Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think the point is to try to prevent thing like this. People trained to kill, possibly with PTSD, depression, ect. Not the best combo. Although this policy hasn't seemed to work out very well.

Well, according to the news the gun was "recently purchased" and he was receiving mental health treatment. So once again we will come to the usual argument, so let me just go ahead and summarize the argument over the next few months:

Liberals: "We need more gun laws, clearly guns are dangerous".
Conservatives: " More gun laws aren't the answer, more guns are the answer. If people are armed they wouldn't be getting killed!"
Liberals "What about armed cops, they get killed?"
Conservatives: "Shut up. More gun laws are bad. He was clearly mentally ill, he was already getting treatment."
Liberals: " So we need more gun laws that make it harder for people with mental illness to get their hands on guns as well as getting rid of all guns already purchased."
Conservatives: "No, we need to enforce existing laws and provide better treatment for mental illness."
Liberals and Conservatives: *nothing happens to change anything, no laws or regulations for better mental health treatment are passed, no laws to make it harder for people getting treatment to get guns are passed, no gun restrictions are passed, nobody hands out guns to everybody, both sides just spend this time yelling at each other and giving speeches while checks for their campaigns get mailed*

6 months later, another mass shooting, copy and paste the above.

I laughed D-usa, then cried because it i true

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think the point is to try to prevent thing like this. People trained to kill, possibly with PTSD, depression, ect. Not the best combo. Although this policy hasn't seemed to work out very well.

Okay, again, this applies to all federal installations. Not too many postal workers or FDA workers and IRS agents are 'trained to kill' and suffering from PTSD.

Well, considering that many federal agencies hire veterans (who get preference for hiring purposes) it is a very real possibility that "trained killers" who possibly have PTSD can be found at any federal workplace.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, I can kinda understand not letting everyone carry around a gun. but no guards or something?

You have to put this incident into a bit of perspective. Ft Hood is like a small city. Yes, it has a police force, like any other small city. They can't guard every building just as the police force in any small city cannot guard every building in the city. Police respond to an incident, and when physically present have some deterrence factor. But that cannot be present everywhere.

 CptJake wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, I can kinda understand not letting everyone carry around a gun. but no guards or something?

You have to put this incident into a bit of perspective. Ft Hood is like a small city. Yes, it has a police force, like any other small city. They can't guard every building just as the police force in any small city cannot guard every building in the city. Police respond to an incident, and when physically present have some deterrence factor. But that cannot be present everywhere.

They are basically mini-Chicago...

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think the point is to try to prevent thing like this. People trained to kill, possibly with PTSD, depression, ect. Not the best combo. Although this policy hasn't seemed to work out very well.

Okay, again, this applies to all federal installations. Not too many postal workers or FDA workers and IRS agents are 'trained to kill' and suffering from PTSD.

Well, considering that many federal agencies hire veterans (who get preference for hiring purposes) it is a very real possibility that "trained killers" who possibly have PTSD can be found at any federal workplace.

As they can be in any place with employees, govt at any level or private. Guess the only answer is to make veterans a class of person for which it is illegal to own weapons, or make every place with employees a gun free zone. Or both.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think the point is to try to prevent thing like this. People trained to kill, possibly with PTSD, depression, ect. Not the best combo. Although this policy hasn't seemed to work out very well.

You can't know.

It's difficult to tell the number of servicemen who didn't shoot themselves in a fit of depression because of lack of easy access to weapons.

Given there are about 20,000 suicides by guns among the civilian population in the USA every year, it is probably a fair number.

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, I can kinda understand not letting everyone carry around a gun. but no guards or something?

You have to put this incident into a bit of perspective. Ft Hood is like a small city. Yes, it has a police force, like any other small city. They can't guard every building just as the police force in any small city cannot guard every building in the city. Police respond to an incident, and when physically present have some deterrence factor. But that cannot be present everywhere.

They are basically mini-Chicago...

Ft Hood has a population of over 50k. Not quite Chicago, but a small city, as I stated.

There are guards in the form of Military Police, though I'm not sure what their usual disposition is. I know the (Air Force and/or Joint) bases I've been on the USAF Security Forces personnel are usually armed with M-16s/M-4s (I never really bothered to be specific enough to check) on base, though the gate guards are typically unarmed rent-a-cops (with proper security forces on standby in a nearby trailer), and I know I've seen photos of my sister-in-law (US Army MP at Ft Riley Kansas) with a sidearm while on base, so there are armed personnel... but much like in the civilian population thats only a fraction of the people around, and they aren't everywhere, just at key/critical locations, and usually around the D-FAC/mess around meal time.

I'm wondering if this is going to lead to a more in-depth investigation on 'management' at Ft Hood considering they seem to be having more issues than other installations.

EDIT - Ninja'd by a half-dozen people

 Jihadin wrote:
Well...Gun Free Zones don't really work

Beat me to the punch.

Again, don't see the issue with having noncoms being armed, depending on what their duty is that day.

And cooks. Cooks should have grenade launchers. Then everyone will be happy to complement them on how excellent their food is.



EDIT: prayers for their families.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think the point is to try to prevent thing like this. People trained to kill, possibly with PTSD, depression, ect. Not the best combo. Although this policy hasn't seemed to work out very well.

Okay, again, this applies to all federal installations. Not too many postal workers or FDA workers and IRS agents are 'trained to kill' and suffering from PTSD.

Well, considering that many federal agencies hire veterans (who get preference for hiring purposes) it is a very real possibility that "trained killers" who possibly have PTSD can be found at any federal workplace.

As they can be in any place with employees, govt at any level or private. Guess the only answer is to make veterans a class of person for which it is illegal to own weapons, or make every place with employees a gun free zone. Or both.

I'm just showing that it is very likely that federal employees are veterans, some with PTSD. I didn't make any argument whatsoever about veterans owning guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, I can kinda understand not letting everyone carry around a gun. but no guards or something?

You have to put this incident into a bit of perspective. Ft Hood is like a small city. Yes, it has a police force, like any other small city. They can't guard every building just as the police force in any small city cannot guard every building in the city. Police respond to an incident, and when physically present have some deterrence factor. But that cannot be present everywhere.

They are basically mini-Chicago...

Ft Hood has a population of over 50k. Not quite Chicago, but a small city, as I stated.

I was trying to play off the "gun free zone" thing with Chicago...

The idea that all soldiers are PTSD riddled psycho paths just waiting to off someone or themeselves is ridiculous. This paranoia only makes the situation worse because it makes an atmosphere where the soldier doesn't want to tell anyone they have PTSD because of the stigma the media is attaching to it.

We can't arm our soldiers because they might have PTSD!
It's pure ignorance.

I'm a veteran with PTSD and I own lots of guns. I've never wanted to shoot anyone. Myself included.

Making army bases "gun free zones" is idiotic.

But the PTSD and Veteran had been used as excuses for 'gun free' policies in the post I was replying to. When you point out there may be scary PTSD killers in other places, you seem to be implying keeping those places gun free makes sense for the same reasons.

I find that implication awful.

Its interesting this happens right after the FBI drops its supposed search for another "Ft Hood style" attack based on something.

 MWHistorian wrote:
The idea that all soldiers are PTSD riddled psycho paths just waiting to off someone or themeselves is ridiculous. This paranoia only makes the situation worse because it makes an atmosphere where the soldier doesn't want to tell anyone they have PTSD because of the stigma the media is attaching to it.
.

I have a friend who has PTSD. Most of the time it just not approaching him from the back so he doesnt get scared, or loud noises. I never got the stigma for PTSD, these people went to war, saw friends died and horrible things, and for some reason, just because they where in the military, we think it should not have affected them. I think alot of people tend to try to think of the military(Especially in america) as invincible, and try to prescribe that to the people working it.

Anyone can have PTSD. Just the US Military is in the lime light due to combat deployments. PTSD is not exclusive with the US Military...

Side Bar

Lopez brought the weapon from the same place at Hassan. Think the owner might be looking to sell after this..

On Track

NCO's have PTSD to and at times we as NCO's are perfect but are not teflon coated. Still though is a NCO is armed then he/she is target number "one" being everyone know in the unit who is carrying a side arm.

 CptJake wrote:
But the PTSD and Veteran had been used as excuses for 'gun free' policies in the post I was replying to. When you point out there may be scary PTSD killers in other places, you seem to be implying keeping those places gun free makes sense for the same reasons.

I find that implication awful.

If you want to argue stuff I have actually said, then go ahead. If you want to argue against what you think I said and make yourself look stupid in the process, then go ahead as well.

Here is how it went down:

Somebody asked why all federal institutions are gun-free zones.
Co'tor answered that maybe it is because of "people trained to kill", possibly with depression and PTSD. He also states that this policy doesn't seem to work.
You said there are no "trained killers" with PTSD at other federal facilities.
I replied that taking federal hiring practices into account, it is actually very likely that "trained killers" with PTSD are working at all federal facilities.

Nothing in my statement makes veterans with PTSD dangerous. Nothing in my statement makes them out to be the reason for gun-free zones. All my statement addresses was your counter of "not many vets in federal employment". If you want to take my statement of "all federal jobs are likely to have a significant number of veterans" and turn it into "non-trustworthy killing machines with mental defects are working everywhere and nobody should have guns because veterans can't be trusted with anything every" then that is your problem. Don't say something stupid and then pretend that I'm the one who said it.

I took the same view view with Jake on your comment. Subtle....

 Jihadin wrote:
Anyone can have PTSD. Just the US Military is in the lime light due to combat deployments. PTSD is not exclusive .

Yeah, I have a friend who has PTSD from being in a car crash, because of that, he wont sit in a car unless he is in the middle seat. But he doesnt say he has PTSD because it is mostly associated with the military.

 Jihadin wrote:
I took the same view view with Jake on your comment. Subtle....

I can't help that.

My only view on veterans with PTSD is this: Be careful when waking them up. I learned pretty quickly that waking them up in a way that can startle them can result in somebody taking a swing at you, so I try to wake them up by using their names and if I have to touching the feet while staying out of kicking range. That's the extend of my opinion regarding the "dangers of trained killers with PTSD".

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
But the PTSD and Veteran had been used as excuses for 'gun free' policies in the post I was replying to. When you point out there may be scary PTSD killers in other places, you seem to be implying keeping those places gun free makes sense for the same reasons.

I find that implication awful.

If you want to argue stuff I have actually said, then go ahead. If you want to argue against what you think I said and make yourself look stupid in the process, then go ahead as well.

Here is how it went down:

Somebody asked why all federal institutions are gun-free zones.
Co'tor answered that maybe it is because of "people trained to kill", possibly with depression and PTSD. He also states that this policy doesn't seem to work.
You said there are no "trained killers" with PTSD at other federal facilities.
I replied that taking federal hiring practices into account, it is actually very likely that "trained killers" with PTSD are working at all federal facilities.

Nothing in my statement makes veterans with PTSD dangerous. Nothing in my statement makes them out to be the reason for gun-free zones. All my statement addresses was your counter of "not many vets in federal employment". If you want to take my statement of "all federal jobs are likely to have a significant number of veterans" and turn it into "non-trustworthy killing machines with mental defects are working everywhere and nobody should have guns because veterans can't be trusted with anything every" then that is your problem. Don't say something stupid and then pretend that I'm the one who said it.

Hey Kettle, argue against what I said, not what you think I said. I'll quote it for you: "Not too many postal workers or FDA workers and IRS agents are 'trained to kill' and suffering from PTSD." Even accounting for veteran hires, there are few 'trained to kill' postal workers, FDA and IRS folks. Same goes with any non LEO agency, and even within a huge chunk of the LEO agencies which all have a big admin cost.

And again, the post I was replying to DID use the PTSD Veteran excuse for Gun Free zones. Again, your piping in with your answer to that reply put into that frame, like it or not.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its interesting this happens right after the FBI drops its supposed search for another "Ft Hood style" attack based on something.

This thread will get stupid fast enough on it's own without Alex Jonesing it already, what say?

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
But the PTSD and Veteran had been used as excuses for 'gun free' policies in the post I was replying to. When you point out there may be scary PTSD killers in other places, you seem to be implying keeping those places gun free makes sense for the same reasons.

I find that implication awful.

If you want to argue stuff I have actually said, then go ahead. If you want to argue against what you think I said and make yourself look stupid in the process, then go ahead as well.

Here is how it went down:

Somebody asked why all federal institutions are gun-free zones.
Co'tor answered that maybe it is because of "people trained to kill", possibly with depression and PTSD. He also states that this policy doesn't seem to work.
You said there are no "trained killers" with PTSD at other federal facilities.
I replied that taking federal hiring practices into account, it is actually very likely that "trained killers" with PTSD are working at all federal facilities.

Nothing in my statement makes veterans with PTSD dangerous. Nothing in my statement makes them out to be the reason for gun-free zones. All my statement addresses was your counter of "not many vets in federal employment". If you want to take my statement of "all federal jobs are likely to have a significant number of veterans" and turn it into "non-trustworthy killing machines with mental defects are working everywhere and nobody should have guns because veterans can't be trusted with anything every" then that is your problem. Don't say something stupid and then pretend that I'm the one who said it.

Hey Kettle, argue against what I said, not what you think I said. I'll quote it for you: "Not too many postal workers or FDA workers and IRS agents are 'trained to kill' and suffering from PTSD." Even accounting for veteran hires, there are few 'trained to kill' postal workers, FDA and IRS folks. Same goes with any non LEO agency, and even within a huge chunk of the LEO agencies which all have a big admin cost.

And again, the post I was replying to DID use the PTSD Veteran excuse for Gun Free zones. Again, your piping in with your answer to that reply put into that frame, like it or not.

1) "Why are federal places gun free zones?"
2) "Because of A"
3) "There are not many As working at the IRS or postal service"
4) "Due to hiring practices there are probably a significant number of As working there."

#4 argues against #3, it doesn't validate #2.

Veterans make up 30% of new hires in the federal workforce, a number that has been growing. 30% is different than "not too many". That's what I am arguing, and it is not the same as what you like to pretend I am arguing. I've never argued that veterans with PTSD are the reason why gun free zones exist.

I wonder how long until a party tries to use this to their political advantage.

 Jihadin wrote:
Anyone can have PTSD. Just the US Military is in the lime light due to combat deployments. PTSD is not exclusive with the US Military...

Side Bar

Lopez brought the weapon from the same place at Hassan. Think the owner might be looking to sell after this..

On Track

NCO's have PTSD to and at times we as NCO's are perfect but are not teflon coated. Still though is a NCO is armed then he/she is target number "one" being everyone know in the unit who is carrying a side arm.

Thats why you give the cooks grenade launchers. Cooks, truly our last line of defense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its interesting this happens right after the FBI drops its supposed search for another "Ft Hood style" attack based on something.

This thread will get stupid fast enough on it's own without Alex Jonesing it already, what say?

I'm not Alex Jonesing it. I'm saying its a weird coincidence. Maybe he had posted some stuff and they caught a sniff but couldn't track it or something.

Frazzled, I don't understand your "cooks with grenade launchers" thing. Is there a point you're trying to make?

 MWHistorian wrote:
Frazzled, I don't understand your "cooks with grenade launchers" thing. Is there a point you're trying to make?

You are missing out on a great movie.

Two different incidents. That's confirmed.

Wonder how many Postal workers that went nuts were combat vet's...but then this might go into demonizing combat vet's.

 d-usa wrote:
Liberals: "We need more gun laws, clearly guns are dangerous".
Conservatives: " More gun laws aren't the answer, more guns are the answer. If people are armed they wouldn't be getting killed!"
Liberals "What about armed cops, they get killed?"
Conservatives: "Shut up. More gun laws are bad. He was clearly mentally ill, he was already getting treatment."
Liberals: " So we need more gun laws that make it harder for people with mental illness to get their hands on guns as well as getting rid of all guns already purchased."
Conservatives: "No, we need to enforce existing laws and provide better treatment for mental illness."
Liberals and Conservatives: *nothing happens to change anything, no laws or regulations for better mental health treatment are passed, no laws to make it harder for people getting treatment to get guns are passed, no gun restrictions are passed, nobody hands out guns to everybody, both sides just spend this time yelling at each other and giving speeches while checks for their campaigns get mailed*

6 months later, another mass shooting, copy and paste the above.

I agree with all of that except the last line. There is a mass shooting in this country (as defined as at least 4 people shot in a single incident by a single gunman) on average every 18 days. Is that even possible? I must be misreading that, right?

Does that include gang shootings?