12 dead, 31 injured as 3 soldiers go on Texas army base killing spree

Military revisionism: now it's ONE shooter and he's still alive. nt, posted on November 5, 2009 at 19:24:12
dave c Audiophile Posts: 28394 Location: Ferny Hills Joined: April 17, 2000	bleep

He was a psychiatrist. The Scientologists were right!, posted on November 5, 2009 at 17:52:50
Enophile Audiophile Posts: 7139 Location: Las Vegas Joined: October 15, 2005	I always thought that specialty drew the crazies.

One gunman=crazy loner;2 gunmen=possible coincidence;3 gunmen=conspiracy nt, posted on November 5, 2009 at 16:28:12
Atexanathome Audiophile Posts: 724 Joined: August 24, 2002	NT

"The base has a centre that deals with combat stress"... Hmmmm.... nt., posted on November 5, 2009 at 14:21:20
feet's too big Audiophile Posts: 8866 Location: West Midlands Joined: November 22, 2002	NT.

SHoulda had a center for dealing with the stress of..., posted on November 5, 2009 at 15:35:20
oscar Audiophile Posts: 13474 Location: Fort Worth, TX Joined: October 25, 2000 Contributor Since: April 4, 2002	...working in a center which deals with stress. Just heard the shooter was a mental health professional....

I recall a past conversation..., posted on November 5, 2009 at 15:48:01
feet's too big Audiophile Posts: 8866 Location: West Midlands Joined: November 22, 2002	where a bright-eyed person of evidently a rather "driven" nature indicated that he was responsible for the day-to-day counselling and care of various folk with very severe personality problems... A colleague rather quietly noted that he had not been previously aware that such conditions could be contagious... :o) Sadly, there may sometimes be many a word of truth spoken in jest... Bill.

Where is clerk to tell us that what's needed to prevent these situations is more guns?, posted on November 5, 2009 at 14:16:53
j_thunders Audiophile Posts: 14780 Joined: May 16, 2001	If only those poor dead and injured people would have had weapons of their own they could have protected themselves.

The relevance of sweeping generalisations to any individual instance may be rather limited..., posted on November 5, 2009 at 14:39:54

feet's too big
Audiophile

Posts: 8866
Location: West Midlands
Joined: November 22, 2002

As to related matters, Clark has indicated that he takes the view that there are certain individuals - apparently including myself!! - who are unduly "combative", and that he therefore prefers to direct his interests elsewhere...

In the meantime, we can no doubt rely on folk such as Redwing, who not only happens to appear to be curiously compulsive about guns but also happens to be located not that far south from the base in question, to convey their individual personal perspectives... :o)

Bill.

Oh yes, forget about good old Redwing., posted on November 5, 2009 at 15:12:12
j_thunders Audiophile Posts: 14780 Joined: May 16, 2001	I live closer to Fort Hood than he does, I think. Pretty sure Dallas is closer to it than Houston...

I live in Weatherford, posted on November 5, 2009 at 20:10:51
Redwing Audiophile Posts: 5245 Location: Dallas/Fort Worth Joined: January 29, 2003	Though I fail to see any significance related to this topic.

We were talking about wingnuts., posted on November 5, 2009 at 20:33:47
j_thunders Audiophile Posts: 14780 Joined: May 16, 2001	Weatherford, huh? I thought you lived in Houston. Something about the hurricane that hit Houston a couple of years back?

"I thought", posted on November 6, 2009 at 05:56:36
Redwing Audiophile Posts: 5245 Location: Dallas/Fort Worth Joined: January 29, 2003	Keep working on that. Practice makes perfect.

Heh., posted on November 6, 2009 at 08:21:42
j_thunders Audiophile Posts: 14780 Joined: May 16, 2001	Coming from a big thinker like you, that really stings!

Since you appear to be relative neighbours, are you two "good buddies", then?... :o) nt., posted on November 5, 2009 at 15:15:28
feet's too big Audiophile Posts: 8866 Location: West Midlands Joined: November 22, 2002	NT.

Sure., posted on November 5, 2009 at 15:19:24
j_thunders Audiophile Posts: 14780 Joined: May 16, 2001	I'd let him buy me a beer! ;-)

Bearing in mind the beers you may have available, that may be a significant concession,... :o), posted on November 5, 2009 at 15:31:40

feet's too big
Audiophile

Posts: 8866
Location: West Midlands
Joined: November 22, 2002

and if at any time your host offers you "Welsh claret" or "Melbourne Old-And-Yellow", I earnestly recommend that you politely opt for some other (in fact just about any other!) less damaging equivalent... :o)

Bill.

RE: Where is clerk to tell us that what's needed to prevent these situations is more guns?, posted on November 5, 2009 at 14:37:20

tomservo
Manufacturer

Posts: 2518
Joined: July 4, 2002

"If only those poor dead and injured people would have had weapons of their own they could have protected themselves. "

Exactly your point;
As is often the case, when people are shooting at people who are unarmed, they are at much less risk of being shot in self defense.
It is no doubt that those who finally ended it there, were armed, as the survivors of such things often wish they had been.

Unfortunately being in or working at military base does not mean everyone is carrying a rifle ready to fight etc.

Your point about everyone working on a military base not necessarily having ready access to guns is well-taken, posted on November 5, 2009 at 15:08:49

j_thunders
Audiophile

Posts: 14780
Joined: May 16, 2001

That isn't to say that no one did, and that wasn't where my criticism of the argument ended.

What astounds me about the argument is how the police are supposed to sort out who is on whose side when they eventually get there?

All they know is that a whacko in a uniform is randomly shooting people on a military base. If all the people on the military base, or for that matter, on a school campus, as in the case of the Virginia Tech shootings, are carrying guns, how does that work?

Only shoot the people with guns?

It makes no sense.

Still, one would think that if the body count was that high on a military base, it would be that high no matter what, under every circumstance one can imagine, whether the victims were armed, or not. Shooting housewives in a mall, or old ladies at a Luby's is one thing, shooting military personnel and/or civilian contractors (who are mostly ex-military), another.

RE: Access to personal arms on military bases, posted on November 5, 2009 at 19:50:17

Postal Grunt
Audiophile

Posts: 1005
Location: KC, KS
Joined: January 18, 2001

Not having served on Ft. Hood I don't know what the firearms policy might be down there in TX. However, having served up the road on Ft. Leavenworth, I do know the policy for that base and suspect that it's quite similar to other US Army posts.
It's a simple policy; you aren't permitted to have personal firearms in your quarters, period. Military personnel that live on Ft. Leavenworth are required to store their firearms at the MP station and have to request them for any activity such as hunting or target practice. When they have finished their recreational activities, they are required to return the firearms to the MP station. Civilian personnel aren't permitted to have any firearms at all unless they meet very strict criteria.
If the personnel live off post, there are a small number, they are required to observe the local and state statutes.

Peace, good beer and barbecue!

hundreds of US soldiers firing randomly at armed men on a military base..., posted on November 5, 2009 at 14:41:12
dave c Audiophile Posts: 28394 Location: Ferny Hills Joined: April 17, 2000	... yes I'm sure that would have been a good result. Given the number of shots it takes the US military to hit the enemy, what are the chances everyone in sight would have been blasted into kingdom come mistaken for the originators and how would anyone know the difference. Trying to make a "guns for peace" case out of this wouldn't be best advised in my opinion.

Why don't you wait until the facts are known first?, posted on November 5, 2009 at 14:43:36
Prisoners Audiophile Posts: 1704 Location: Chicago Joined: June 13, 2004	Right now not much is being made public. Baba-Booey to you all!

we were talking about a hyperthetical incident IF every soldier carried arms at all times, posted on November 5, 2009 at 15:31:44
dave c Audiophile Posts: 28394 Location: Ferny Hills Joined: April 17, 2000	As for not much being made public, history would say the authorities are working out want they want to be the perceived truth...

RE: we were talking about a hyperthetical incident IF every soldier carried arms at all times, posted on November 5, 2009 at 15:53:15
2002ss335 Audiophile Posts: 679 Location: Ohio Joined: January 6, 2008 Contributor Since: December 6, 2008	"want they want to be the perceived truth..." I have been wondering about the headlines I've been reading "12 dead, 31 hurt". But when I have read about accidents it is "a mass casualty event" and the injured are referred to as wounded. It seems to me that the headlines should be reversed, but I guess the media are trying to play down one and play up the other. Regards, Todd

I first came across it in police reports..., posted on November 5, 2009 at 15:58:43

dave c
Audiophile

Posts: 28394
Location: Ferny Hills
Joined: April 17, 2000

... and I am sure it didn't start there... you release something which either minimises damage to yourself or makes you the hero figure.
Later changes tend to attract less attention and people carry that first message.
They may well be deciding what sort of tragedy this is with each of the dead being described as popular and valuable members of the community and then the families of the dead grieving....

Page processed in 0.094 seconds.

Water Cooler

12 dead, 31 injured as 3 soldiers go on Texas army base killing spree

114.78.37.154