A military base is NOT an armed society. Other than the MP’s, the soldiers have no access to guns–all the weapons are locked up, and soldiers are not permitted to carry personal weapons on base.
As so many, many school shootings have demonstrated, a gun-free zone is one the most dangerous places on earth.
Remember, this is America–we take our political debates seriously.
Internet.
One of the first things I heard about this shooting (on another board) was how Fox was blaming it on “jihadists”. And it has become standard practice for right wing conspiracy nuts to claim that such shootings are staged by “gun grabbers” and/or Obama as an excuse to push for gun control laws. It was political from the beginning.
As opposed to zones where everyone has guns, like, say, Somalia.
I just love how the knee jerk experts jump in with the facts. A military base has probably the strictest gun control laws in the country. It doesn’t matter what the law is out side of the gate. Inside they are under federal law. No concealed carry. All personal weapons registered. All those living in the barracks have to have their weapons stored in the arms room. All vehicles and personnel subject to warrant-less random searches. All military weapons tightly controlled and stored in vaults. Ammo stored in other locations miles away.
Those killed or wounded by terrorism are eligible. If you believe otherwise you are wrong. Regardless of the location of the incident. Hassan was a radical jihadist who was in communication with individual overseas wanted for terrorism. Its not the act of murder that defines the eligibility its the motivation. I think its pretty clear that Hassan intended to commit an act of terrorism. Through your politically colored glasses you can choose to call it whining if you wish. Its more about the fact that those killed and wounded are not eligible for help and benefits rather than a medal.
I can’t tell - are you claiming that FoxNews really did blame this shooting on “jihadists”, or are you simply repeating a rumor?
Because that’s not the case. Fox did report on an FBI alert about a different guy who threatened jihad, but that is not related to this case.
Regards,
Shodan
Heard on NPR this morning that the shooter was an Iraq vet who had suffered (well, the reporter said “he claimed to suffer” so I’m not sure what that means) a traumatic brain injury and also had PTSD, anxiety, and depression.
I admit that my first thought was, somehow as a society we failed this person. Not that that excuses what he did, but, still.
That is the crazy vet narrative that is popular ever time someone with military experience is involved in something bad. No doubt he was crazy but to me it’s looking like it was an underlying problem and not directly related to his deployment.
So reading the lines and between them, he was a shitbag with mental issues not caused by driving a truck for a few months. The Army was trying to treat him anyway. He got into a beef with those at his unit (warrior transition unit, a medical hold unit for those getting long term medical care). That unit is still a military organization which still maintains military discipline. His underlying instability caused him to flip out.
Well, I guess I would feel the same even without the vet part. I don’t think vets are particularly crazy, or at least not crazier than the rest of us. It just bothers me every time we hear about someone who clearly had some untreated or undertreated issues who then went on to murder a bunch of people. Maybe there is nothing we can really do about this and we just need to accept that sometimes people are going to do shitty things in the world, but it still bothers me.
He was certainly not untreated. He was in a unit specifically designed for those with medical issues.
And I have just seen some confirmation that he saw no combat but I don’t have a link yet.
Very sad, as these always are - and it’s very sad that since there’s probably no link to terrorism, this will get forgotten in about a week.
This is a deeply, deeply ridiculous statement. School shootings are - and always have been, and always will be - extremely rare, and I doubt any of the most dangerous places on earth are in any Western country.
I agree. For a while there, they were pretty much letting in everybody.
The highest-casualty act of school violence in this country happened in 1927, and almost all of it was committed with dynamite. And it wasn’t done by a student; the whole thing was done by a disgruntled school janitor.
A few of the survivors are still living. They are in their 90s now.
If a person was deployed in any of the recent conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan, not seeing “combat” doesn’t mean you didn’t see some terrible things. This is the era of the IED, after all.
Seems to be some low-flying aircraft in this thread, though I never heard an Apache Longbow go “whoosh” before.
You are talking to an Iraq war vet. I know very well what can and can’t be seen. And I assure you he most likely saw nothing driving a truck in 2011.
It’s a good impersonation of what I have heard many many times.
Just an observation based on conversations with my brother who drove a truck through several conflicts.
Anyway, I’m not sure what bothers me about the question of whether he saw combat or not. It’s been mentioned in every news report I’ve heard.
It’s part of the script for the news. If he’s a combat vet the narrative is how his experiences made him a monster. Even without that they make sure military service is mentioned. Like in every article about serial killer Isreal Keyes or the Sihk temple shooter. The fact that both were out before 2001 is buried deep in the article or not mentioned at all. I can’t search for it now but there was a semi recent incident in I believe Fort Bragg when the news was talking about a fugative’s vast Rambo like experience. But in reality he did radio repair and never left the FOB. A lot was made of Chris Dorner’s military experience when his only deployment was the Bahrain to do dock security. One of the first things the news looks for is if they are vets. Because it helps the story whether there is any connection to what happened or not. One of my pet peeves you might have guessed.
Like I mentioned earlier, convoy operations were very dangerous in Iraq early on. Your brother may have been involved in a lot. By 2011 that was no longer the case and hadn’t been for a long time.