Shooting at Fort Hood 13 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,593 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,746 Posts

1,754 Threads

#1 4 years ago

Again. I thought it was a reflection or something...

Shooting reported at Fort Hood military base

And I just remembered that I know someone who's training there...

UPDATE: The shooter is still active, so in the meantime they're ordering all personnel to barricade themselves.


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,593 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,746 Posts

1,754 Threads

#2 4 years ago

Update: The news outlets are saying the shooter is dead, but they're uncertain whether or not it was suicide or by a security officer's bullet.


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#3 4 years ago

3 dead 16 wounded - nine of whom are supposedly in intensive care and three of whom are supposedly 'critical.' Suicide after meeting someone who 'engaged' him.

Supposedly truck driver from Iraq with mental health issues.

BBC News - Fort Hood gunman Ivan Lopez 'may have snapped after row'

-drums fingers-

I wonder how these things would work out if soldiers were required to go armed at all times on base unless they had mental health issues. Hard to believe someone would manage to kill and injure so many if everyone involved had a gun on them.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,011 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#4 4 years ago
Nemmerle;5733308 I wonder how these things would work out if soldiers were required to go armed at all times on base unless they had mental health issues. Hard to believe someone would manage to kill and injure so many if everyone involved had a gun on them.

You can look at the "green on blue" incidents in Afghanistan. The attacker often dies faster, but since he has the element of surprise he can still cause a lot of damage.

The downside is that you'd have more people with guns, hence more crazy people with guns (even if you can identify them, which seems unlikely enough, it seems the authorities are too incompetent or face too much opposition from the NRA to prevent them from buying guns), hence more shootings. This case in particular seems to be one of those where easy access to a gun turned what would otherwise have been a brawl into murder - if they are correct about the argument part (seems likely to me that someone who illegaly brings a gun into a military base has nothing good in mind).

Then you have the problem of friendly fire incidents following self-defense shootings and the problem that big bases like Ford Hood are home to above average numbers of traumatized veterans as well as a aggressive young men (who self-select into this profession and have their traits emphasized by training).

It still surprises me that in the US (of all places) soldiers wouldn't walk around armed to their teeth in their bases. Wouldn't surprise me if the Reps will push for legislation to that effect now. Then, in a couple of years, you'll have another crazy person shooting a few people dead in a US base, he'll be shot by some kind of hero, the media will go apeshit about the effectiveness of arming everyone without caring about the frequency of such incidents, casualty numbers or the difference in training between average Joe and enlisted soldier. More people will buy guns, there will be more gun violence and hence a greater perceived need for guns.




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#5 4 years ago

I think that concerns over friendly fire are a bit exaggerated and that they're mostly used to try to ignore the possibility that stopping the initial shooter could result in less bloodshed. Someone who has a firearm who is responding to a mass shooter could a) shoot them, then hunker down/hide, b) shoot them, then drop their weapon, c) shoot them, then call the police and tell them where they are and that they're armed, d) not shoot them, hope they aren't seen by the shooter, and call the police if they think they can do so without drawing the shooter's attention. What you're suggesting will happen is e), shoot the mass shooter, then themselves are shot by another person. This would still beat the average police response in terms of lives lost. The average number of people killed in rampage shootings stopped by police is 14.29, the average number of people killed in mass shootings stopped by non-police is 2.33. So there'd have to be a chain of 12 non-police responders killing each other to match the average lethality of waiting for the police.

MrFancypants;5733313...It still surprises me that in the US (of all places) soldiers wouldn't walk around armed to their teeth in their bases.

It's been that way for 22 years, before then it was up to the discretion of the base commander, now only military police on duty can carry.

Wouldn't surprise me if the Reps will push for legislation to that effect now.

Well, it seems that the ban doesn't really work, so why not repeal it and try something that might work? Maybe only allow those licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and/or senior NCOs and officers. Something that's better than having folks wait 20 minutes for a response to a shooter. Seeing as the shooter offed themselves the second that they encountered armed resistance, and seeing as that happens fairly often when there's a mass shooting, it seems that allowing more people to use armed resistance would be the smart way to go.

Then, in a couple of years, you'll have another crazy person shooting a few people dead in a US base, he'll be shot by some kind of hero, the media will go apeshit about the effectiveness of arming everyone without caring about the frequency of such incidents, casualty numbers or the difference in training between average Joe and enlisted soldier. More people will buy guns, there will be more gun violence and hence a greater perceived need for guns.

Those licensed to carry a firearm concealed, even in states that do not have a significant training requirement, are many times more safe and responsible than the average citizen, going off of how (in)frequently they are involved in crime compared to the average citizen. (sources: TX, FL, NC) As permissive concealed carry laws have expanded across the USA, crime has either continued to drop at the rate it was dropping before the law was passed or has increased the speed of its decline. You can argue about whether concealed carry laws have made crime go down, but they certainly haven't made it go up. Also, I don't think most enlisted soldiers get much training on pistols as opposed to rifles.




Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,593 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,746 Posts

1,754 Threads

#6 4 years ago

Every soldier is trained on the M9 Beretta, but not to the same extent as a rifle because the rifle is the main weapon with which you have to be a good marksman to stand half a chance of surviving a combat situation, whereas the pistol is the last resort weapon and/or weapon you use when the enemy gets within say...20 feet of you.

Though I believe (not sure) that MP's receive more advanced pistol marksmanship training.


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,011 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#7 4 years ago
Crazy Wolf;5733347I think that concerns over friendly fire are a bit exaggerated and that they're mostly used to try to ignore the possibility that stopping the initial shooter could result in less bloodshed. Someone who has a firearm who is responding to a mass shooter could a) shoot them, then hunker down/hide, b) shoot them, then drop their weapon, c) shoot them, then call the police and tell them where they are and that they're armed, d) not shoot them, hope they aren't seen by the shooter, and call the police if they think they can do so without drawing the shooter's attention. What you're suggesting will happen is e), shoot the mass shooter, then themselves are shot by another person. This would still beat the average police response in terms of lives lost. The average number of people killed in rampage shootings stopped by police is 14.29, the average number of people killed in mass shootings stopped by non-police is 2.33. So there'd have to be a chain of 12 non-police responders killing each other to match the average lethality of waiting for the police.

If you go by that data the conclusion would be to ban all guns and train everyone in Football.

Well, it seems that the ban doesn't really work, so why not repeal it and try something that might work? Maybe only allow those licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and/or senior NCOs and officers. Something that's better than having folks wait 20 minutes for a response to a shooter. Seeing as the shooter offed themselves the second that they encountered armed resistance, and seeing as that happens fairly often when there's a mass shooting, it seems that allowing more people to use armed resistance would be the smart way to go.

The intention behind those rules was probably to avoid shootings, not to reduce casualties from shootings. Maybe you can reduce casualties by making it easier to get guns into bases, but the frequency of shootings is likely to go up.

Those licensed to carry a firearm concealed, even in states that do not have a significant training requirement, are many times more safe and responsible than the average citizen, going off of how (in)frequently they are involved in crime compared to the average citizen. (sources: TX, FL, NC) As permissive concealed carry laws have expanded across the USA, crime has either continued to drop at the rate it was dropping before the law was passed or has increased the speed of its decline. You can argue about whether concealed carry laws have made crime go down, but they certainly haven't made it go up. Also, I don't think most enlisted soldiers get much training on pistols as opposed to rifles.

I don't trust American studies on gun control. You have two camps financing studies that show opposite effects all the time. In both cases the quality is often questionable. For example, many of those studies compare various US states. Which is of course idiotic. If you want to talk about gun control you can't define as baseline a state that may have strict gun control but also huge stockpiles of weapons from before the laws came into effect, no border controls for weapon smuggling or other loopholes (e.g. internt sales, legal private sales).




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#8 4 years ago

Yes, if you could ensure that all guns were banned/ceased to exist, then yes, gun crime would go down. Seeing as this was a soldier, and almost no one's advocating for a ban on soldiers (or cops) having *some* access to firearms, a ban on civilian firearms would have been unlikely to stop this incident, so much as shift it (wait for a day when he and his targets were qualifying with their weapons, for example, if he was willing to risk attacking his targets when they were also armed.)

Yeah, that doesn't seem to work out so well. I wish I could find a record of a shooting having happened at a military base in the US before that regulation was enacted, but so far all the shootings I've read about have happened after the regulation barring personally-owned weapons was enacted. Your opinion is one that appears to draw from good logic (more presence of an object will result in more misuse of that object), but that doesn't appear to be borne out by experience in the USA.

OK, so should the US be compared as a whole, or do our porous borders with Canada and Mexico disqualify us? Our gun crime has been dropping steadily since 1994, despite more and more states allowing concealed carry of firearms and more and more states relaxing other gun laws and expanding the legal protections for gun owners. For that matter, do you have to treat all of the EU as one entity due to their border controls/relative lack thereof?

And also, how do those potential stockpiles of pre-law guns refute the idea that making it easier to carry guns could reduce crime? I could see how those stockpiles would counter data concerning *restrictions* on guns, but not on things that *relax* the laws. The only thing that could be stockpiled to alter things in that direction would be robberies and murders, and I don't think those activities take rain-checks.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,011 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#9 4 years ago
Crazy Wolf;5733395Yes, if you could ensure that all guns were banned/ceased to exist, then yes, gun crime would go down. Seeing as this was a soldier, and almost no one's advocating for a ban on soldiers (or cops) having *some* access to firearms, a ban on civilian firearms would have been unlikely to stop this incident, so much as shift it (wait for a day when he and his targets were qualifying with their weapons, for example, if he was willing to risk attacking his targets when they were also armed.)

In all recent cases (Ford Hood 1, Washington Navy Yard, Ford Hood 2) the guns were bought legally. In the case of the second Ford Hood shooting even at the same store. In the case of the Navy Yard shooting the shooter wanted a pistol (easily concealed) but wasn't able to get one immediately due to legislation, so he bought a shotgun. Ok, so in that case the legislation might actually have made things worse because a shotgun is arguably more deadly than a pistol, but you can't say that it didn't have any effect. So you can't assume that other legislation wouldn't have affected the Ford Hood shootings. If you are dealing with crazy people or people who act out of anger obstacles like legal red tape or waiting times can make a difference. If you ban handguns altogether you make it easier for police to detect concealed rifles or shotguns (which, in the long term, is likely to outweigh an increase in casualties from deadlier weapons that are not detected). In theory you could easily introduce legilsation that requires every handgun to be equiped with RFID chips, which would make it very easy to detect them. You might even install a GPD beacon on every gun which would make it easier to avoid attempts to evade sensors.

But all of that is intended more as an example than an argument for the one definitive type of legislation that will solve all problems. In my opinion the important part is to change attitudes from "guns are our God-given right" and "guns make this country a better place" to "our gun statistics are that of a third world nation" and "a lot of people die unnecessarily". From there it is more a question of time than policy.

Yeah, that doesn't seem to work out so well. I wish I could find a record of a shooting having happened at a military base in the US before that regulation was enacted, but so far all the shootings I've read about have happened after the regulation barring personally-owned weapons was enacted. Your opinion is one that appears to draw from good logic (more presence of an object will result in more misuse of that object), but that doesn't appear to be borne out by experience in the USA.

The problem is that frequent mass shootings are a relatively modern phenomenon. You might want to try to look at it from a different prespective. How many shootings have there been at the many US bases outside of the US, in countries with strict gun control but otherwise similar conditions to the US?

OK, so should the US be compared as a whole, or do our porous borders with Canada and Mexico disqualify us?

Borders aren't necessarily dividing lines for this kind of analysis. It is better to think it terms of hours travelled plus some factor for border controls. Your average madman living in Texas may be not too far from a Mexican shop that sells guns to anyone in case Texas outlaws all guns, but the border controls in that area are pretty strict. Border controls to Canada may be less severe, but he is unlikely to drive that far. But if he can make a quick roundtrip to New Mexico with zero risk of being stopped...

Our gun crime has been dropping steadily since 1994, despite more and more states allowing concealed carry of firearms and more and more states relaxing other gun laws and expanding the legal protections for gun owners.

The same is true for Germany where more and more anti-gun laws have been introduced. The explanation has most likely nothing to do with gun policies and more with economic growth and demographics (population gets older, old people don't like loud noises). Instead of listening to the NRA telling you how gun crime keeps going down look at the data:

Spoiler: Show
picture.php?albumid=19&pictureid=10486

The downward trend is a longterm trend and not easily visible from this graphic. What is visible is the big gap between Germany (which is representative for most developed western countries with strict gun laws) and the US. There is also a big variance in the US data, which seems interesting. That may be the result of constantly changing laws at the state level or just something you get if you look at bigger countries. That aisde, gun crime seems to be rather constant once you filter out economic effects. Gun policies have, if at all, only a very small effect if you look at narrow timeframes.

Obviously a comparison between countries like that is problematic, but what nothing is perfect.

For that matter, do you have to treat all of the EU as one entity due to their border controls/relative lack thereof?

The EU is similar to the US in that regard, but gun laws are relatively strict across the EU. I think it would be better to compare EU countries to US states.

And also, how do those potential stockpiles of pre-law guns refute the idea that making it easier to carry guns could reduce crime? I could see how those stockpiles would counter data concerning *restrictions* on guns, but not on things that *relax* the laws. The only thing that could be stockpiled to alter things in that direction would be robberies and murders, and I don't think those activities take rain-checks.

They don't. My point was that studies that try to prove how ineffective gun regulation is (and studies that show how great concealed-carry laws are usually go in that direction as they'll compare concealed carry states to states that may only recently have introduced strict laws) usually ignore that banning a gun doesn't disintegrate it instantly.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#10 4 years ago

MrFancypants;5733313The downside is that you'd have more people with guns, hence more crazy people with guns (even if you can identify them, which seems unlikely enough, it seems the authorities are too incompetent or face too much opposition from the NRA to prevent them from buying guns), hence more shootings. [/QUOTE]

A lot of Americans believe that guns are a surety against tyranical government. Which I agree is BS, but there you go. If you start stopping crazy people buying guns, then you call the enemies of the state crazy and....

You can see how someone might reason about it from the initial assumption.

MrFancypants;5733313This case in particular seems to be one of those where easy access to a gun turned what would otherwise have been a brawl into murder - if they are correct about the argument part (seems likely to me that someone who illegaly brings a gun into a military base has nothing good in mind).[/QUOTE]

If there were a plausible way to restrict access to guns in the US, then I might be inclined to agree with you that that would be the way to go. But given their political situation, their borders, the cultural love of the things, their ridiculously vast criminal underclass, and how easy guns are to make.... I'm inclined to the belief that restricting easy access to guns for the insane over there is a bit of a pipe dream.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5733313]Then you have the problem of friendly fire incidents following self-defense shootings and the problem that big bases like Ford Hood are home to above average numbers of traumatized veterans as well as a aggressive young men (who self-select into this profession and have their traits emphasized by training).

All of which is very hard to put a number on. How much blue on blue actually follows self-defence? How would that manifest in a lockdown scenario that would make threats easier to pick out from civies? How aggressive are the aggressive young men and how's that likely to manifest?

... Somewhat missing the larger point of why someone who's undergoing psychiatric evaluation is even allowed on a military base in the first place, I suppose.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5733313]It still surprises me that in the US (of all places) soldiers wouldn't walk around armed to their teeth in their bases. Wouldn't surprise me if the Reps will push for legislation to that effect now. Then, in a couple of years, you'll have another crazy person shooting a few people dead in a US base, he'll be shot by some kind of hero, the media will go apeshit about the effectiveness of arming everyone without caring about the frequency of such incidents, casualty numbers or the difference in training between average Joe and enlisted soldier. More people will buy guns, there will be more gun violence and hence a greater perceived need for guns.

Perhaps. I'd be more worried about them being stolen than anything else. As it stands at the moment though, most gun kills in the US are criminal on criminal - at least one previous conviction. If you don't care about those people, as many don't, it's unlikely that they'd care much about an increase in gun crime.




  • 1
  • 2