Friday, November 06, 2009

The very model of a modern major massacre...

Some of my favorite highlights in this endless blooper reel thus far:

1) Your next door neighbor, last name Hasan, starts handing out copies of the Koran and giving away his worldly belongings one fine Fall morning? Hey, Zippy! Climb aboard the Hint Train; next stop: Clueville. Quick! What's the number for 911?

2) Apparently Maj. Hasan didn't want to get deployed, in which case he had chosen a mighty odd line of work, unless he thought he was signing up for the Salvation Army and walked into the wrong recruiting station by mistake. Although you'd think all the tanks parked around Fort Hood and the address on his paycheck stubs would have tipped him off to his error.

3) The cherry on the icing of the cake of the night was the mealy-mouthed General Cone simpering from the lectern about "We don't go armed around here, this is our home," which caused me to look at the loaded pistol on the nightstand in bafflement. I thought Texas had that "Castle Doctrine" thing? I know Texans on the internets are always bragging about how it's legal for them to shoot someone stealing their hubcaps after dark, so I'm pretty sure a guy Allahu Akhbar-ing his way through a hospital waiting room gets the green light in the target selection sweepstakes. If they had been allowed to carry their damn guns, maybe somebody could have smoked Hasan before he rolled up a body count like an NCAA basketball score. Even the most ardent gun banners are always shooting off at the mouth about how "only the police and the military are qualified to carry guns" so how come they were unarmed and defenseless by edict here?

75 comments:

Popgun said...

My question exactly. And I'm from Texas.

Owen said...

the other thing I found interesting is that he was distraught about deploying to the 'stan.

He's a Major in the Medical Branch. He'd be so well ensconced on a giant base that the only Afghani he'd likely meet would be dumping food on his plate in the chow hall.

Anonymous said...

Federal installations are not state property. When you go on a military base, you are not subject to the local laws, good or bad. Plus, the military hates personal firearms and greatly distrusts actually handing out ammo unless in a war zone. So, no CWPers, no weapons or ammo issued, no intervention on the loon due to political correctness and you have a massacre right there. Happened on FT Bragg in the '80's and certainly could happen again. My prediction: the .mil will forbid it's members to own private firearms.

Anonymous said...

Owen, that reminds me of the doctor that was sent to jail for a couple of years after refusing to deploy to Saudi in '91 due to her opinion that it was an immoral war. Nuts are nuts.

Tam said...

I thought the decision on personally-owned weapons fell right on the base commander's shoulders? (Although it would not surprise me to find that this had been replaced with some DoD-wide policy post 9/11)

Ed Foster said...

Dang. My last comment on the "Just like the last depression" entry would have fit better on this one.

Also, remember the kids from Columbine got their artillery by crowbaring open the gun safe of a cop, grandfather to one of the dipsticks.

And I am finally pulling my thumb out and getting that .380 with an ankle holster.

Although a southpaw, I shoot right handed. Thank you Sgt. Harriman.

Carry inside of the left ankle do you think? And what kind of muscle memory drills should I be using?

Open for suggestions from those more familiar with concealed carry than me.

Newbius said...

Tam,

It is far easier to commit mayhem on a federal installation than one would think. For the most part, you just have to make it past the rent-a-guard at the front door/front gate.

Everything beyond the door is a gun-free zone, with all that it implies.

Pax,

Newbius

Anonymous said...

Tam, the storage of personally owned weapons is a commander's call. GCA 1968 actually forbids carrying in a federal building and CWP is not allowed on Federal property as there is no Federal CWP. FT Jackson, as an example, activly checks for firearms and has a big sign that tells folks that although SC state law permits them to carry a boomstick in the car, that is not allowed on Federal property and can get you a criminal charge. As to soldiers with personal weapons, your allowed to have them secured in your quarters or in the arms room. You can transport them to the range or to a hunting area if the post has such a thing. In fact, in the early '80's, one of our officers was prosecuted for having a pistol in his glovebox on post, despite state law that allowed it. Al T.

staghounds said...

Gun Free Zones WORK!

Hey, he's only a psychiatrist. His actions make perfect sense!

It's not as though he knew what to say to game the system and avoid being deployed.

Or could prescribe himself drugs, either.

Face it- shooting up a base full of soldiers is the PERFECT way to avoid the three worst things about deployment- uncertainty, risk of injury, and a dramatic decline in personal living conditions.

Yep, he did it because he didn't want to be deployed. Its the only POSSIBLE explanation.

And, tactically, I'm stunned he got so many. Aren't soldiers trained to get out of the target zone by ATTACKING?

Stuart the Viking said...

One of the (many) reasons I decided not to stay in the Marines was the fact that all of our personal arms had to be checked into the armory and we had to get permission to check them out. Quite a few of my friends caused themselves some trouble when, during Desert Storm, they were caught on base with personal weapons. It was a "time of war" and while I admit that we were on a Marine air station in California (someone had to be left behind, I wasn't happy about it), we were all of the opinion that Marines should be armed during war time. We were being warned over and over that a terrorist attack could "happen any minute" and all cars entering the base were checked for bombs and such but we weren't trusted with the means to protect ourselves and our base if that terrorist attack should come.

Really, the whole time I was in it felt like we were being treated like fragile children when it came to weapons. I had access to more firepower when I was in the 4th grade.

s

staghounds said...

Alright, maybe gun free zones only work if they are physically confined, closely patrolled, have limited means of entry, aren't subject to Constitutional limits on search and seizure, nd populated only by people trained and selected to obey rules and commands.

If only there were more places like that!

Bob said...

True Story: when I moved from US Navy boot camp to technical school at NTTC Corry Station (Pensacola, FL, 1980) I did a stint as a gate guard at the main gate of the base. We were unarmed, but could call the gun-equipped Masters-At-Arms in their gateside office if necessary. The Marines on base had formerly had the gate duty and were armed, but had lost this duty after one Marine had fired on the car belonging to the base CO's wife after she drove through the gate without stopping.

I've also served on ships where, when in port, sailors on duty as Officer Of the Deck (OOD) carried .45's with no magazine inserted, and had to have a supervisor unlock a cabinet or locker to access mags/ammo in an emergency.

Presumably things have changed in recent years.

Sarcastic Bastard said...

You've said everything I wanted to say, Tam, and probably better too.

Lissa said...

The military hates personal weapons? Why? What makes you say that?

Anonymous said...

Lissa, draconian policies that limit possession of weapons. Most of the officer corp are not gun folks. Add to that the suspension of the Constitution when your a member of the Armed Forces and no guns for you unless we say so. As an example, when I first joined the Army in 1976, most posts had ranges where you could go to shoot personally owned weapons. Now, I don't think many posts have those sort of places. I know FT Jackson does not, FT Gordon and FT Benning have cut back considerably on range access.

Rich in Ohio said...

Had one of the soldiers been carrying a concealed firearm and engaged MAJ Hasan it's pretty certain that he'd be worse off than a Pizza Hut driver who did the same.

Lorimor said...

I don't think I'd be too far out of line by suggesting that most officers are golfers, not gunners.

More evidence of how we're losing our way.

James E. Griffin said...

Gate guards without ammo is what changed after the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. After the CDI, FBI etc. get done, some of us are gonna take another run at firearms policy on bases. Don Quixote rides again. Gotta feeling we're going to get out voted, again.

Anonymous said...

Okey dokey, so here we are on a base that supports, not one, but TWO of the most modern and powerful armoured divisions on the face of the planet.

Where thusly the men on the base can reasonably be expected be in charge of masses of firepower that would make most countries on earth pee themselves with fear were it pointed in their direction, but the Organization in charge of that is fearful of allowing it's members to carry (very) small arms on a daily basis when not actively in a war zone.

Even though local civilians with minimal training are allowed.

Cognitive dissonance. What country is this?

Anonymous said...

A pretty good analogy would be the arming of flight crews. The nanny state controlling organization for the flight crews had to be drug into Congress before flight crews were armed. Military is the exact same. When I was in Iraq, we cleared our weapons many, many times - before going into the chow hall, coming in the FOB, etc., etc. I supervised rent-a-cops as a civilian and we never cleared our weapons to that degree and had no NDs either.

This incident will be swept under the rug in a few days anyway. Now that we know it was a non-white member of a different religious group, there is no story. Remember the DC snipers and the SGT who killed two other soldiers in Kuwait? If you do remember, the MSM wishes it were not so.

Weer'd Beard said...

Good post.

That's the sad fact of this case was if Major Tango had attempted this shit at a texas Shopping mall or a public park, he wouldn't have been able to do as much damage as attacking a MILITARY BASE!

WTF? Over!

tomcatshanger said...

Tam, some of us Texan's do what we think is best in regard to unjust laws, but we don't live or work on federal land and don't have to worry about Federal felonies and all of the really nasty concequences that result from them.

Give Texas a break would ya? This asshole picked an unarmed population to do his killing among. There's jack shit Texas, or any Texan, can do about it.

Private citizens on private or state land are free to defend themselves Tam. The Castle Doctrine is alive and well, outside of Federal land. And the ability to use deadly force to protect ones property is also still in effect.

fast richard said...

It's all about control. The military is the ultimate in top down control. Draconian gun control is just one facet of the overall command structure.

The military system allows some individual autonomy in a combat situation, but that is only when someone of higher rank is not available to make all the decisions. The overall culture of the military does not encourage the sort of personal autonomy that personal firearms represent.

Hypnagogue said...

If I was a reporter, these would be my questions for General Cone:

1) Are soldiers on this installation inadequately trained that they cannot be expected to carry their weapons without accidents occuring?

2) Are soldiers on this installation so base and immoral that they cannot be trusted around weapons?

3) When is your last day of service before retirement?

Anonymous said...

Frankly, I find the idea that our fighting men and women should be denied possession and carry of sidearms at any time disgusting and contrary to the ideals of our country and our military institutions.

Any and all officers who disagree should be removed from their positions on account of their cowardice, stupidity, and their distrust of the men and women serving under them.

crankylitprof said...

Here's MY question for Gen. Conehead:

Maj. Hasan was promoted in April. He had been exhibiting increasingly odd behavior, and voicing anti-American and anti-war sentiment for quite some time previously -- as far back as his station at Reed.

Why was this fuck hole promoted to begin with, and why wasn't HQ already keeping an eye on him/bouncing his ass for conduct unbecoming?

ParatrooperJJ said...

Lissa - Big Army has always had a love hate relationship with weapons.

dakotas5 said...

On guaed duty in the Army we carried a shotgun with 4 rds. duct taped 20 yrs. before we were issued them. Duct taped so tight you could never get them apart. military intellegence!!!!!

mostly cajun said...

It's been a few years (actually a BUNCH of years) since I wore the uniform, but people on a military base are one of the most UNARMED groups around, unless you count things you can pick up and beat somebody with.

Actual armed guards are rare, and armed guards with loaded weapons, paying attention and ready to shoot are even MORE rare unless you're talking bout a nuclear storage facility.

I never did figure out why they had the guy standing in the middle of the road at the main gate waving people in. I could have driven a semi past him with a Scud missile and he'd have rendered a salute like I was Mrs. PFC Joe Schmuck gone to buy groceries at the commissary.

brbiswrite said...

Tam,

Only you could drag Gilbert and Sullivan into that mess at Ft. Hood. The whole idea of unarmed military bases is so bizarre that it could be the basis for an operetta.

BTW, when I was in Vietnam, on a "secure base," our weapons were locked up.

BRB

Boat Guy said...

I'll chime in from my "Federally-mandated Victim-Disarmament Zone" aka "workplace".
Ditto to all of the veterans/others who know that the largest swath of "Department of Defense" are actively against "personally-owned firearms". The commanding general (lower-case intentional) of Ft Carson some years back attempted to regulate personal firearms in OFF-POST housing, till someone reminded him that our folks actually get some of their liberties back once they go out the gate.
Some of the attitudes changed after 911, but many/most have not. The reaction where I work has been to "review your 'Active Shooter' cards" which advise us to turn off the lights and hide under our desks untli we are shot.
Being disarmed at work was the primary cause of hesitancy to take this job. After 32 years in uniform, I lose my right of self-defense every time I drive in the gate - or risk decades in Federal prison.

jbrock said...

Why was this fuck hole promoted to begin with, and why wasn't HQ already keeping an eye on him/bouncing his ass for conduct unbecoming?

Because that would have been [sarcasm] an unconscionable act of discrimination and counter-diversity, unworthy of an enlightened 21st-century armed service? [/sarcasm]

When I was in the service through the 80s and very early 90s (USN, SSNs), our standard in-port topside watchstanders' protocol involved an unloaded 1911 buttoned down in a flap holster, with two half-loaded magazines similarly secured on the opposite side of the belt.

Cognizant policymakers assumed that this would be adequate for their imagined scenario: An armed loon running down the pier screaming, waving a weapon and giving the Marines on the tender plenty of time to ventilate him before he could get anywhere near us.

I thought this assumption was BS, and that a much more likely scenario would involve a jealous husband or boyfriend, off another boat, screwing an unexpected pistol into the POOD's navel and announcing his intention to go below and settle a three-way domestic dispute the old-fashioned way.

Given our constraints, I came to regard that 1911 as a distraction, not an actual weapon. The primary weapon I finally settled on, in this very narrow context, was a 6" knife, concealed but readily accessible. This was worse than non-regulation, but still not as likely to be detected prematurely as a handgun would have been.

Yes, I was setting myself up to take a knife to a gunfight.

Stupid, but not nearly as unthinkable as dying without putting up any fight, never mind letting the hypothetical SOB get down the hatch before my backup could bring his shotgun into play. (Yes, I do--and did--see several obvious problems with this line of thought. I never said it was a good solution--just the closest thing to a vaguely feasible one under the circumstances.)

Thank $DEITY that the officer who finally caught me with that knife was also the only officer I ever met who'd actually sharpened his ceremonial sabre ...

Dr. Feelgood said...

It's not just soldiers that work on military installations. I'm one of roughly 7,000 civilians on my post. We outnumber uniformed service members by about 15 to 1. Are we also not entitled to defend ourselves? Clearly the donut munching shack monkeys are doing a bang up job with perimeter security.

Anonymous said...

I haven't read anywhere that he was Muslim, and even if he was, what does it have to do with this situation?

fast richard said...

Anonymous, if you haven't read that he was a Muslim, you need to find a better news source. I have seen quotes from the Imam at the Mosque he is said to have attended regularly.

Kevin said...

I haven't read anywhere that he was Muslim, and even if he was, what does it have to do with this situation?

I see you've been relying on the MSM for your information. Reporting that Maj. Hasan was a pious Muslim isn't PC, don'tcha know?

What does it have to do with this situation? How many brain cells do you have to rub together? The dude was apparently yelling "Allahu Ackbar!" as he was shooting, and was reported to have stated that Muslim suicide bombers were more like "soldiers who throw themselves on hand grenades to save their comrades" or some such.

The thing that really bothers me is that I know people like "Anonymous" here represent the majority of the American population: disconnected, ignorant, and proud of it.

Somebody slap Dumb and Dumberer in the DVD player . . .

James E. Griffin said...

Just a reminder folks, 4 star gen. John Abizaid, a Muslim, was commander of CENTCOM. He was raised by his widowed father, a retired Chief Petty Officer, also Muslim.

This supposedly pious wack-job not only commits mass murder, he blasphemes the name of God while he's doing so.

Any religious leader can tell you about psycho's masquerading as religious. These are the ones we need to - well, I guess crucifixion is non PC, but justified.

George said...

FOR ED FOSTER:
Yes, If you shoot right handed, inside left ankle is the best ankle holster position. Better would be a larger caliber on the strong-side hip. (Milt Sparks Holster?)

Too bad folks in proximity couldn't carry, this would just be a blip on the radar. God Bless.

Will said...

What makes you think the military is pro gun? Far from it. They don't trust anyone with a loaded weapon. It's traditional that gate guards have unloaded weapons, and probably don't even have ammo on them, let alone loaded mags. If you live on base, they normally require that you store all personal guns in the base armory (up to the commander). CCW means nothing to them.

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

"And I am finally pulling my thumb out and getting that .380 with an ankle holster.

[...]

Open for suggestions from those more familiar with concealed carry than me."


Ed, as someone who currently carries in an ankle holster regularly, I can only say "don't". Invest in a good IWB holster (tuckable, if needed) instead. I'm saving up to switch over as soon as possible.

It's not just comfort, either. I've realized that it is absolutely impossible to access an ankle holster and remain mobile at the same time. You have to get to a safe place to kneel down before being able to draw - there is no such thing as an even moderately fast reaction.

Something like a P3AT in a good IWB holster is the next best thing to invisible there is. Ankle holsters are really only good for a back-up gun, if that.

Anonymous said...

Generals are not afraid of guns, they are afraid of losing control of their soldiers. Dept. of Defense policy is that no one other than a police officer (Civilian or Military) can carry a fire arm on a military installation except in the course of military training. Neither civilians or military personnel are allowed to carry firearms on a military installation for their personal protection. They can hunt, they can target shoot, but they can not protect themselves. LTG Cone’s hands are tied in this regard. He would need to get approval from Gates or even the President to allow soldiers and civilians to carry weapons on Ft Hood.

jimbob86 said...

"Alright, maybe gun free zones only work if they are physically confined, closely patrolled, have limited means of entry, aren't subject to Constitutional limits on search and seizure, nd populated only by people trained and selected to obey rules and commands."

.....Yeah, PRISONS are the safest places on earth, right?

Lissa- The military is not a gun friendly organization. It is all about organization and control, not about fighting..... management of soldiers and resources as opposed to leading fighting men (and women, now... I guess....).


If crunch time ever hits and today's military has to fight without the benefit of satellite communication tech and complete air superiority (think China) vs. an organized opponent..... it ain't gonna be pretty.

Larry said...

Someone above mentioned keeping personal weapons in private quarters: even married individuals in base housing (i.e. not in the barracks) are not allowed to do that at any of the 5 bases I was ever stationed at.

Aaron said...

Can we please stop saying that gate guards and military police are carrying unloaded? It used to be true, yes. I myself carried unloaded weapons enough times to find the practice unsettling, but that went away very shortly after 9/11. Pistols are now carried in condition one, shoulder arms in condition three. Extra magazines are carried fully loaded as is the one in the weapon. It's been that way for years.

The paranoia of armed soldiers on post came about during the Vietnam war when conscription brought us some soldiers we really didn't want. Once it became institutionalized it took on the undying life of all government policies. Yes, most officers these days are not gunnies, but only very few are actually against self-defense. A far worse problem is that many, not most, officers are taught, and by into, the mythology of the enlisted man. That being that enlisted folk are, at best, amoral simpletons in need of a strong guiding hand, at worst all enlisted people are scheming, immoral, and cowardly, plotting unceasingly to get something past their superiors. Yes, those officers are the minority, but many of them were mentored by those officers who had to deal with the situation during the draft and are now in position of high authority.

And to that government's general opposition to gun rights and the apathy of many, many service members both officer and enlisted, and that's why the policy exists to this day.

And yes, I too will once again be trying to get it reversed. Something do on a roughly semi-annual basis.

As for why so many soldiers were hit when one would expect them to be able to rush their attacker, the problem is that most soldiers are not trained to have a self-defense mentality. When not actual deployed or on duty they will exist in condition white. This is not a failing on their part. They're superbly trained soldiers, best in the world, but this was a situation beyond their ken, as it were.

And seriously, even without sat-coms and air superiority, our military still out performs any others in nearly every category. I'm so sick of hearing about our over dependence on high-tech.

George said...

Re: Ankle holster draw.
IF one is physically adept, lift the knee (from standing), grab the cuff with both hands, and step forward, into kneeling. This will reveal the holster, and put you into a one-leg kneel. Then present the weapon and respond. This is the MADDOCK STEP-DOWN DRAW, is better than the cheesy 'bend over and grab' draw, and places one in a solid kneeling posture. It was developed by an old friend, who was
6'2"/300+ pounds, and he could do it! I believe it was published in GUNS Magazine, in the 70's.
No screwing around with lifting stretched cuffs after bending.

TJP said...

This is the kind of post that ends up in my quotes file.

Kristopher said...

The only place an ankle holster is really useful is draw while in a car seat.

While you are sitting, it's within reach, and it isn't being interfered with by the seatbelt.

For use while driving, outside on the right is the best position.

Kristopher said...

One bit of note: The DoD cop who put this jihaddi down was using the new active shooter tactics ... charge the perp immediately and shoot him to prevent more casualties.

She put four rounds in his chest while stopping a bullet herself.

Brad K. said...

I like the way Hillbilly White Trash put it.

"I also note that the Army does not allow soldiers to go armed while on base. This meant that Ft. Hood was a giant Disarmed Victim Zone, just like our schools."

Why do we let "gun control" wackoes grab the discussion, and let them off without confronting the "disarmed victim zone" problem?

I think part of the reason for disallowing personal weapons, or carrying on base, is the philosophy that military might/firepower should be under civilian control. Extrapolate that out, and you get weapons in use only under orders within the chain of command.

Soldiers, officers, units not deployed to use force are not under direct orders to be armed, or under an intact chain of command to assign goals and / or targets.

What I think this overlooks is the needs for self defense, the use of personal weapons in dire need. Turning the soldier loose from his or her armed military role should not equate to disarmed target, especially not if the soldier is capable of and able to provide a personal weapon.

Personal arms during employment as a unit would be a logistical issue. Keeping people, spare parts, replacement ammo and weapons available is bad enough when the procurement and planning all have the choice of weapons to support already documented.

It isn't just guns that are banned. In the Navy, one of my 1st class petty officer supervisors went a bit strange. Drinking with some of the guys at a bar, he pulled a pistol, "If you were my wife, I'd shoot you dead." Turning to another guy, again pointing the pistol, "If you were her lawyer, I'd shoot you down, too." For some reason no one reported him, until they caught him, at sea, with a 14" diving knife (he was an Electronics Technician, radios and communication gear) in his tool box. They took his uniform away and turned him into a civilian; I always wondered how safe the people around him are today. Crossbows and nun-chakas have been confiscated on board ship, too. Even the pop-can cannon I made with 6 oz small orange juice cans, duct tape, and lighter fluid. Potsy was so excited he ran into the Chief's office with it, stuck it in one of the supervisor's face, and uttered those immortal Redneck words, "Watch this!"

Stranger said...

Around here, you only need real or forged military ID to have access to anywhere. NO ID? DL, proof of insurance and title or tag receipt.

And since AD military are virtually always disarmed, everyone in a .mil facility is a naked target.

A Tassie buddy sent me a three word Email last night. "Remember Port Arthur." I didn't have to be reminded.

Stranger

Mister_V said...

I smell bullshit on the media coverage. The guy's a freaking officer, if he didn't want to deploy, he can resign. Also, I'm active duty Air Force. I can speak from experience that we are not allowed to carry anything except a pocket knife with a blade under 4". I keep my guns stored off-base and my carry permit is functionally useless due to the hours of the storage building.

Caleb said...

Mister_V - he may not have been able to resign. If an officer gets educated by the military, such as an Academy grad, or someone who received his medical degree on the military's dime; then he incurs a service debt. In the Coast Guard, it was 2 years duty for every year of post graduate education or something.

So he most likely wasn't in a position to just hang up his commission without consequences.

Billll said...

The line just leaps to mind:
"Gentlemen! You can't fight here! This is an Army base!"

War Room in the original.

Laughingdog said...

"Why was this fuck hole promoted to begin with"
"The guy's a freaking officer, if he didn't want to deploy, he can resign"

The Army paid for Hasan's medical schooling. As such, he owed them a number of years of service. Assuming the Army does things similarly to the Navy, they not only paid for his schooling, but he was commissioned before he even started, so he was also receiving a full officer's salary during that time. As such, the time obligation is even longer for a doctor that it would be for the typical officer.

In the Navy, if you're passed over for promotion twice, you're done. So, if the Army had passed Hasan over for promotion twice, he would have been able to get out before his obligation was over.

As for his disciplinary issues, that's not uncommon with military doctors. There are a significant number of doctors in the military that get part-way into their obligation and begin to regret it (making them the same as a large portion of everyone else in the military). Some react to that by doing the bare minimum to avoid having action taken against them. Some try to push the limit to be let out early.

I suspect a lot of Hasan's superiors just thought that his prior issues were just an attempt to pull a Cpl. Klinger.

Rick R. said...

Hey, Anymouse?

Dead wrong. Pemission to carry a personal weapon on a Stateside military base is the perogative of the base commander. Most of them do not choose to allow it.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say the norm for military bases is "Virginia Tech".

But some do allow personal weapon carry -- depending on the base and circumstances. I, myself, have been armed, on base, as a civilian visitor, not a law enforcement officer, not at a firing range, not going hunting, and not performing any military duty. With full permission of the base commander and full knowledge of the Provost.


**************

Anonymous said...
Generals are not afraid of guns, they are afraid of losing control of their soldiers. Dept. of Defense policy is that no one other than a police officer (Civilian or Military) can carry a fire arm on a military installation except in the course of military training. Neither civilians or military personnel are allowed to carry firearms on a military installation for their personal protection. They can hunt, they can target shoot, but they can not protect themselves. LTG Cone’s hands are tied in this regard. He would need to get approval from Gates or even the President to allow soldiers and civilians to carry weapons on Ft Hood.

12:47 PM, November 06, 2009

Kristopher said...

Caleb: Officers who resigned to avoid deployment to the mideast got sent over there as E-0 truck drivers.

If you take ROTC money, you are going to serve ... just not as an officer if you resign your commission.

tjbbpgobIII said...

I am not real sure but I heard on Fox News that this guy has been in the service since high school. If that is the case he has re-enlisted a couple of times to get to be a 39 year old Major. He just finished Medical school in 2001 and that's a lot of promotions in jus 8 years. I also remember that in VietNam we weren't supposed to carry personal weapons like pistols or revolvers but we did anyway. I never was disarmed on the base, just unloaded or safed. A thing to remark on is that not all soldiers are used to being armed because most of them are remfs (cooks, clerks, drivers and dogsbodies) anyway and there is no way I want to be around someone untrained or expert in the use of their weapons.

Daniel said...

Regarding General Cone's comment: Hell, I live in California -- *home* is about the only place I *can* carry!

Anonymous said...

Why were they disarmed?

Maybe the civilian government is still afraid of the enlisted military. In Viet Nam whenever some congresscritter showed up for a photo op, the officers would send the sargeant to collect up our magazines or, sometimes, even take the bolts from our rifles and lock them up.

Larry said...

"The DoD cop who put this jihaddi down was using the new active shooter tactics ... charge the perp immediately and shoot him to prevent more casualties.

She put four rounds in his chest while stopping a bullet herself."


She was probably trained to present her chest full-on (no sniggering now) in isosceles because in a duty situation she would be wearing armor. Some of the Blackwater guys I worked with in Iraq talked to me about the stance they train in to keep the plates between them and a target.

Unfortunately, in this situation she wouldn't have been wearing armor. I made the point in those discussion that I wasn't as comfortable in isosceles stance, and that I was unlikely to ever be wearing armor in a deadly force encounter, and therefore it didn't make any difference; however I could hit my target was the best stance for me.

Matthew said...

Not to sidetrack, but why wouldn't a DoD cop be wearing a vest?

IIa vests (or better) under the uniform shirt are de rigueur for police work nowadays.

Anonymous said...

Rick R.,
Good for you! I am so glad that you were able to convince some post commander to let you carry on his installation. Sounds like a May Issue situation. So are you a celebrity, a politician, or rich? Maybe I could borrow your knee pads so that I can ask to carry on my post too.

AnyMouse

Rick R. said:

Hey, Anymouse?

Dead wrong. Pemission to carry a personal weapon on a Stateside military base is the perogative of the base commander. Most of them do not choose to allow it.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say the norm for military bases is "Virginia Tech".

But some do allow personal weapon carry -- depending on the base and circumstances. I, myself, have been armed, on base, as a civilian visitor, not a law enforcement officer, not at a firing range, not going hunting, and not performing any military duty. With full permission of the base commander and full knowledge of the Provost.

Anonymous said...

With full permission of the base commander and full knowledge of the Provost.

Horse shit. No .mil over rides Federal Law. Cite me the statue they "covered" you under. You can't by the way. Liar.

rickn8or said...

Bob--
I don't remember if there WERE gate guards when I was at Corry for EW Operator school in '87. (But I was a CPO then and the chances of me being on the watch list would have been pretty slim.)

So I drove from SoCal to P-cola with my (unlicensed!) handgun, but once I checked in, I had to check it at NAS P-cola armory and spent the rest of the time sans pistola; neither of which I'd do today. Strangely, I got waved thru the gate, drove myself to the armory and turned it it in; when I was leaving, they handed it over (tore up the paperwork!!) and I drove myself out without escort. Whereupon, I proceeded to drive myself back to SoCal.
But Base Security was right on top of things regarding up-to-date vee-hickle registration, insurance, driver's license, inspections,base stickers and suchlike.
Ah, The Good Old Daze!

D.W. Drang said...

@ Anonymous
(12:47 PM, November 06, 2009)
Generals are not afraid of guns

Bullshit.
Generals as a class are politicians who suck up to whatever PC standard is current.
Tommy Franks admitted in his memoirs that he carried concealed while on diplomatic missions, while prohibiting his troops from carrying.

Anyway.
I knew plenty of senior NCOs who carried despite regs.

I also saw several CGs who attempted to run a de facto gun registration scheme for all personnel under their command, including any guns stored off-post, within a 200 mile radius.

jimbo86 said...

"Generals as a class are politicians who suck up to whatever PC standard is current."



True Dat.

In my limited experience, the higher the rank, the greater likelyhood of that PC CYA manage-your-way-to-the-next-promotion style.

Diesel said...

AFAIK, it has always been base C.O. policy on who does or does not get to carry on post.
Most don't allow it because of the zero defect mentality that dominates officer promotion boards these days. Can't have an accident marring what otherwise might be an exemplary stint as Command Officer.
I haven't ever seen gate guards with unloaded weapons, but I have seen armed quarterdeck watches with unloaded weapons.
Prior to 9/11 I also saw unmanned entry points at bases.
These days, if you see someone in uniform with a Beretta, most of the time they are Condition 2.

staghounds said...

Th only result of this will be metal detectors and guards at every military hospital door.

Xenocles said...

Staghounds:

"If only there were any places like that!"

Fixed it for you.

Mikael said...

I had no idea how bad the weapon bias in the military was... geez. Everything that need to be said on the topic of what happened has already been said more eloquently by others than I would. It's nuts that military bases are disarmed-victim-zones.

And I am gobsmacked that Ed Foster of all people isn't already carrying a gun regularly. Ed, I'd have figured you for a 1911 IWB carrier, or something along those lines...

Xavier said...

Well said Ma'am.

Have some BBQ!

Joseph said...

Gilbert and Sullivan? I thought Monty Python is closer.

I'm reminded of the MP sketch with the soldier who tried to quit after a day when he found out there were guns on his military base.

Major Gordie said...

As a field grade officer with 28 years in the service I find the weapons policies of the military rather backwards at best.

When I get to be Chief of Staff of the Army that's one pf the first things that get changed. In my opinion EVERYONE over the rank of E-6 SHOULD be issued their own personal Sidearm (currently only generals are given their own weapon) and 100 rounds of ammo every six months to maintain proficiency. They should be REQUIRED to carry it also.

One of the many reasons why I will never make it into the star ranks I am sure.

Right now, I am in Afghanistan. We carry weapons with clips in but God forbid you chamber a round. You also have to clear your weapon every time you go into or come out a facility. I have seen lots of folks get distracted and accidentally chamber a round... I am surprised we do not have more ND's than we do.

I was going to hide my name but WTF. What they goin'a do to me bend my dog-tags and send me to FT Living Room?

staghounds said...

I've never yet eard of a doctor who couldnt use te magic words necessary to escape any duty.

Rick R. said...

Anymous,

Actually, YOU are the one who stated it is Federal law or DoD policy.

Cite the law or policy.

There's a reason why the signage at teh gates of almost every single military base I've ever driven through that discusses the banning of firearms and ammunition (and these days, cameras, at a lot of the places I got to) ends with a phrase along the lines of, ". . . except with the permission of the base commander."

The post/base commander can CHOOSE to allow it. Most don't, due primarily to the basic anti-gun and zero-defect mentality of the officer corps.

Unlike you. Bucko, I have nothing to prove.

And no, I'm not a celebrity or anything special. I just happened to ASK. And run into a base commander who wasn't all "ZOMG! A GUN!!! HE could kill HUNDREDS!!! Worse, he could COST ME MY PROMOTION!!!!"