Forthoodsign

Not Even Soldiers are Safe from Gun Violence in U.S.

Opinion by Freedom States Alliance
(November 06, 2009) in Society / Guns

CHICAGO – Not even soldiers on an American military base such as Fort Hood are immune from the unique threat from powerful and increasingly lethal handguns. Army Major Malik Nadal Hasan is a psychiatrist who treated returning vets suffering from PTSD and other issues of mental illness.

He was scheduled to deploy to Iraq within weeks. Unconfirmed news outlets initially reported that Hasan used two privately-owned handguns, a semiautomatic handgun and a .357 revolver to murder 13 people (12 soldiers and 1 civilian) and wound 28 others before being wounded by a policewoman responding to the scene.

In response, Freedom States Alliance communications director, Scott Vogel offered condolences to the victims and families of the shooting massacre stating “It is particularly heartbreaking for our nation that so many brave and selfless men and women who serve our country have lost their lives as the result of this terrible shooting.”

Lt. Gen Robert Cone, the Commanding General of Fort Hood, said that the handguns used by Hasan to murder his fellow soldiers were not military weapons. When asked during the press conference on Thursday night whether the soldiers under attack were armed, Gen. Cone made a remarkable statement:

“As a matter of practice we do not carry weapons. This is our home. (Emphasis added). We do have security guards that are here, the MP’s and the Department of the Army civilian police… the fact is that soldiers do not carry weapons routinely unless they are in a training event.”

Such a definitive statement from the commanding general of the largest American base demonstrates the military’s own concern about the easy access to handguns and other weapons, even from its own highly trained and disciplined military personnel. Such a restrictive policy against carrying guns, even for soldiers who are prepared for combat, should give guidance to lawmakers about the need to better control access to firearms for civilians.

In addition, our lawmakers must recognize that soldiers with multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and who suffer high rates of combat fatigue, PTSD, substance abuse and other mental health concerns, are at greater risk due to the easy access to guns. Despite this fact, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) is pushing a gun lobby backed bill, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act (S. 669), that would limit the circumstances in which a veteran’s name could be added to a federal database used to do instant background checks for gun purchases.

Sen. Burr’s legislation would prohibit the Veteran’s Administration from submitting soldiers’ names to the National Instant Criminal Background Check database unless a judge determines the veterans to be a danger to themselves or to others. Such a high standard ensures that soldiers will gain easier access to firearms regardless of their emotional state or mental health and will put themselves and others at greater risk of violence.

“This tragic shooting highlights the need for our policymakers to courageously stand up to the gun lobby to pass stronger gun laws and provide solutions to the 280 million guns in private hands that put us all at risk. Afterall, if the good men and women on our nation’s largest army base are vulnerable to a mass shooting, then clearly we have a national gun crisis that demands our attention,” said Sally Slovenski, Freedom States Alliance executive director.

Regarding Opinion
Not Even Soldiers are Safe from Gun Violence in U.S.

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • LagerHead
    Nope, they're not.

    Because they are not allowed to carry on base. Yet another fine example of the safety inherent in "gun free zones." Notice how all the mass killings in the U.S. seem to happen in these safe areas? Curious, ain't it?

    - LagerHeadUS November 6, 2009 1:40PM

    Reply to this Recommend (5) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • m46607
      Where Were the MP's?

      There were no armed guards with our Alert Level at "elevated." Considering blue is considered "guarded," you'd think they'd have some sort of protection in an area where so many soldiers live.

      - m46607US November 6, 2009 2:35PM

      Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • LagerHead
        Have you never called 911?

        Ft. Hood has some kind of mix of civilian and military law enforcement. And there is not a one-to-one ratio of police to personnel, so it's not like there are armed guards for everyone.

        In addition, the guy shot 44 people. Even with a reload, that can be accomplished in a relatively populated or crowded area in about a minute, maybe slightly more. But definitely under 2 minutes. The only place you'll get the police to respond in under 2 minutes is the front desk of the police station. Outside of that, the police - in about 99% of cases - are going to be interviewing witnesses and taking reports.

        - LagerHeadUS November 6, 2009 2:59PM

        Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Submariner
          FYI

          Nearly every military base there is has civilian police and security as part of regular force protection.

          If they did not, being off deployment would be as much a burden (though usually safer) than being on deployment, and the military would need to be twice the size (which would create need for a larger police force, et cetera ad absurdem).

          Although I agree that it's futile to fight fire with fire when it comes to firearm proliferation, I want to say that military bases are absolutely not a good place for open carry or even remote access to personal firearms .

          - Submariner November 8, 2009 3:04AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • LagerHead
            Not sure I understand this statement:

            "I want to say that military bases are absolutely not a good place for open carry or even remote access to personal firearms ."

            Why exactly are our military bases - home and working place to the people with the bets and most firearms training - not good places for people to be allowed to carry their personal firearms?

            - LagerHeadUS November 9, 2009 8:31AM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • Submariner
              Clarification

              The military maintains very discipline possession, control and maintenance requirements for all firearms . Turnover for a shotgun and a pistol is a scripted 3 person affair with checklists, special equipment, and 10 minutes of timing done precisesly, for example.

              Having the same people handling and carrying another set of weapons without this level of control would be unduely hazardous (and it is hazardous, as any years mishap report summary will indicate). Chain of possession would be confused, unrated/uncertified weapons or ammo could corrupt armories. There's lots of technical reasons.

              More seriously, most of the military are young people from diverse backgrounds with a lot of pressure on them. Even in ideal situations the anonymous but dense nature of military society can quickly lead to duress and stressful altercations that would be carelessly aggravated by the presence of firearms. The fact is, situations are hardly ideal; a lot of members are very young and come from troubled backgrounds. The structure and discipline of the military can develop such people into good citizens as well as good warriors, but they do not start that way. Even with strict rules there has been a lot of conduct problems at major training bases, very large commands (such as Aircraft Carriers) and overseas.

              Plus a lot of military bases have especially hazardous materials, family housing , school and services, or prisoners. It just does not make sense to have lesser controls on guns at these places.

              The problems with firearm proliferation, whatever they may actually be, are in these situations exacerbated.

              - Submariner November 9, 2009 9:38PM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • LagerHead
                Not much different from civilian life.

                I have served in the military as well, so I understand very well the diversity, the stresses, etc. I'm still confused by your argument though. If it is OK for a soldier to carry his firearm at the store across the street from the main gate of his base, how does he become more dangerous or unstable just by entering the base? Unless of course what you really mean is nobody should have the right to carry.

                - LagerHeadUS November 10, 2009 8:46AM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Dylandts
        I heard

        I heard on the new's he fired on a long line of soldier's waiting for something along the line of medical check (ex. eye tests)

        - DylandtsUS November 6, 2009 6:34PM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Maestro Pistolero
    Another failure of the gun control model.

    Increasingly lethal handguns? Handguns are no more lethal than they were 100 years ago. The FBI hostage rescue team carries handguns that were designed in 1911.

    What is lethal, is so-called gun control , which was in full effect on the base. If those soldiers each had their sidearms, this miscreant's rampage would have been shut down pronto.

    Still, the anti-gun lunatics can muster the hubris to use this failed, hideous policy, as an example of how we should expand this failed, hideous policy of restricting law abiding people from defending their own life.

    - Maestro PistoleroUS November 7, 2009 12:34AM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Grace O Malley
    It just goes to show the Brady is right.

    This tragic incident just goes to show that the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence is correct. In addition to denying citizens the right to defend themselves they must now also extend the campaign to disarm both the military and the police . It's just the logical thing to do. We'll just all have to learn to love and respect one another.

    - Grace O MalleyUS November 7, 2009 5:05PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • the car man msncom
      OH YEAH

      The brady bunch is right. Freedom Alliance as seems to be their slant is pushing the disarmerment of our soldiers, wait a minute that has already been done on military bases, so whats the point. Again it wasn't the gun "more lethal" but the agent behind the gun a Muslim who hated Infidels,in case you haven't heard thats pretty much all Americans , so much he decided to kill as many as possible and if killed he would become a martyr and live on in the eyes of hard core radical muslims history forever. Gun control ain't the answer. We need "intelligence' back in the military. I know it isn't politically correct to profile "muslims" but if they serve in are military you would think that with as many red flags screaming I HATE MY JOB AND I HATE WHAT MY CO. IS DOING that someone would have called for at least a physc evaluation if not a discharge from the service. People Kill People, guns are just the tools used to get the job done.

      - the car man msncomUS November 7, 2009 9:36PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • MikeS
    Open/Closed Posts

    Since Gulf War I - and even more so since 9/11, there are almost NO open military posts in the United States. That means that you must have military or DOD ID in order to come onto any base by the usual means.
    Most base perimeters are only secured by chain-link fencing, easily breached by anyone who wishes to. Criminals sometimes gain access this way in order to steal government property.

    Hope this helps the discussion.

    - MikeSUS November 8, 2009 6:39AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • harleyjames
    We used to feel pretty safe in the old days...

    When I was in the service, we all carried firearms during war time (Vietnam) on USA bases, deployed or not. no "gun free" zones existed. Never had a "random" shooting like this over being deployed to what I consider as bad a hell-hole as Iraq or Afghanistan IMO. Ever seen a real tiger eviscerate your buddy up close or a tiger shark eat a man overboard whole? Not exactly spelled out in the Geneva Convention…

    So the coward didn't want to be deployed... During Vietnam Wartime we had Suicide objectors, sure. Conscience objectors, many. Killing our own people on purpose, no.

    Just so you don't get confused, the Vietnam War was a civil war between the North and South I didn't agree with fighting in, but I joined the military to serve my country as I was directed, my religion was irrelevant, unless short-sightedness makes you believe all Christian and Jew hippies are just blood thirsty fighting fanatics that love a good war like me and the North Vietnamese were a peaceful bunch of flower-power lovers that live and let live… Now of course, we didn't have any US-born 'North Vietnamese' military officers sharing the base with us either. Perhaps a policy change for Conscience Muslim objectors is in order. Hell, let them stay here, but in jail like all the other objectors next time. I believe his loss of salary (O4= Major 10 years+ of service making $5482 ($65784 annual)) could have helped repay the stimulus debt instead.

    The Fort Hood killer (I refuse to use his cowardly given name) as he will be forever known, will most likely be found to have originally directed his twisted anger at someone or a specific group of persons the perpetrator believed was the reason for his problems. Religion had nothing to do with it until later. Remember, the perpetrator is (but soon to be busted) a military officer. He knew he gave it all up when he pulled the first round off. This man was psychotic way before this point. The rest of the soldiers were in the wrong place at a bad time. Then “death by cop” was the only answer his twisted mind could come up with after that. This man has always been just a coward in disguise as a soldier. And please don’t tell me he got this way because he was taunted by his peers. He was a O4 grade MAJOR and a psychiatrist for many years. He knew all the mind tricks except how to get himself discharged honorably. He didn’t need a gun. He could have been anyone’s worst nightmare with just a choice word or two. If you have been in the military and examined by a psyche, you know what I’m saying. I get the feeling the military psychiatric world is in for a change, you think?

    This Fort Hood shooting would have lasted five rounds (10 seconds) at best if everyone was properly trained to fight and had a 9mm sidearm loaded with 17 rounds on their hip. We used to carry a 45 Colt 1911 Govt. model with only 7 rounds everywhere (except off base or ship where I was too young (17) to own a handgun). Ridiculous to make our children fight for our country overseas with technology weapons and not allow them to protect themselves the same way in their own country. Liberal politics help get these people killed. Yes it affects the military as well. Guess who was President when they stopped the practice of open sidearm carry on base? Anybody here as old as me know that one?

    Helpful insight:
    1. Forget the Muslim connection; this guy was committing 'death-by-cop' but because in his religion, he can't do it himself. As in most every case of this nature, he was after one person he felt was the cause of his problems, (this one individual has yet to be disclosed) and when he realized there was no going back after the first trigger pull directed toward his "cause of his deployment" person in HR, he had nothing left to lose except his life. By yelling "ALLAH AKBAR" he was just hoping to get to Muslim heaven to meet his virgins he's been promised or in some twisted way, give his life some meaning to himself. Thank “___ “ (insert your own deity name or “the cop’s poor aim”) he didn’t die yet. My guess is military jail can be a hell on earth for shooting your own people.

    2. The "easy-to-understand threat level" system didn't exist in the early sixties and seventies, we just called it DEFCON(#) and "heightened security" back then. Been in DEFCON FOUR during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Felt a little stronger than "Severe"...

    Don't need it (HRS levels) anyway. Have you seen it prevent terrorist threat or action yet? Perhaps we should have one above "Severe" Threat Level Red. We can call it "bend-over-and kiss-your-ass-goodbye" level or rename it "Brown” level because that's the last thing you'll see if we keep on this pacifistic path.
    HJ

    - harleyjamesUS November 8, 2009 4:26PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • foobar
    Solider or not, Unarmed means defenseless.

    All this article proves is that if you are unarmed, you are defenseless. It doesn't matter a bit that they were soldiers.

    - foobarUS November 9, 2009 2:14PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • the car man msncom
      Can Die for Your Country, Not Allowed to Carry

      Since march 12th, 1993 army regulation 190-14, promulgated under then commander in chief Bill Clinton. Limits and controls the carrying of firearms by Department of the Army military and civilan personal (para 2-6). Yeah what a kick in the head you can serve your country and be expected to use firearms sensibly but as soon as you return to the base you must be disarmed, you might act impulsively or even irresponsibly. I find it a little degrading to think of our soldiers as people who cannot act responsibly with firearms.

      - the car man msncomUS November 12, 2009 2:15PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

See Related...