Here we go again: Fort Hood shooting

[globemaster3]

Fox News is reporting another shooting at Fort Hood. Details still sketchy at this point beyond there being casualties and potentially 1 active shooter down.

In light of this, and with the DoD's continues policy of firearms restrictions on base, does anyone think they might reconsider that policy?

Also, who thinks this might breed another round of vociferous anti-gun wailing?

[dakota.potts]

Descriptions say one male with a .45 caliber handgun - methinks probably a single stack 1911.

What could they possibly say? Ban handguns? Ban magazines over 8 rounds? They couldn't get evil black rifles and even New York isn't enforcing their 7 round ban 100%, so I doubt too much will come of it.

Will this make them reconsider gun free zones, at least on military bases? I'd like to think it will add to the pressure, but I am doubtful if it will be the breaking point.

[Tom Servo]

Will this make them reconsider gun free zones, at least on military bases?

That's very doubtful, especially considering the silence on the matter after last year's Naval Yard shooting.

That said, if this is to stay open, let's eschew any speculation before the facts are apparent.

[dakota.potts]

It is good that you noted that, Tom. Now they're saying possibly two gunmen and one dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. I guess it's one of those things we'll have to let play out before more happens.

[Brian Pfleuger]

In light of this, and with the DoD's continues policy of firearms restrictions on base, does anyone think they might reconsider that policy?

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

Also, who thinks this might breed another round of vociferous anti-gun wailing?

Of course it will, among the usual, rabid anti-gun talking heads. No one is really listening anymore, so it won't make any difference or make any real news.

[thallub]

Just watched it on CNN. According to the US congressman from that district; the shooter, a soldier named Lopez, is dead. There are 14 wounded, including four or five in critical condition.

[thallub]

Pentagon is saying multiple fatalities. They are calling it a soldier on soldier "incident" that is not "terror" related.

[globemaster3]

D-I-M 4-14-Unk

Being active duty, I discussed over the years with fellow Airmen and we all lamented the rule prohibiting concealed carrying or being permitted to have access to weapons in your vehicle.

When I lived on various bases, I always had my personal weapons in my quarters, but that's been the rule at every base I've been at. However, if you lived off base, it was another story with regards to brining weapons on post. If you were going to the rod and gun club, it was normally permitted. On Army posts I've hunted, all my weapons had to be registered with the Provost Marshall.

Does anyone know where the specific regulation is regarding personal weapons on base? Specifically, is it a DoD, Service, or command-level guidance?

The reason I asked about the anti perspective is I cannot remember hearing too much after the Navy Yard shooting.

[SamNavy]

^The reason the Navy Yard shooting was quickly out of the media was because there was no angle to exploit. In fact, it actually got a lot of people talking again about how gun-free zones (all military bases) are killing fields, no matter where they are, which of course isn't on the agenda.

As for military bases, the average servicemember may not possess weapons. Regular sailors/airmen/soldiers are not allowed weapons on their persons or in their vehicles under almost all circumstances... even for military law-enforcement... and certainly not for the purpose of self/collective-defense. There are provisions for transporting firearms to/from rod&gun club-type places (unloaded and in locked cases), and for personnel who live ON BASE to have firearms in their vehicles as they travel directly to/from their home and the gate. Transient personnel and members who reside in barracks must register and store their weapons in the base armory. Installation Commanding Officers have no leeway in these matters.

[globemaster3]

Sam, you kinda regurgitated what I said about the limitations on base, and we who have/are serving know the "rule", but my point is where is the official guidance? I'm going to spend some time tomorrow going through the E-Pubs and see if I can find it.

Edit...
Because every publication has an OPR, OCRs, and waiver authority spelled out. Might be time to exercise that chain, even if the answer might be "no".

[leadcounsel]

First, thoughts and prayers to the service member and civilian victims and their families. I've been to Ft. Hood, and this is tragic and preventable.

While speculation, this may be workplace violence brought on by the irresponsible and frankly poor treatment and downsizing of the military. Lot's of stressed out and PTSD and otherwise folks who need help are finding the military is coldly discharging them. I've seen, personally, an alarming number of suicidal or very angry individuals who unfairly were getting their walking papers.

Does anyone know where the specific regulation is regarding personal weapons on base? Specifically, is it a DoD, Service, or command-level guidance?

There are layers of rules and regulations. Top down:
1. UCMJ prohibits concealed carry, Article 134.

Elements.

(1) That the accused carried a certain weapon concealed on or about the accused’s person;

(2) That the carrying was unlawful;

(3) That the weapon was a dangerous weapon; and

(4) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Explanation.

(1) Concealed weapon. A weapon is concealed when it is carried by a person and intentionally covered or kept from sight.

(2) Dangerous weapon. For purposes of this paragraph, a weapon is dangerous if it was specifically designed for the purpose of doing grievous bodily harm, or it was used or intended to be used by the accused to do grievous bodily harm.

(3) On or about. “On or about” means the weapon was carried on the accused’s person or was within the immediate reach of the accused.

2. Base rules and regulations, orders by the Senior General Officer or the Garrison Commander
3. Unit/Brigade level punitive orders, by an 06 Commander.
4. Company level punitive SOPs by an 03 Commander.

So, you can (potentially, although unlikely) get whammied from a variety of levels if you violate orders, each of which carries serious penalty.

Keep in mind also that there are requirements to REGISTER all guns on post. Presuming that the person carrying a gun illegally also failed to register it, that person could be charged with another felony level offense.

So, in theory (and quite commonly), a Soldier will be caught carrying a concealed unregistered gun on base and face 2 or 3 felony level offenses. And it doesn't end well.

Well, you want to stop this nonsense, allow every senior enlisted and officer with a concealed carry permit, who is not otherwise administratively flagged, to carry concealed when in garrison.

I see zero valid logical reasons that it is prohibited.

I've never liked that policy, and it's among the top reasons I left military service. Despite being an officer with a clearance, and significant training, I'm not trusted enough by the US Army, but I am by the 45 states in the US, to carry a handgun! An untrained person can pay $50 and get a concealed carry permit that works in 45 states. Yet a trained Soldier can't carry a sidearm, concealed or open, on a military installation while at work. Oh, wait, the 21 year old E3 traffic cop MP can carry a sidearm and long guns. But not officers or senior NCOs with combat experience! Asinine leadership.

And it costs lives. There've been a handful of times over the last few years where service members have absolutely died because they were not armed. Same is true carrying totally unloaded duty weapons downrange. Asinine leadership decisions get people killed.


Sadly military members are hyper-targets and at the same time super vulnerable to attacks. Our vehicles are obvious when off base. Everyone knows we can't carry to/from work, so we're vulnerable in transit to/from work. And clearly people can get guns onto base.

I have seen a lot of threats by Soldiers against leadership - who are effectively sitting ducks at their duty stations. Those same threatening Soldiers could be armed, and they know their leadership is not.

Same was true when we were deployed. Policies actually prevented us from having loaded firearms. NO mags in the weapon, no chambered rounds. So, we're walking around on base with our clubs slung around our backs, showing our IDs to the Ugandan and Nigerian and Iraqi guards armed with loaded AK74s and AK47s at the DFAC, MWR, and other buildings. ***, over??!!

Big surprise. Lots of our Afghan and Iraqi 'partners' have figured this one out, and they get onto base as our 'friend' and then open fire into groups of essentially unarmed American Soldiers with our unloaded clubs slug around our backs. Asinine policies get men and women killed, time and again.

I really, really would like changes from the top down that valued the lives, security, and safety of military members, rather than just more FRG meetings.

But it won't change in favor of liberty and sanity. If anything, more gun restrictions will follow.

[TimSr]

Pentagon is saying multiple fatalities. They are calling it a soldier on soldier "incident" that is not "terror" related.

They are still insisting the last one was not terror related, but was workplace violence from a disgruntled employee.

[globemaster3]

Lead counsel, now that is what I am talking about. But correct me if I am wrong... It sounds like those are the defining points of if you commit a crime while carrying a concealed weapon. It sounds like it is not defining that you cannot carry concealed.

Which then leaves me with my quest. Where is the guidance written? If it's a DoD reg, meh, can't do much there. If a service reg, tough, but not necessarily impossible. If it's command level or lower, that is getting to the point where real change could happen if a properly conducted effort was put forth.

WRT arming on post down range... I saw a little of everything during my last tour in 2012. For my location, we were almost always mag in, no round in the chamber for sidearms and rifles. Once leaving the compound, it was full up, obviously.

[Andy Blozinski]

One interesting thing that I've noticed about the media coverage is how the numbers of dead are counted. If you count the shooter among the dead, you get to inflate the number of "victims" and make it seem more deadly. Some media count the shooter, some do not. The headline is like a first impression and sets the mood and influences mind set. No incident is more blatant than the cop shooting last month in which the two shooters committed suicide. You could find, at the time, headlines stating three had been killed in a shooting. The meat of the article may have explained more, but the intent of effect and tone was set.
At least this morning, I'm seeing the sources I typically get quick news from NOT counting the shooter as part of its victim count. CNN Headline News is an example and it is widely accessed by many.

[tyme]

So, the shooter is reported as having been treated for PTSD and depression. Sad, and tragic, but I'm surprised this kind of thing doesn't happen more often. I'm convinced that war breeds pathological psychology.

[pete2]

Disarm all the good guys and this is what happens. It's happened over and over again. On military posts, movie theaters, Luby's, SCHOOLS etc. Why is it a surprise every time it happens? In a lot of cases we can steer clear of those places but not military bases if you're trying to serve your country. It' pretty much politics gone wrong.

[guruatbol]

You'd think they would put 2 & 2 together. The vast majority of these sort of things happen in gun free sones.

I am surprised national parks haven't had their share.

My thoughts and prayers to the families and victims.

Mel

[44 AMP]

Well, even to the ace investigators in the media, dead people are kind of obvious.

Who is the shooter is not so obvious.

And since first reports may not identify the shooter as one of the bodies, and since body counts NEVER go down (which, absent a verifiable case of the dead returning to life, reducing the body count would imply the news made an error), further reports keep the body count, and add the phrase, "including the gunman(s)"...

What bothers me (on a personal level) is the frequent misuse of the word "alleged". We all know of the presumption of innocence in court, and you are not allowed to refer to a person as such until found such by a court. That's fine.

My issue is the sloppily constructed sentences where they talking head puts the word "alleged" where it is referring to the crime/shooting, NOT the shooter.

Also I dislike the accepted practice of referring to them as alleged when they are taken in the act. To my mind, someone (like Nidal) who is shot down by police in the act of shooting people removes it from the "alleged" category. Clearly, they did it. No "alleged" involved. Their guilt under the law is alleged, until after it is confirmed or rejected by a court, and perfectly fine to use alleged in respect to that. But to use "alleged" for every reference to the crime and the accused until after the trial is wrong to my ears.

Of course, expecting the media to use English correctly requires two elements. First, they have to know what correct is, and second, they allegedly have to care....

[kilimanjaro]

PTSD from what? Per MSNBC this morning, the shooter was never in combat.

[Sharkbite]

"Lopez, a 34-year-old specialist, served four months in Iraq and was undergoing treatment for mental health issues."

One wonders what happened that he was only downrange for 4 months.

[Buzzcook]

How about not starting illegal wars in which soldiers get PTSD and then shoot people up.

Doesn't it go without saying that had Bush not lied us into war in Iraq and then Obama cowardly kept us there; this would not have happened.

[Spats McGee]

How about we not venture off into general politics and foreign policy? That's beyond TFL's intended scope.

[lcpiper]

Installation Commanding Officers have no leeway in these matters.

Actually there is no DoD or Army regulation that requires registration of any personally owned firearm with the exception of this statement;

Transient personnel and members who reside in barracks must register and store their weapons in the base armory.

And even it has a problem because normally there is no such thing as a "Base Armory", usually units down to Company Level have individual armories, at least on Army Bases.

Each Base Commander has the option of instituting such a policy, the statement below is simply false. The regulations concerning this make it clear what normal policy is, and that it's up to post commanders to determine when to deviate from normal.

Same was true when we were deployed. Policies actually prevented us from having loaded firearms. NO mags in the weapon, no chambered rounds. So, we're walking around on base with our clubs slung around our backs, showing our IDs to the Ugandan and Nigerian and Iraqi guards armed with loaded AK74s and AK47s at the DFAC, MWR, and other buildings. ***, over??!!

I saw an NCO spot one of his soldiers who had his weapon slung but it was loaded and not safe, (RED). in a PX on FOB Slayer. I watched as he had the soldier clear and safe his weapon in line for the checkout. The entire small unit was armed and possessed ammo. It is a mistake to assume that anything is universal on this subject and making universal statements are almost always universally untrue.

[lcpiper]

Spats is right, comment removed.

[leadcounsel]

"Lopez, a 34-year-old specialist, served four months in Iraq and was undergoing treatment for mental health issues."

One wonders what happened that he was only downrange for 4 months.

While it does make one wonder, PTSD can happen on day 1 in combat theaters. I'm aware of guys who were attacked and people killed on day 1 when they landed in theater, and on their last day en route to their flight, and every day in between.

We'll soon know the legitimacy of this Soldier's PTSD issues. I hope that this raises awareness to get help - real help - for PTSD sufferers. I hope this does NOT effect gun rights negatively.

I was in Iraq in 2011 and it was still dangerous. A lot of American Soldiers were killed in 2011; albeit not as many as prior years because we had largely withdrawn from the kinetic fight. But I can assure you that the US was still losing Soldiers to snipers, infiltrated bases, mortars, and IEDs. PTSD can happen for a variety of reasons.

According to this site http://icasualties.org/Iraq/ByYear.aspx
US deaths in Iraq was 54 in 2011, down from 961 in 2007 (during the surge when we had 3 times the number of Soldiers in the height of actual combat operations). Looks like about 200 +/- wounded in Iraq in 2011. So, it was still a dangerous place to be.

The appropriate thing for the military is to actually help these Soldiers. I suspect that this Soldier was getting more harassment than help from people with the attitude that he couldn't possibly have PTSD after only 4 months in Iraq, which is the adult version of bullying - which results in Columbine type situations where the bullied people snap and go on shooting sprees.

I've had clients - hardened combat infantrymen - in my office, have emotional and mental breakdowns and admit they wanted to put a gun in their mouths and end the harassment and torment from their leadership. Unless you have been there, you have no idea nor right to judge what it's like to go through either combat operations or the torment by leadership who don't care or understand or sympathize with junior Soldiers' emotional problems. They can truly be heartless.

According to this article http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1744315
His mother died and he was denied the ability to attend her funeral and was upset by this. That is the harassment I'm talking about. So, they denied him the right to go to his mothers' funeral! I just shake my head. The article goes on to say that he may have been given a 24 hour pass to attend. Seriously, a 24 hour pass to attend an international wedding in Puerto Rico?!?!? What kind of heartless monsters did he work for? What could possibly be so important in 2014 at Ft. Hood to deny this guy a week of leave (you know, that vacation time you save up for and are supposed to be able to use - yet many Soldiers are denied leave so often they lose it, like myself) for an international funeral?

This is a all-too-common tactic for the abusive leadership to deny pass/leave to attend important events like funerals, births, etc. of family members. Many of my clients reported this. Meanwhile, you know darn well that favorite Soldiers and the leaders granting the leave are able to attend. Heck, in 2008, during the Surge, my Brigade Commander went home to attend an Airborne school jump with his son who was in Airborne school. Yet, I know Soldiers during that same era denied leave to attend funerals of close family.

It touches a nerve in me too. I had a client whose dad died out of state, and he was denied a pass or leave to attend the funeral. That client ended up suicidal. He was in very very grim condition for a lot of harassment from the unit leadership. He wrote me a lengthy suicide note and emailed it to me late one night. Long story short, I reached him on the phone on the ledge of a bridge, and literally saved his life by talking him off. This was well documented.

I always took the time and effort to get them help, and get their leadership on board with the program and end the harassment.

IF, and I say IF, this investigations shows that this Soldier had PTSD and his leadership was harassing him, I would hope those leaders are fired from their positions and held legally accountable for contributing to this situation. This is all too common in the Army. This leadership failure across the Army is out of control and partly responsible.

Getting this back onto gun topics, if I were a member of the family-victims I would sue the Government for disarming otherwise law abiding citizens. This is a Constitutional right. I think that lawsuits are the only way to eliminate these gun free zones. Before people chime in about giving up rights, blah blah blah, Soldiers do technically have some rights. Freedom of some speech, although limited, and the enjoyment of most of other Bill of Rights like 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, 14th, voting rights, etc.