Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Just a Man
Joined
·
6,061 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Army: No single action could have prevented Fort Hood killings
From Charley Keyes, CNN Senior Producer November 9, 2010 8:57 p.m. EST

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/09/army.f ... index.html

Washington (CNN) -- The Army must transform how it protects its soldiers, collects information about internal threats and communicates with the FBI and terrorism experts in an effort to prevent another incident like last year's shootings at Fort Hood in Texas, a report by the Army and the Department of Defense says.

The report, released Tuesday, says a remedy will be more Army participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force, teams of experts drawn from law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It also recommends that Army agents within the FBI headquarters work as part of the threat management unit.
They left something out.....................Allow all personnel to wear firearms while on base!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,842 Posts
tmoore912 said:
They left something out.....................Allow all personnel to wear firearms while on base!
Totally agree, tmoore912!

How is it that our armed forces aren't allowed to carry weapons on base???

What kind of handicapped thought process was behind that decision??? :screwy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
Not only could carrying guns have prevented the shooting, there are numerous other ways it could have been prevented.

They had evidence of him communicating with radical Islamists, how about better monitoring and sharing of information.

but yeah, it doesn't make any sense at all that I can go on post and sign out a gun and go to the range with my unit, but I cannot carry a personally owned firearm on post. I mean Major Hassan could have easily waited for a trip to the range to conduct his attack, but that would have given the advantage to all the other soldiers who would have been shooting back at him.
 

·
Just a Man
Joined
·
6,061 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
The report, released Tuesday, says a remedy will be more Army participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force, teams of experts drawn from law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It also recommends that Army agents within the FBI headquarters work as part of the threat management unit.
This is governmental code speak for more BIG Government. A single military member carrying a personal sidearm could have taken care of this. Might not have prevented it, but surely would have caused less loss of life.
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,883 Posts
Glocker said:
tmoore912 said:
They left something out.....................Allow all personnel to wear firearms while on base!
Totally agree, tmoore912!

How is it that our armed forces aren't allowed to carry weapons on base???

What kind of handicapped thought process was behind that decision??? :screwy:
Historically, militaries have been a bit ..... reticent, about allowing their press-gangs, shanghaied swabbies, and draftee's to have access to weapons with which they might harm themselves or the officers appointed above them. Although we like to think of our military members as professionals, we have to remember that many are professional typists, file clerks, mortuary assistants, electronics technicians, and truck drivers, not face-shooters. Would that it were otherwise, but militaries are more a cross-section of society than a particular segment.
 

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,896 Posts
I couldn't agree more. Some "Single Action" 1911's would have done the job, just fine!
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,318 Posts
Fallschirmjäger said:
many are professional typists, file clerks, mortuary assistants, electronics technicians, and truck drivers
Who should be able to carry.
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,862 Posts
And of course, those politically correct fools are liars...as usual.

They could have kicked Nidal Malik Hasan out of the military after he gave a presentation to other psychiatrists, where he said that non-muslims would go to hell, be decapitated, set on fire, etc..., and also defended suicide bombings.

Kicking him out at that point would have been one thing, wouldn't it?

But they were afraid to do so! Proof that political correctness literally kills.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,329 Posts
If soldiers had been "allowed" (but not required) to carry loaded guns for self-defense on quiet U.S. Army installations in the USA, how many soldiers would?
Would this terrorist-in-an-Army uniform have faced a hundred armed adversaries, or at most a couple of them?
Could he have shot a dozen people before being taken down himself? Probably.
So he could still have gone on a shooting spree.
The only thing is, he might have racked-up a lower body count of victims.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,117 Posts
And a trial wouldn't be necessary had he died of lead poisoning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
gunsmoker said:
If soldiers had been "allowed" (but not required) to carry loaded guns for self-defense on quiet U.S. Army installations in the USA, how many soldiers would?
I believe the number would be somewhat proportionate to the number of regular citizens who carry loaded guns for self-defense, perhaps slightly higher in number. So yes you are right he probably could still have gone on a shooting spree, but if there were just one soldier carrying a loaded weapon nearby the body count could have been reduced. To me it makes no sense that some idiot checking IDs at the gate is able to carry a gun but a soldier cannot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
175FO said:
gunsmoker said:
If soldiers had been "allowed" (but not required) to carry loaded guns for self-defense on quiet U.S. Army installations in the USA, how many soldiers would?
I believe the number would be somewhat proportionate to the number of regular citizens who carry loaded guns for self-defense, perhaps slightly higher in number. So yes you are right he probably could still have gone on a shooting spree, but if there were just one soldier carrying a loaded weapon nearby the body count could have been reduced. To me it makes no sense that some idiot checking IDs at the gate is able to carry a gun but a soldier cannot.
Prior to Clinton, most senior NCO's, and most officers carried or had one in their desk drawer. The Ft Hood massacre would not have been as devastating prior to Clinton.
 

·
Senior Mumbler
Joined
·
6,526 Posts
Phil1979 said:
And of course, those politically correct fools are liars...as usual.

They could have kicked Nidal Malik Hasan out of the military after he gave a presentation to other psychiatrists, where he said that non-muslims would go to hell, be decapitated, set on fire, etc..., and also defended suicide bombings.

Kicking him out at that point would have been one thing, wouldn't it?

But they were afraid to do so! Proof that political correctness literally kills.
I tend to agree. Didn't it come to light that the Military had several indications in advance that something was amiss with Hasan and not act on any of them? :screwy:
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top