Posted on 11/05/2009 7:58:38 PM PST by SwaggerStick
No insult was intended. My apologies if it was taken as such.
Perhaps the two exchanged fire. Both were wounded and the officer bled out before medical help could arrive. While the murderer was wounded in a way that incapacitated him, but he did not bleed out.
I intend NO disrespect to any of our serving and past members of the armed forces.
I offer my apologies if you took it as an insult to you.
No insult taken - we’re on the same side here.
So you really think 30,000 guys should be walking around a US Army post with loaded weapons? Why? You think 250,000 troops throughout the US should be armed? Why? You think all sailors aboard ship should be armed?
Those with power of decision making in the Military and the civilian authorities (read - Congress) do not explain why they disarm out soldiers on Military Installations. Perhaps it’s because the civilian powers that be do not trust Military members. Regardless, if there had been soldiers with arms at the time of the shooting there would possibly have been fewer deaths/injured - we will never know.
Gen. Russell Honere can’t be everywhere.
Navy Seals do great work. :O)
One of the first things the General stated at the press conference was that he had personally spoken with the 'president' ....
If Obama is involved with what info gets out to the public, we can expect full "transparency" /sarc
Most anyone with three 15 round magazines could fire 45 shots in about 90 seconds. And that would be a slow pace. Bang. One thousand one. One thousand two. Bang. Pretty damned slow. And magazines are cheap. Having four or five would not be outrageous.
Yes.
Why?
It's their sworn duty to be armed and dangerous.
You think 250,000 troops throughout the US should be armed?
Yes.
Why?
Same reason as above. It's our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I expect military personnel to be especially trustworthy in that respect. I'm a pacifist, but I'm not stupid. If you cannot trust a soldier with a loaded gun, something is seriously wrong with either the soldier or the system or both.
Do you realize how helpless this incident makes our military look?
Having been on the other end of a pistol un a standoff situation I can tell you from experience that the first thing you do is piss your pants. And they you try to run away. And we were all pretty tough guys at the time.
Further I didn't make the rule so argue with those that did.
I'm willing to bet that Sergeant Munley, a Department of Defense civilian law enforcement officer, was carrying a 9mm loaded with military ball ammunition. Ball ammo has great penetrating power but little stopping power. Likewise I suspect that the Major was carrying ball ammo. I wouldn't speculate on the caliber of his weapon(s) other that to say that it is likely it/they were loaded with high-capacity magazines. On another thread folks with no knowledge of US Army policy regarding the carry and use of firearms on military facilities have speculated as to how it was unbelievable that a single shooter, an out of shape doctor with little or no firearms training could have done what he did without help. Here are some facts: The possession of a firearm by a member of the military while on a military facility is strictly prohibited. It is a court martial offense since it is a direct violation of a direct order by a superior officer (the facility commander). All weapons owned by the Army are locked in an arms room and secured by a variety of security devices i.e. chains and padlocks, locked vault doors etc. Even weapons that are carried by soldiers during training are never loaded except on live fire ranges. All ammo is accounted for by a senior NCO and or officer and signed in and out. Military policemen and DOD police who provide law enforcement and security on Army posts are the exception. Even they, however, are prohibited from carrying weapons unless they are on duty. How do I know this? I spent five years in the US Army as a military policeman, two years in the US Air Force as a security policeman and more than 30 years as a cop. The military (at least the Army) is paranoid about some 18 year old with a grudge going after his fellow soldiers with a military weapon. Consequently, they lock up the weapons. (You can't very well lock up the soldiers) Now, as to the scene of the shooting on Ft. Hood: Imagine a crowded room, something like 300 people standing in line, standing at tables and sitting in chairs waiting for their number to be called; picture perhaps a hospital waiting room or the lobby of a hotel at a convention. Hundreds of people in a relatively small space. All unarmed; all thinking that the last thing they have to worry about is getting shot by a fellow soldier. Imagine a man in uniform walking in with brief case. He is a guy wearing the rank of Major, o boss, so to speak. He goes to a corner of the room or behind a counter and pulls out one or two guns and fires into the crowd. Some men rush him and get shot in doing so. Some dive for cover, some run for the doors. But remember he is shooting into a mass of people. He virtually can't miss. He shoots into the backs of those trying to flee. The bullets, in some cases pass through one person and into a second. He keeps shooting and reloading, one gun always loaded to hold off people while he reloads another. That he only killed 12 is miraculous. This takes less than three minutes. Finally, after what seems like an eternity, a cop shows up and engages the Major. He is now concentrating on the cop and is shot four times. He still manages to wound the cop before either being unable to shoot because of his injuries or because he is unable to reload or he is out of ammunition. I urge all of you armchair generals; swaggerstick and your compatriots to stop and think about this. You serve no valid purpose by speculating when you weren't there, don't know the facts and have a paranoid view of the world. Stop and let the truth come out. Ultimately, it will. Just wait. PLEASE
Subsequent to posting the above, I learned that the killer was armed with a FN Herstal Five-Seven pistol which comes with a 20 round magazine. You're way off base in your speculation. Nuff said.
See 91, I’ve been in countless clinics on military bases in my day and can’t recall any time where there were no armed personell present, both during daytime and nighttime visits.
Yep the doctors and nurses and staff are not armed, but I can’t think of a time in any of them where I was in a clinic where at lest one MP wasn’t on premises dealing with a “patient” for one cause or another.
Lets also note, if the reports continue this guy wasn’t using 2 semi pistols, he had 1 semi and 1 non-semi, 40+ folks shot with semi and revolver before he’s confronted? Even with a dual clip I’m having a hard time with the facts as presented at present. They just aren’t passing the smell test of my experiences.
He carried at the Reserve station, not on a base, I made that very clear. He was not in trouble, in fact they were ordered to be on guard for attack. A reserve station is NOT a base, its a building in a civilian area and a high profile relatively soft target for a terrorist attack.
Yes, they were carrying openly.
Amazing how many people don’t know what they don’t know, but damned well can tell you what you know.
I'll shut up now. If you think disarming soldiers is a good idea, O.K.
I'm a year younger than the man occupying the oval office and I had more leadership experience prior to his assuming office.
I see you are from India, are you allowed to carry a weapon? Should you be?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.