or require the weapon be properly secured in a safe), but people who live off base or in quarters would have their own.

I am aware of the risks, as one of my friends was killed when the squad was at a member's house off base and they were showing their pistols around (MP's are probably a little more gun guys - fans not experts - than the average cop). The problem is that they are kids (most under 21, very few over 25 - and I look back now and say kids though I would have argued then) and they are not as safe as they could be. There was also alcohol (cops and soldiers both drink as a general rule) and obviously the two don't mix. Someone thought the gun was empty (we know better) since it had been shown around to four or five people before he got it. When he pulled the trigger, there was still a round in the chamber and it hit the soldier in the spine.

I would be willing to run that risk for soldiers, but I can understand the Army not be willing to do so. Look at the investment they have and their attitude towards protecting that investment. Look at their programs on motorcycles as one example. If they thought they could get away with banning motorcycles for soldiers, they would. They know they can't so they make it really hard to register a bike on post or ride it (must have helmet, long sleeve jacket, gloves, MSF rider course, and reflective vest - good advice, but carrying the mandatory a little far). They can get away with banning carrying of weapons, so they do. They still allow personal ownership and use, just ban carrying for safety (in their mind).

With any decision, there are always risks to both sides. In the case of Major Hasan, the guess worked out wrong. But we have no way of knowing how many soldiers are alive because the risk worked the other way, unlike my friend.

[Purplehood]

In the Marines we ran in Cammies and we ran in PT gear. Just depended on the situation. In the Army we strolled alot.

Back on topic, just read this on MSNBC:

Poor evaluations
Several officials told NPR that supervisors had repeatedly given Hasan poor evaluations and warned him that he was doing substandard work during his training at Walter Reed.

The sources told NPR that both fellow students and faculty were deeply troubled by Hasan's behavior, which they variously described as disconnected, aloof, paranoid, belligerent and "schizoid.

They described him using these terms and still allowed him to be a psychiatrist for returning combat vets?

Another official reportedly wondered aloud to colleagues whether Hasan might be capable of committing fratricide, like the Muslim U.S. Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar, who killed 14 fellow soldiers in 2003 by setting off grenades at a base in Kuwait.

Seems like not only the FBI let us down, but the Army appears to be willing to delude itself.

[Zee]

I've worked in mental health for over 25 years and I'm stunned how uncomfortable/ difficult/who-knows-what it is to say something about a peer who is clearly having some issues. I've repeatedly seen people with clear signs of trouble who are ignored by their friends and co-workers who make a living by recognizing worrisome traits and intervening.

I've gone to supervisors with concerns and have been shooed away or told to be quiet. None of these co-workers were homocidal but plenty were suicidal or delusional.

In addition to all the other factors discussed on this thread I see the inherent problem within the mental health commmunity of not viewing peers the same way we view other clients. I hope I see some discussion by my fellow therapists about this unfortunate phenomenon due to this tragedy.

[Purplehood]

All of these statements coming out of the woodwork regarding Hassan and his fitness, yet he made Major in 8 years? Was the Army afraid to say, "He is not qualified for advancement" for some particular reason?

[marksiwel]

All of these statements coming out of the woodwork regarding Hassan and his fitness, yet he made Major in 8 years? Was the Army afraid to say, "He is not qualified for advancement" for some particular reason?

Maybe he was good at his job, but was a total whack job other than that. I could be wrong, but I've worked with people who "On the job" are the best, but outside of that are completely insane/drunk/drug addicts, they just dont let it leak into their job.

I have the uneasy feeling its because of his background, and no one wanted to be "that guy" who points out that he seemed to be unfit for duty.

Do you want to be "That Guy"? I dont. I worked with "That guy" who pointed out the unfortunately a deaf person was not going to be able to preform the duties needed of the job. He was let go because of it. Too bad he was 100% correct and after months of pure hell we had to let the deaf person go, who then sued the hell out of us.

[bdickens]

Purplehood is 100% correct about the dirtbags one finds in the Army. The very guy who is supposed to be covering your flank is going to be the first one to steal from you. There's still a lot of soldiers in the Army under the "join the Army or go to jail" program. I even had one of those guys working for me.