[samsamsam]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...g/7225399/

Quote:

Officials at Fort Hood in Texas say there is a shooting on base and are advising all personnel to shelter in place.

The base near Waco, Texas, issued a statement saying "There has been a shooting at Ford Hood and injuries are reported.'

News is saying something about 2 shooters (one captured) maybe another running around. Maybe 8 people shot. News is just trickling in.

A few years ago there was a shooting on this base.

Edit: Now news is saying 1 shooter and shooter is dead. 8 wounded - 4 in grave condition.

[Snowplow]

Man that's terrible. I just heard on the news. How is ft. Hood such a target? I mean you'd think the armory would be pretty high on security after the first shooting.

[Professor Fox]

The place in Fort Hood where the first shooting took place, weren't the servicemen and women barred from carrying firearms there?

Seems like a terrible decision, another gun-free zone tragedy. We can't trust those in our military to carry? FFS!

[kaotic]

Shooter's dead apparently, still an active zone. Sucks man.

[Cr33pin]

The Hood ain't safe!

[Cincinnatus]

Four people dead, 16 injured according to CNN's latest article. Tragic.

[Tail Gunner]

The world's best-trained military is completely impotent in gun free zones, otherwise known as U.S. military bases. Citizen soldiers who defend liberty overseas cannot even exercise their own constitutional right to defend themselves with a firearm while on active duty at home.

Terrorists and criminals would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than any of these crazed gunmen faced at Fort Hood.

Quote:

President Obama said he was “heartbroken that something like this might have happened again.” Speaking during a fundraising trip to Chicago, he pledged “to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

We all know what happened. More victims sacrificed on the alter of political correctness. Absolutely shameful.

[spalex]

If soldiers were allowed to carry weapons and ammunition around freely on an army base. They believe there would be more cases of soldiers going crazy and opening fire on each other rather than civilians or terrorists targeting the base.

Thats why on most army bases the guns are locked away and the ammunition is locked away on the other side of the base.

[It_is_my_time]

(04-03-2014 12:56 AM)spalex Wrote:  

If soldiers were allowed to carry weapons and ammunition around freely on an army base. They believe there would be more cases of soldiers going crazy and opening fire on each other rather than civilians or terrorists targeting the base.

Thats why on most army bases the guns are locked away and the ammunition is locked away on the other side of the base.

I could be wrong, but I read that soldiers were free to carry weapons on base until Bill Clinton changed this in the 1990's.

The problem is they keep cutting military spending on the guys in the field. Who go through 4, 5, 6+ deployments, get paid little for it, then come back to the V.A. hospital (socialist healthcare in the USA) which is beyond a joke of how bad it is. There is little to 0 mental health consoling for these vets who have seen the worst. Many are simply ignored, others have their requests and paper work "lost" in the system.

All the while, we have to waste billions of tax payer dollars on planes or boats we will never use and eventually give away to some other country.

I would say the people in the USA need to wake up before this thing collapses under the weight of our massive federal debt and the amount of fraud and corruption. But probably 45% of the country is already wide awake to it (a large % of this 45% are men). The other 55% simply could not give a damn, and will not give a damn until they can no longer watch "Real Housewives of ____" or "The Bachelor" because the electricity grids collapse.

[spalex]

(04-03-2014 02:16 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 12:56 AM)spalex Wrote:  

If soldiers were allowed to carry weapons and ammunition around freely on an army base. They believe there would be more cases of soldiers going crazy and opening fire on each other rather than civilians or terrorists targeting the base.

Thats why on most army bases the guns are locked away and the ammunition is locked away on the other side of the base.

I could be wrong, but I read that soldiers were free to carry weapons on base until Bill Clinton changed this in the 1990's.

The problem is they keep cutting military spending on the guys in the field. Who go through 4, 5, 6+ deployments, get paid little for it, then come back to the V.A. hospital (socialist healthcare in the USA) which is beyond a joke of how bad it is. There is little to 0 mental health consoling for these vets who have seen the worst. Many are simply ignored, others have their requests and paper work "lost" in the system.

All the while, we have to waste billions of tax payer dollars on planes or boats we will never use and eventually give away to some other country.

I would say the people in the USA need to wake up before this thing collapses under the weight of our massive federal debt and the amount of fraud and corruption. But probably 45% of the country is already wide awake to it (a large % of this 45% are men). The other 55% simply could not give a damn, and will not give a damn until they can no longer watch "Real Housewives of ____" or "The Bachelor" because the electricity grids collapse.

I don't know what the exact reason is. But there are a lot of concerns.
All the bases I have been on (including a couple in the US), your weapon had to be in an armoury at all times. I was just under the impression it was always like that.

The US military is very unique when it comes to how they take care of the soldiers.
I couldn't believe it when I found out how badly they get paid.
Also, in many other countries, the military go to lengths to help you integrate into a civilian lifestyle once you discharge. They would usually give you an opportunity to take up a trade, or get some civilian qualifications before you discharge.

It seems the US military just say "yep, thanks for your service, sorry about you getting permanently disabled... But we paid you $40k a year... So you should be fine."

In the Australian army, you wouldn't even get paid for your deployment until you had gone through weeks of post-deployment psychological sessions and testing.
I don't know what they do in the US but I am fairly sure it isn't as thorough, or helpful. If they do anything at all!

If there is guys coming back from deployment with PTSD. Of course you cant let them walk around a base with loaded weapons!
Fuck, I remember a few cases from years back after the liberation of Iraq when a US marine shot another marine in the chest after having a freak out just days before they were about to head home.

[Samseau]

The most important part of the story will be the part most overlooked by those in the gun-debate:

If we cannot successfully ban guns from a military base, which is locked down with armed security 24/7, how are we supposed to ban guns from a school, university campus, town, or city?

Logistically, It appears to be impossible to ban guns. Forget the philosophical side of the argument and focus solely on the practical - the US government cannot stop guns from entering a military base!

Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/us/fort-ho...r-profile/

Quote:

Gun used:

Lopez used a .45 caliber Smith and Wesson semiautomatic pistol that he recently purchased in the area, Milley said. He didn't know how much ammunition Lopez was carrying.

"If you have weapons and you're on base, it's supposed to be registered on base," Milley said. "This weapon was not registered on base."

Unregistered weapon guy just waltzes right in.

[lskdfjldsf]

This was pretty recently, but when I was in, weapons were always locked up in the armory. We never received ammunition unless on the range or doing live fire exercises.

Regarding pay... we had a marching cadence along the lines of "They give you a hundred dollars, and take back 99..."

[Tail Gunner]

(04-03-2014 12:56 AM)spalex Wrote:  

If soldiers were allowed to carry weapons and ammunition around freely on an army base. They believe there would be more cases of soldiers going crazy and opening fire on each other rather than civilians or terrorists targeting the base.

Thats why on most army bases the guns are locked away and the ammunition is locked away on the other side of the base.

Soldiers were allowed to carry weapons on military bases until President Clinton enacted a prohibition. You would need to be really crazy to open fire on a military base where everyone carried firearms, at which point you would quickly be shot down like a dog.

Allowing firearms means that one or two people would die if someone was crazy enough to open fire on an armed military base, instead of ten or twenty completely defenseless victims.

[Sourcecode]

Theres nothing wrong with the us military.
Every culture has their own style of military. America has its.

I argue that the military does provide for soldiers. If they go through the proper steps..there are all kinds of ways to get money.
Sadly...no everyone knows what paperwork to fill out...
Rarely are they informed of these things at the low levels. Its suppose to be the job of officers to know how to inform ttheir soldiers and unfortunately they often fail.

Also..the military does harbor a lot of people with few options.
That creates a culture completely different from say, the german army..who up until a couple years ago still had mandatory service.
Now its volunteer and the german military is struggling to get numbers.
No one looks at the military as a down an out job like in the states.


Thus..its not that many soldiers arent getting benefits cause the system is fucking them...its that many of them couldnt manage themselves to begin with.
That just turns the military into a welfare system that only complicates the whole matter even more.

Will such a large military..its extremely hard to have a smooth bureaucratic system to provide.
The people that sit in the biggest shit piles scream the loudest.
People slipping through the cracks make a lot of noise.
People rarely wanna talk about how much good comes from the military.
Its the same in normal life...you build 1000 bridges but suck one cock and you're a cocksucker for life.


On the issue of not having weapons free on base.
Its part of the system. Military bases work different than civilian world. Everyone can't walk around with a pistol on their hip.
There is no good argument for allowing this that doesnt ignore multiple factors.
Like Samseau said...
If you can't ban them on bases..how do you expect to ban them in the rest of the country.
If someone is gonna shoot...they will shoot.

If someone is gonna bring a bomb on the plane..they will find a way. The TSA just clogs up the system more.
But that doesnt mean we are gonna let everyone start walking straight onto planes with fireworks and lighter fluid.


tl;dr
Don't complain about a system you don't understand
These things happen

[Basil Ransom]

At many bases, people are driving onto base and parking there. At that point, it's virtually impossible to ensure people are entering the base without firearms or other weapons, so long as firearms are common in the local area, I.e. all of the United States.

The only thing 'preventing' someone from bringing guns on base is a rule telling them as much. Which obviously almost everyone abides by, except the crazies. I'm not a wholesale gun nut, but there's a simple equation in effect here:
firearm availability + low security = vulnerability.

Neither of those factors are going to disappear. Guns are with us, and it would be too costly and difficult to cavity search every person who comes on base day in, day out. It would be too logistically difficult to make a base as secure as an airplane. The best you can hope for is that if a shooter comes on base, he is dispatched as quickly as possible.

A program whereby military officers and enlisted can take extra training and then carry a firearm on base is eminently sensible. I've had arguments with people over this, and I've yet to encounter a good opposing argument. The people arguing against it are just irrationally afraid of guns, or mindlessly submissive to whatever their betters tell them.

If a man can be trusted to carry a rifle into the thick of battle, you should trust him to carry on a base, given the proper training.

The only scenario in which I can imagine this policy coming to catastrophe is if someone got into a fight on base and then whipped out a gun, but this seems like a very low probability event compared to a crazed shooter.

[samsamsam]

Press conference of the physicians at Scott & White Memorial - stupid female reporter asks, "Have any relatives indicated that they might want to talk to the press about this."

I don't know why I am reacting to this - other than, in this very sad moment, people wounded and dead, what would be the point of going to the press? I am annoyed with the reporter and any relative who would want to be sharing with the press. Maybe there is some deep reason to share - I can't figure it out. It just seems like attention whoring. The reporter had nothing better to ask? If all the relevant questions have been answered, then don't ask a question. Reminds me of school when students said stupid stuff just be heard.

I can understand maybe the wounded would like to talk about it, but the relatives? Solely just to provide content for the news agencies? Maybe I am off on all this.

One of the sadder moments of the press conference was when the doctor described the 3 more seriously injured and the additional surgeries they would have to go through and the severity of their injuries. Very tough to hear. You just don't expect soldiers to die at all, hopefully, but definitely not on US soil.

[RockHard]

(04-03-2014 09:54 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

Soldiers were allowed to carry weapons on military bases until President Clinton enacted a prohibition. You would need to be really crazy to open fire on a military base where everyone carried firearms, at which point you would quickly be shot down like a dog.

Allowing firearms means that one or two people would die if someone was crazy enough to open fire on an armed military base, instead of ten or twenty completely defenseless victims.

Really? Now that's interesting. Never been in the military but I'd assumed that they controlled access to firearms in order to avoid accidents - seems to me that a bunch of 19 year olds running around with automatic weapons would be a recipe for a bunch of soldiers getting hurt doing something dumb. I don't really buy the "guys blowing a fuse", being in a stateside base isn't the same thing as guys fragging their asshole lieutenant out in the bush.

[Tail Gunner]

(04-03-2014 11:16 AM)RockHard Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 09:54 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

Soldiers were allowed to carry weapons on military bases until President Clinton enacted a prohibition. You would need to be really crazy to open fire on a military base where everyone carried firearms, at which point you would quickly be shot down like a dog.

Allowing firearms means that one or two people would die if someone was crazy enough to open fire on an armed military base, instead of ten or twenty completely defenseless victims.

Really? Now that's interesting. Never been in the military but I'd assumed that they controlled access to firearms in order to avoid accidents - seems to me that a bunch of 19 year olds running around with automatic weapons would be a recipe for a bunch of soldiers getting hurt doing something dumb. I don't really buy the "guys blowing a fuse", being in a stateside base isn't the same thing as guys fragging their asshole lieutenant out in the bush.

There would be no reason to tote around assault rifles. I was talking about carrying sidearms, just as people do almost everywhere else in the U.S.

Quote:

The shooting Wednesday follows not only the 2009 massacre but also the Washington Navy Yard mass shooting last year. In the wake of that, Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, introduced a bill to allow servicemembers and civilians to carry personal firearms on these installations. He renewed the push for that bill on Thursday.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said it's time to change the rules.

"We need to harden our military bases so this can't happen, and one possible way to do that is to allow our veterans and active-duty military ... to carry weapons," he told Fox News. "I guarantee if they had ... they could have stopped this guy almost immediately."

[Billy Chubbs]

(04-03-2014 02:44 AM)spalex Wrote:  

In the Australian army, you wouldn't even get paid for your deployment until you had gone through weeks of post-deployment psychological sessions and testing.
I don't know what they do in the US but I am fairly sure it isn't as thorough, or helpful. If they do anything at all!

Even in Canada's piss poorly run military, they were smart enough not to bring guys home immediately after Afghanistan-they sent them to Cypress to party their asses off there and evaluate their mental condition. If they went crazy, at least they did it in a quiet, out of the way country.