- Four soldiers killed, including the gunman; The gunman was a male and has not been named
- 16 other personnel injured
- The weapon used was a .45 caliber pistol. The pistol was purchased legally shortly prior to this incident
- The weapon was not registered on base
- The gunman has served in Iraq in 2011 and was newly assigned to Ft Hood
- The gunman was currently being treated for mental/psychiatric help, specifically for depression and anxiety
- The investigation is currently ongoing and further details will be released at a future time
A brief statement included that the gunman/soldier entered his unit headquarters building, opened fire and killed three other soldiers. He left the building, entered a vehicle and drove around to another location continued to fire. He encountered a Military Police (MP) soldier, was engaged and then took his own life. A total of 16 other persons were injured in the ordeal.
- The gunman was currently being treated for mental/psychiatric help, specifically for depression and anxiety
- The investigation is currently ongoing and further details will be released at a future time
A brief statement included that the gunman/soldier entered his unit headquarters building, opened fire and killed three other soldiers. He left the building, entered a vehicle and drove around to another location continued to fire. He encountered a Military Police (MP) soldier, was engaged and then took his own life. A total of 16 other persons were injured in the ordeal.
From my previous post, I asked two question and they have partially been answered tonight. Well I actually asked four questions... Who was the shooter? A active duty male soldier, who was also an Iraq War veteran. What was his background? He was currently being treated for mental health issues. What type of gun was used? A .45 caliber pistol. How was it obtained? Legally purchased shortly prior to the incident.
You may or may not know that personal weapons on military bases must be registered and are strictly prohibited to be carried on base, concealed or openly. The only weapons that are permitted to be carried on base are by MP's on duty. You can summarize these restrictions as 'Gun Control.' Now another question I ask (and I am sure it will be asked in the main stream media in the days to come) is "If law abiding citizens/residents were allowed to legally carry their sidearms on base, would this incident have been prevented?" The same question came up (somewhat) at the press conference when a news reporter asked [Lieutenant General Mark A. Milley] if allowing soldiers to carry weapons would have prevented or aided in the stoppage of the incident. LtGen Miley quickly gave his opinion and said "no" and that he believes soldiers should not be allowed. He said quickly after that he did not want to get into 'that' debate. He also mentioned that the response personnel (MP's) and the response time were adequate. That opinion may be up for criticism and debate as well. The LtGen was quick to give his opinion but may have been forgetful of the experiences the military goes though abroad.
Several statements come to my mind when I hear opinions like what the General said, especially when it comes to incidents involving our military. If we can trust our military service members overseas in the Middle East to carry weapons and protect the innocent, themselves, and each other, then why cant we trust them here in the states on their own bases? Another statement I believe in is a very controversial one. I believe that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. I'm sure we can reasonably agree that the bad guy in this case was the gunman and the good guy was the MP. If it were not for the armed MP confronting the gunman at that moment, the casualties could have been higher.
The 'gun' debate will come up over and over, there is no question about that. Which side we stand on and how we debate it is going to be a real sensitive matter. I think that the issue is not just guns but more importantly mental health, especially when it comes to our military. I am sorry this incident took place today and wish everyone involved my condolences and a speedy recovery to the injured. Although this is tragic, it will bring up a continuing debate.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun”, is statement worth of my attention and discussion. Mass shootings in this country have occurred in the nearby presence of armed personnel (good guys) who were unable to prevent the shootings from happening. To name a few: Columbine High School shooting (1999), two shooters armed with weapons and explosives entered the school and went on a killing spree, before killing themselves, death toll=13. There was an armed guard at the school at the time of the shooting. Virginia Tech (2007), single shooter, death toll=32. Virginia Tech has its own police department on campus. Fort Hood (2009), single shooter, soldier, death toll=13. Fort Hood (2014), single shooter, soldier, death toll=3. Both occurred in a military installation where there were armed military personnel (good guys with a gun).
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of the argument, let’s assume that we armed every military personnel inside military installations, every teacher in elementary schools through college, every doctor in hospitals and clinics, every pilots and crew on flights, every government employee on the workplace and the list goes on…will we then feel safer in our communities, workplaces and when we travel?. Will be able to stop every “bad guy with a gun” from committing a crime? The answer is not a more armed society, but one that critically takes responsibility and action to address an underline issue that takes center stage in these tragic situations.
The shooters mentioned above have a common factor that played a major role in the outcome of these tragic events. It is called: Mental Illness. For the two soldiers involved, there was a history of PTSD. If we recognized and treat at an early stage the symptoms of mental illness, we could prevent some of these tragedies from happening by helping those people who are at greater risk.
Works cited:
Gun Control Follow-Up: Attempts to Pass Gun Control Measures in Aftermath of School Massacre Fail." Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 9 May 2013. Web. 5 Apr. 2014. <http://www.2facts.com/article/ib170243
I wont disagree that the issue is mental illness. I wholeheartedly believe the real issue we have in our nation in regards to gun violence is a mental illness problem. But Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Fort Hood all had what in common? Each location has a strict form of 'gun control' implemented. As well as an extreme difference of an armed to unarmed ratio.
ReplyDeleteWe know that weapons of any sort are not allowed on campuses. Columbine High had an armed guard at the time of the shooting, but one for how many students? Is one armed guard sufficient to protect high school 900 students? From what I researched, the maniacs who carried out the shooting planned for months and had more than one weapon, including bombs. How planned out was the shooting? Do you think a greater population of armed adults, specifically teachers, could have prevented some or all of the killings?
VT, just like any college campus around the country, has strict restrictions pertaining to weapons on campus. The police department on campus where the only ones with weapons. I would assume maybe a handful of officers for a few thousand student. The shooter in the VT also carefully planned out his spree.
Fort Hood, along with all or most U.S. military bases, may have an armed police force but out of how many resident? There are tens of thousands of employees and residents and probably only a few hundred armed MP's.
I am not arguing to arm every employee, teacher, doctor, or soldier or troop. I am presenting an opinion that maybe if we had more trained and capable armed citizens, then these incident could have been prevented or at least better contained. Statistic show that less restrictive gun law communities show a reduced number of crimes, most recently in Chicago (US Finance Post). 'Bad Guys' tend to choose the path with least resistance and gun-controlled areas happen to provide that path. They fear resistance and even though they use weapons themselves, they're more likely to cower when they get a weapon thrown right back in their face.
We will never be able to stop all crime or incidents from taking place, bad thing are going to happen and that's just life. But when people are faced with bad guys with guns, the good guys with guns are going to level the playing field. I believe a community or society of responsible armed citizens, less restricted, is a part of the solution. History and statistics can support analysis of that.
Source:
"More guns equal less crime in Chicago as murder rates plummet." Finance Post. 05 Apr. 2014 .