Another Fort Hood shooting?

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.

**Jihadin**

Must not be sensational enough to make the news

**Kilkrazy**

There are about 30,000 gun related deaths a year in the USA. A third are suicides. If the statistic you find so surprising is correct, it is only 81 deaths a year, which is quite a low rate.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
Does that include gang shootings?

I only skimmed it because it's been past time for bed but I think it's simply any shooting in which 4+ victims were killed in a single incident by a single shooter. Presumably a goodly percentage of those killings are people un-newsworthy, or else it makes no sense.

**whembly**

What I don't get is that If soldiers can be trusted not to shoot unarmed Iraqis or Afghanis (or any theatre), why can’t they be trusted not to shoot their fellow soldiers or Americans?

Anyhoo... I'd find a happy medium.

Allow serviceman to open carry personal/service pistols (provided that it's register with the MP/AP).

**Kilkrazy**

Would that reduce the gun related death rate?

**whembly**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Would that reduce the gun related death rate?

Yeah, because we know the shooter didn't stop until he was approached by armed MPs.

Shooter probably rationalized that since the bases are "guns-free zones", he'd have free reign.

If personnels were allowed to carry, the shooter would probably NOT go on this rampage... or, at the very least, be approached by armed opposition MUCH quicker. Thus, mitigating more casualties.

**Jihadin**

Who's watching the armed deterrent?

**Kilkrazy**

whembly wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Would that reduce the gun related death rate?

Yeah, because we know the shooter didn't stop until he was approached by armed MPs.

Shooter probably rationalized that since the bases are "guns-free zones", he'd have free reign.

If personnels were allowed to carry, the shooter would probably NOT go on this rampage... or, at the very least, be approached by armed opposition MUCH quicker. Thus, mitigating more casualties.

Introducing guns to military bases would probably reduce the already low rate of mass shootings, and, as an unfortunate side effect, might greatly increase the overall rate of deaths from the other causes.

In the rest of the USA the gun related death rate is much higher because of accidents, suicides, murders and other killings.

Hopefully the accident rate would be low on military bases, due to people being properly trained.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
What I don't get is that If soldiers can be trusted not to shoot unarmed Iraqis or Afghanis (or any theatre), why can’t they be trusted not to shoot their fellow soldiers or Americans?

It's a tough question with no good answers.

If you need a gun because you cannot trust your fellow soldier, then how do you trust your fellow soldier with a gun? It just ends up being a circular argument.

The knee-jerk reaction will be that you cannot trust soldiers not to shoot their fellow soldiers as evidenced by this act. This is painting a giant population of law abiding soldiers and veterans with a giant broad brush though and in the long term it is not accurate. But headlines being what they are, this will be the picture painted by one side of the argument. . Incidents like this are newsworthy, but they are still rare. Even with this headline I am more concerned about soldier/veteran suicides than violence against others.

**chaos0xomega**

Jihadin wrote:
Who's watching the armed deterrent?

The National Gu.... can't say it with a straight face....

Kilkrazy wrote:
whembly wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Would that reduce the gun related death rate?

Yeah, because we know the shooter didn't stop until he was approached by armed MPs.

Shooter probably rationalized that since the bases are "guns-free zones", he'd have free reign.

If personnels were allowed to carry, the shooter would probably NOT go on this rampage... or, at the very least, be approached by armed opposition MUCH quicker. Thus, mitigating more casualties.

Introducing guns to military bases would probably reduce the already low rate of mass shootings, and, as an unfortunate side effect, might greatly increase the overall rate of deaths from the other causes.

In the rest of the USA the gun related death rate is much higher because of accidents, suicides, murders and other killings.

Hopefully the accident rate would be low on military bases, due to people being properly trained.

In areas where there are military bases I suppose thats true, assuming local government allows personnel to carry... also, don't assume that being in the military goes hand in hand with being a 'trained killer' or even 'properly trained'. The lions share of military personnel fall into support roles and have never and most likely will never see a combat zone, and a large number of them have been 'trained' in proper firearm handling, etc. once and haven't touched a firearm for years afterwards... mostly in the Air Force and the Navy, but still don't assume that they know how to handle a firearm properly based on something they don't practice regularly.

**Kilkrazy**

At any rate, on military bases you could mandate proper training and licensing to carry a gun.

**Ouze**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Would that reduce the gun related death rate?

Yes, but not in the obvious way - the Rambo-style shootout way people imagine.

In most mass shootings the active shooter will kill themselves immediately upon contact with law enforcement, so there would be less victims if there were a faster armed response. This is why the recommended doctrine for an active shooter is to immediately attempt to engage with the first LEO on the scene, even before backup arrives, even before securing the scene, even if you have to step over victims in need of help - seconds mean lives in this (relatively unlikely) scenario.

**Da Boss**

I reckon it's more interesting to think about why, when these mass shootings happen, they seem to mostly happen in the united states.

I reckon it's not actually because of the availability of guns and so on, it must be something else. That's what I'd like to figure out.

It's really sad that this happened in Fort Hood again though.

**Ouze**

Da Boss wrote:
I reckon it's more interesting to think about why, when these mass shootings happen, they seem to mostly happen in the united states.

Is the latter a fact? They get a lot of media attention, but in sheer terms of death count Anders Breivik did pretty well. Mumbai also comes to mind, and wasn't there another one recently in either India or Pakistan?

**Da Boss**

I am not actually sure if it is a fact. I did some reading on this before, and certainly the country with the most reported mass killings was the USA, but of course I am not saying that my hour or so of reading was conclusive evidence.

**Ouze**

Here's an incomplete list, unfortunately not scaled by population but which seems to show this is a global phenomenon.

also, it was an honest question; I don't know either.

**Da Boss**

Ouze wrote:
Here's an incomplete list, unfortunately not scaled by population but which seems to show this is a global phenomenon.

also, it was an honest question; I don't know either.

Cheers for that. Eyeballing it with a quick (in my head) calculation off what I know about population sizes, it doesn't look like there's a dramatic difference between areas. Be worth actually approaching it a bit more robustly- but I've been in the pub all evening and don't feel up to it!

**easysauce**

yeah, we just had another mass killing in china too...

much higher body count too, but from a knife, and in another country, so not news OFC

http://www.news.com.au/world/chinese-man-stabs-six-people-to-death-in-dispute-over-family-properties/story-fndir2ev-1226866942784

scary, but china has had far more mass murder deaths in the last month due to knives then the states has had all year due to guns (over 30 dead, over 100 wounded this month alone)

OFC each spree in china was also stopped once armed authorities arrived.

the question should be "what is the best way to get the armed responders to the scene in time to mitigate the situation"

or "why are almost 100% of mass murders in the states committed by people on psychiatric drugs and or anti depressants"

it is NOT a USA problem, and it is NOT a gun problem.

**xole**

easysauce wrote:

or "why are almost 100% of mass murders in the states committed by people on psychiatric drugs and or anti depressants"

Probably unrelated, but most anti-depressants make you more active before they level your mood. This is a time frame measured in weeks though.

**djones520**

whembly wrote:
What I don't get is that If soldiers can be trusted not to shoot unarmed Iraqis or Afghanis (or any theatre), why can’t they be trusted not to shoot their fellow soldiers or Americans?

Anyhoo... I'd find a happy medium.

Allow serviceman to open carry personal/service pistols (provided that it's register with the MP/AP).

We had a big discussion on this in class today. (I'm currently at an Army base going through Infantry training.) Lots of stuff thrown around on the idea.

I'm of the thought allow CCW's, and allow various senior (experienced) personnel to be armed at all times. As someone mentioned, this guy killed himself the moment he was met with armed resistance. There have been a lot of other cases just like that, where the perp gave up, or killed himself once their was resistance. We're the military for feth's sake... It makes no sense that we can't be even be trusted to defend ourselves.

**d-usa**

djones520 wrote:
It makes no sense that we can't be even be trusted to defend ourselves.

(Edit: Taking the position of the devils advocate here)

But right now the argument will be that you can't even be trusted not to kill each other. That's the circular argument I was talking about earlier. You need a gun because you can't be trusted, you can't have a gun because you can't be trusted. It's a no-win situation for folks on base...

**NeedleOfInquiry**

d-usa wrote:
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.

Laughed out loud at the reference.

We had a cook go apeshit back in 73 or 74 when someone complained about the food. He grabbed a large carving knife and stated chasing the guy around the mess hall and everyone was laughing right up to the point he caught up to the guy and nailed him to a table thru the chest.... (He did survive)

Nobody sat at that table for a week or two... they never did get all the blood stains out...

Cooks ARE dangerous....and they do not need a gun to prove it...

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

xole wrote:
easysauce wrote:

or "why are almost 100% of mass murders in the states committed by people on psychiatric drugs and or anti depressants"

Probably unrelated, but most anti-depressants make you more active before they level your mood. This is a time frame measured in weeks though.

You've also got the fact that the very severely depressed (which people often are in addition to other mental health issues) can't function well at all, and end up spending a massive amount of time asleep/resting

as they start to recover they being to be able to act (perhaps for the first time in a long while) which is one reason why the suicide risk is much higher in the first few months on an anti-depressant , I'd imagine they this reduction in symptoms would also allow those with the underlying inclination to become violent to act on those impulses too

treatments by pill alone are not enough (despite being quicker and cheaper), there needs to be competent psychiatric help too

(not saying they weren't available in this case, I don't know enough about the specific circumstances to make a judgement)

**Jihadin**

Up most. I can only see Staff Duty having a armed weapon in the safe for any "Oh Hell" moments but I doubt it.

In a bit on Fox they're talking to a NCO that knows Lopez from deployment I think.

Edit

Well after seeing and hearing his former NCO talking, people around his apartment complex, and being he is newly arrived at Hood. One Is no one has contacted Lopez wife who still has no clue on what's going on besides what she is seeing on TV. That irks me....

Lost his mother last year.
Lost his Grandmother same time frame.
Infantry till reclassed to Truck Driver
Three weeks into Hood
Newly arrived to his unit being Repl. Detachment time is like 7-8 working days.
Argument before formation it seems.

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
I reckon it's more interesting to think about why, when these mass shootings happen, they seem to mostly happen in the united states.

Is the latter a fact? They get a lot of media attention, but in sheer terms of death count Anders Breivik did pretty well. Mumbai also comes to mind, and wasn't there another one recently in either India or Pakistan?

Mexico has a ton, Africa has a ton, The Caucuses have their share, the Middle East is rife with gun violence... It ain't close to unique with the US.

**Bullockist**

CptJake wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
I reckon it's more interesting to think about why, when these mass shootings happen, they seem to mostly happen in the united states.

Is the latter a fact? They get a lot of media attention, but in sheer terms of death count Anders Breivik did pretty well. Mumbai also comes to mind, and wasn't there another one recently in either India or Pakistan?

Mexico has a ton, Africa has a ton, The Caucuses have their share, the Middle East is rife with gun violence... It ain't close to unique with the US.

I'd argue that if you compare the US to similar countries in Europe and anglo centric countries; Australia, Canadia ect. then the US has a far higher rate of mass killings especially in the last 2 decades even if you take it to a per capita level. The only European nation i saw come close was Germany in the 'school killings section'.

In regard to psycho active drugs it usually isn't the psycho active drugs that are the problem it is the user stopping taking them due to bad side effects or thinking they don't need them any more.

**easysauce**

sorry but I have seen too many gentle people turn violent after taking meds like paxil, and stay violent while on them well past the first few weeks, to buy that they are not at least a contributing factor.

otherwise we would see more shooters with mental health problems, but not on any meds,

as it is, seems like almost all were under the influence such drugs.

**d-usa**

The drugs do put you at a higher risk for the first couple of weeks. The illness usually has two components: mental (depression/anxiety/aggression/etc..) and physical (not having energy). Almost all antidepressants fix the low energy aspect before the even begin to really act on the mental aspect.

It's not uncommon for people to be depressed enough to want to kill themselves/others and not have the energy to do that. When they start the meds they are still having SI/HI, and now they have the energy to act on them.

**whembly**

So... uh... this is interesting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/chicago-homicide-rate-2014_n_5070438.html

Chicago Posts Lowest First Quarter Homicide Totals Since 1958

Chicago Police posted encouraging news about the city's once-staggering homicide rate Tuesday and continued a cautiously optimistic trend that law enforcement is stemming the tide of violence in the Windy City.

Citing newly-released police data, the Sun-Times reports Chicago's first quarter of 2014 tallied the lowest number of homicides since 1958. The numbers reflect six fewer homicides than the same period in 2013, and 55 fewer homicides since the same time in 2012.

"This is now the sixth consecutive quarter that we've had significant reductions of murder and violence in the city," Chicago's Police Supt. Garry McCarthy told ABC Chicago in an interview Tuesday. "We're pleased, but of course we have a lot of work to do."

Though the homicide rate has improved from years past, the homicide total is already past 50 in the first three months of the year.

In the past weekend alone, there was one homicide and 13 shooting victims in a 36-hour span -- largely on the city's South and West Sides, the Tribune reports.

McCarthy acknowledged to ABC that even in crime-heavy areas where incidents are down, "perception lags to [the] reality of crime."

"You don't reduce the murder rate in Lincoln Park the way that you do in Roseland," McCarthy said. "Roseland is where we're seeing great gains, but sometimes people don't feel that. When the murder rate goes down from ten to eight, do you feel 20 percent better? No. We understand it."

The city's top cop said crime across the board is down, attributing the progress to better police training and community-based initiatives aimed at keeping kids off the street.

McCarthy also touted the recovery of 1,300 illegal guns during the first three months of the year while taking a jab at the state's new concealed carry law.

McCarthy and Mayor Rahm Emanuel both staunchly opposed concealed carry in Chicago, prompting the top cop to point out the department made the first arrest in Illinois of a concealed carry permit holder after the man allegedly threatened to shoot someone in a rent money dispute.

"We're going to have tragedies from this," McCarthy said of concealed carry in Chicago. "The answer to gun violence is not more guns -- it's less guns."

Via this....
-The first three months of the year saw 6 fewer murders than the same time frame in 2013–a 9 percent drop–and 55 fewer murders than 2012, according to a statement from Chicago Police.

-There were 90 fewer shootings and 119 fewer shooting victims, drops of 26 and 29 percent respectively, according to police statistics.

-Compared to the first quarter of 2012, there have been 222 fewer shootings and 292 fewer shooting victims. Overall crime is down 25 percent from last year, and police said more than 1,300 illegal guns were recovered in the last three months.

So... having CCW made a dent? At least it's going in the right direction.

**d-usa**

Good message from the VA:

http://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/13622/ptsd-does-not-equate-to-violence/