Ft Hood Tragedy, All because of one asshole's selfishness

Well, by now you've probably heard of yesterday's horrible massacre in Ft Hood, Texas. Some monster, who happened to be a recently promoted major and a psychiatrist, apparently didn't want to go to Iraq and, y'know, do his goddamned job. With a handgun (originally reported as two, but he did not use the second sidearm according to the most recent reports), he opened fire in the base, wounding 30 people and killing 12. He was taken down by a civilian police officer who responded to the scene within three minutes of the first report. He remains in a coma, but is expected to recover in time to have his ass kicked and killed.

There's so much that is fucked up about this story.

It took awhile, but his name was eventually revealed to be Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Immediately, people began drawing conclusions that he is a home grown terrorist, though evidence shows that he may be simply a Muslin immigrant who joined the military with originally good intentions. For whatever reasons, some alleged to be harassment due to his religion, he grew increasingly bitter in the years leading up to this incident. His bitterness goes back to at least Sept 11th, 2001, where he, already in the military at this time, claims he was harassed due to his Muslim beliefs.

Now...Our military may not be the cleanest, most friendly force on the planet, and there's records of shit like this happening (see; Abu Grahb), but that sure as hell doesn't mean this guy is tragic figure. He's still an asshole. An asshole who happens to be Muslim.

Unfortunately, people are going to focus on that Islamic aspect of him and try to justify his actions, or at least explain them. Here, I'll cut away all of that bullshit right now and "explain" him to everyone. Ready?

Guy's an asshole.

There. That's my prognosis. While his bitterness may be in part caused by his experiences with bigotry in the military, it doesn't change the fact that he killed people due to the fact that he didn't want to go overseas and do what he was trained to do. He wasn't even going to be on the front lines- he's a psychiatrist who was supposed to help traumatized soldiers. Somehow, Psycho Mantis-style, their trauma became his, and he developed some sort of fear of going over there.

Guess what, asshole? You signed up for it. You VOLUNTEERED for it. At some point, you WANTED to do it, because that's what soldiers do. Did you think you were the exception? A special case? Did you want to hide behind your religion while you sat around and griped? Well, FUCK YOU. Our soldiers deserved alot better than you. I wish you had just offed yourself instead of sharing your emo fit with dozens of innocent men and women who are way more heroic than you could ever be, douchebag.

To capitalize on how much of a bastard this jerk is, he was reportedly using a "5.7 caliber pistol". Not too many handguns use that particular round. In fact, only ONE uses it- the FN Five-seveN. What makes this so insidious is that this isn't a pistol the US military issues (they issue either the Beretta M9 or the Colt M1911A1 for the Marines), so he bought it as a civilian. Now, the Five-seveN was designed for the potent 5.7 x 28mm NATO cartridge.

Normally, you can't get the NATO version of this cartridge here in America, as it has incredible armor-piercing capabilities. That's what this particular cartridge was designed to do. However, as an active officer, it's possible he could get his hands on the NATO version. Ballistics isn't in yet, but it wouldn't shock me to hear that he was using the NATO version.

This would mean that was he came to the party expecting people wearing body armor, though as a soldier stationed there, he knows weapons aren't carried around the base unless you're an MP or other rare cases. In other words, it was a shooting gallery, and he brought something that was meant to rack up a high kill count and put up a fight against any armored personnel.

Chances are, since the Five-seveN was the source of controversy back when it was first introduced to America a few years ago, the media will pick up on this factoid and start leading the charge for an Assault Weapons Ban, which helps no one but assholes like Hasan, who don't care about such bans. Time will only tell if this will be the case, though.

The heroic actions of Sgt. Kimberly Munley and her partner brought Hasan down before he could do any more damage. She was shot in the gunfight, but is expected to make a full recovery. I hope she, and the other people who pulled together to help each other during and after the shooting, get some recognition.

Its just a horrible event that is going to spiderweb over the next few days and stir up alot of shit. All because of one man's slefishness.

I don't think he'll get much sympathy from anyone except extremists. Frankly, there's a LOT of options open to him. He coulda quit. He could have just said "no" to the assignment, face a dishonorable discharge, and quit. Make a run for Mexico or Canada. Instead he decided to shoot up his co workers and probably hoped to die in the corssfire.

I can't see his religion being used as an excuse. I mean, I can see peopel trying to understand his point of view. Understanding is different from excusing. Ultimately, this guy is a real shame to Muslims everywere for his criminal, cowardly actions.

Seems to me like the guy didn't want to fight his own people but as gauntlet said there were many options open to him to get out of it. The shooter was also born in Virgininia, he joined right out of highschool or something. I can understand going into the army as an immature kid and later wanting out due to fear but fuck, so many better options than shooting a bunch of people, sickeing really.

I still don't see why the US keeps automatic and semiautomatic weapons legal, banning them would have a SERIOUS imapct on the number of shootings you guys had. Hell in australia it reduced the number of mass shootings in a 14 year period to zero, surely it could reduce the number by 5 or 6 over the same period of time.

Because what's a military without guns?
Target practice.

Idiocy.

For one, a semi-auto handgun was used in this incident- not a full auto. Fully auto machine guns are very rarely used in shootings due to the cost involved with getting them (usually around $10,000 and much more). As a matter of fact, there have only been 2 incidents since 1949 where legally registered machine guns have been used in violent acts, and one of them was by an off-duty cop who found his wife sleeping with another man. Two incidents in 50 years is a pretty good record, I'd say.

But you only ever hear of the worst incidents, like this one. You rarely hear of the incidents where people defended themselves, their family, or complete strangers using their legally acquired weapons. Contrary to popular belief, the VAST MAJORITY of gun owners here in America are law abiding citizens. The few assholes out there, like Hasan and that jerk in Orlando, represent a very slim minority of gun owners here in the States. It is not fair to marginalize everyone based on a handful of maniacs who get the media's attention.

It is exactly like marginalizing entire races or creeds based on the actions of a select few. It is not fair to label all Muslims as terrorists due to the actions of Al Quaida, the Taliban, or Major Hasan here.

And the gun ban in Australia, which I'm familiar with, didn't do quite so much to curb violent crime in that country due to the fact that, compared to America, violent crimes aren't as prolific. Don't listen to everything the media tells you- take it all with a grain of salt. All they did was disarm you and take away your rights, and you bought into the whole "you're safer!" slogan.

Take a look at Britain, who practically banned all guns from private possession a few years ago. Violence has escalated there so badly, with stabbings becoming the new way to victimize people, that they're actually trying to ban glass containers in bars/pubs so that people won't be able to break them and turn them into makeshift knives. Think about that, and how fucked up that is.

And as a matter of fact, the gentle minds of our Federal Government banned a number of "assault weapons" for a ten-year period (1994-2004). Besides costing the Democrats their majority seatings in Congress and the House follwing its passage, it did pretty much nothing to stop crimes involving these so-called "assault weapons". Actually, they got worse, with shit like the North Hollywood Hills Shootout, which involved illegally modified AK-47s and AR-15s.

Bans like this wouldn't work here in America, because they empower the criminals, who DON'T FUCKING CARE ABOUT BANS. There's tons of illegally imported weapons getting here every day, along with the tons of already unregistered, "invisible" guns, so bans would only function to disarm honest, law abiding citizens, like myself, and make us defenseless against criminals who just don't care and will always have access to higher powered weapons than what's available legally.

Here, I'll even relate such a ban to this Ft Hood shooting. Back in the day, a few decades ago, Hasan would never have been able to kill as many people as he did in that base. Why? Because everybody there would have had at least their sidearm handy. He was able to shoot and kill so many people with a single handgun because the soldiers now have to lock up their weapons in the armory. This effectively made our US Army soldiers...SOLDIERS...defenseless in a goddamned military compound. What fucking sense does that make?! Had at least one soldier there been able to carry, Hasan would have been taken out much sooner, and the toll wouldn't have been as bad.

This acts as a microcasm for what would happen if guns were banned for everyone here in America. The criminals would still have access to the millions of illegal weapons out there, and we'd have no choice but to pray that the cops would reach us as fast as Sgt Munley did, which isn't always the case. Even if the cops do reach us in time, there's still a chance we'd end up in a hostage situation, or killed in the crossfire of a gunfight. At least if we're armed, we can do something without relying on the cops. We have power; some control over our own destiny, which is what America is supposed to be about.

And let's face it Corvid- if a determined criminal in Austrailia wanted to shoot up a school or a police station or your house, he could. Don't think for a second that just because there's a ban in place, and that most of your private weapons were confiscated that there's no such thing as the black market. If the will exists, it will happen. All that has happened is you were given the illusion of safety at the cost of security. Granted, the violent will in Austrailia isn't as strong as America's, but some day, an example will be set. Its a nasty thought, and I don't want any innocent civilians of ANY country to be killed, but all it takes is a single person with deadly intent to make it happen. History has shown us this countless times before.

Human beings are THE most violent, ruthless creatures on Earth. We're also tool users, to boot. Nothing will change either one of those facts. You'd be foolish to think otherwise. I would not feel safer if I were made to be defenseless against some maniacal stranger. At least, with a gun, I have a fighting chance.

Incidentally, during the last Mechs Meet here in Detroit, I carried a gun on me when I went to the ghetto to pick up the others. I knew they wouldn't be comfortable with this knowledge, so I didn't mention it, and I kept the thing hidden from them. I brought it because I know the reality of the city- its cruel and dangerous. I did not feel comfortable hiding it from them, but I did feel safer. I felt like I could do something if we got attacked. I felt empowered, as though I could help them, and myself, if it needed to happen. The need never arose, and I'm very thankful for that.

The point of me owning and carrying a gun isn't to use it. I don't WANT to, and I hope I never have to. But, it is there for me, like any other tool. It has no will of its own, no evil aura. The point of my gun is to save myself and other people. This is how most gun-owning Americans feel.

Well, you did leave the bullet cartridge in pretty clear sight in the hotel. I don't think you kept it as secret as you think. Nobody metnioned it .... I don't think anyone was as bugged as you think.

I intend to move out to a small town in the middle of the state with my girlfriend in a few years. One of the only drawbacks of that area is that it's covered in dingos. Hell if I'm going up there unarmed. If we choose to get any animals [Probably just chickens for eggs. The place we're looking at isn't that big, and farming is hardly the point of it.] then they'll need protecting too if a preadator comes.

But it doesn't matter. Because it's difficult as hell to get a decent gun here.

I should probably have clarified at the start that by here I mean Australia. Yeah...

I think "dingos" pretty much narrows it down, Letra.

And yes, I can easily see this shooting boosting drone-like support for gun control, as it is with every shooting. There is nothing a government can take advantage of better than a disarmed public. Not only does it put innocent people at the mercy of criminals and the fluctuating punctuality of law-enforcement, it's downright condescending, as your government is outright assuming you're far too violent and irresponsible to own a simple tool such as a handgun. That's why I love living here in the open-carry state of NM. Our local government actually treats us like friggin' adults.

I think "dingos" pretty much narrows it down, Letra.

And yes, I can easily see this shooting boosting drone-like support for gun control, as it is with every shooting. There is nothing a government can take advantage of better than a disarmed public. Not only does it put innocent people at the mercy of criminals and the fluctuating punctuality of law-enforcement, it's downright condescending, as your government is outright assuming you're far too violent and irresponsible to own a simple tool such as a handgun. That's why I love living here in the open-carry state of NM. Our local government actually treats us like friggin' adults.

This is also why I love mississippi. Everyone I know owns some kind of weapon, gun, or self-defense mechanism. In lucedale, there has been not one record of house break-in's since 2003, at least to my knowledge. The reason why is only an idiot would break into a house where everyone in town hunts.

You might be in some luck. From what I understand of current Austrailian law, farmers and rural people can own a firearm if they can provide a legitimate reason. It may have changed since the last time I read up on it, however.

It's probably going to be something like a .22 LR, but at least its something.

And Maha, you've provided a perfect example of the old adage, "an armed society is a polite society". You don't have to constantly fire off a gun in order for it to be an effective deterrence. If people know you're armed, they'll be less prone to attack you. Its fundamental, really.

That's why all of these shootings have one thing in common. Its always one or two cowardly assholes going into unarmed, so-called gun-free and "safe" places like schools or office buildings, where they know they can do as they want. You take away the ability to legally defend themselves from these bastards and you'll just end up with more and more of these incidents, because you'll just be giving them more places to rack up easy kills with minimal opposition.

There's a reason why my cop friend told me to get a CCW. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

I did leave that bullet out G, mostly as an open invitation, or a subtle clue. I thought I'd probably be "made" by someone at some point, but I didn't think anybody knew I was carrying. I also lazily left one of my extra mags laying around at some point.

Now, bonus points to any Mech who can correctly guess where I carried my gun.

There's no reaosn for anyone to shout out "Rich, you're carrying!?" Nobody thinks you're gunning for us. And we all know you like guns.

But if I knew you were levaing a hint, I mighta called you on it. To fulfill expectations. Sorry to dissappoint.

Idiocy? Was that really called for?

Anyway, my point wasn’t that fully automatics are used in shooting every day, I don’t know guns and so I never speculated on what weapons are used I simply said that Semi and Fully automatic weapons should be illegal. They have no purpose, hunting, defence and everything else can be done JUST as effectively with other weapons, other nations who ban them defend their homes and hunt just as well without them so I don’t see the point in ownership. I know majority of US citizens are responsible owners, I know it would marginalise some people based on the actions of a few but this is something that could potentially save a few dozen people a year, I’d be more than willing to lose my right to something I don’t need if it means a few school kids might walk home without being shot at.

The media in Australia has nothing to do with my opinions on the success or failure of the buyback scheme, my opinion on it is reflected by police statistics which show that our shootings rarely top more than 4 victims and the fact that in the 13 years since the laws came in we’ve had 0 mass shootings. It’s possible this can be attributed to a change in attitude or something but even if the scheme prevented or limited the carnage of one shooting then I say it was worth it.

London has problems with violence in clubs and on the streets, places it wouldn’t be legal to carry a gun under any circumstance anyway, should London relax their laws it would mean nothing since they would all be required to leave their guns at home, a few more might get shot though in revenge attacks though. The only way to stop the stabbings and bashings in London streets that involve allowing people to use guns is to let them carry them on the streets, with them already drunk and rowdy this would only make killing easier. The banning glass though, yeah that’s dumb, a few clubs and bars in Melbourne did that and all it meant was fists got used more and more people got put into comas, that and my cup cracked at a wrestling show/concert and I had coke all over my hands!

It wouldn’t make you defenceless, I’m not talking about removing all guns, as I said last time that would be fucking retarded. What I’m saying is that a revolver works just as well for defence as a semi/fully automatic weapon if they didn’t criminals would have overrun any nation that outlawed them and Victorian police would be beaten into submission.

I know the black market exists, it costs like 200-500 to pick up a desert eagle or some shit so I know if a criminal wants to they can get their hands on it. What the ban is doing is making it harder to get your hands on that sort of gun so that should someone decide to go nuts they have to REALLY try to find a gun capable of doing a lot and people aren’t going to search out their local black market for one they’ll just take what they can. The way I see it is, if a revolver is good enough for my cops to patrol the street with than its good enough for me to defend my home with, I don’t own a gun but if I were there is no need for me to fire 12 shots or something in a couple seconds, two or three should have the dude down, hurt or running. Besides if I don’t own a big gun then there is no need for criminals to own one, hell most burglaries here are done with bats or knives because there is no escalation, we don’t have big guns so they don’t need big guns and that’s all it is, escalation.

Anyway, I don’t want to leave you defenceless mate, despite us bumping heads all the time I got nothing against you and wouldn’t want you harmed in any way, I’m just saying that if you want to defend yourself a revolver will do just fine. I know that the TRUE issue here is not the guns but the mental health and the attitude of a minority of people throughout the world not just the US but until we can pull a miracle out our asses and fix that or help repair the damage we’re all going to have to take a few hits on this. We’re not talking about things like stripping you of your rights to own guns or defend yourself, we’re talking about limiting it to try and hopefully slow down the shootings. I know it might not work, the US has an entirely different attitude to gun ownership (this topic is proof of that) so what may have worked here probably won’t work there but I think it wouldn’t hurt.

Oh and Regulus, it's nothing to do with thinking you're incapable or a retard, its more to do with stopping the moron or child down the street who isn't responsible from shooting someone.

I will agree though that the men and women at Fort Hood should have been armed, even when on base in peace times they should be armed because life is too unpredictable and military targets are bigger targets than anywhere else. That being said, the difference between them and your average person at home is that they are skilled and trained professionals under supervision so they should be carrying more than a simple revolver.

All that being said, I know nothing about guns and I got no interest in the things so if any terminology is wrong its cause of that.

Sorry, changing this bit to letra, in QLD dingoes are regarded as pests and you're legally allowed to thin their numbers on your property, over all they are a vulnerable speces but legally you can shoot them. Should finding a gun be too hard and you're after a more effective measure to keep them away get a BIG dog like a Mastiff or a Saint Bernard because they will intimidate Dingos also get them to piss around your property as much as you can. Dingos tend to run around alone so keeping them away wouldn't be hard this way, shooting them would only mean another would wander by eventually and it would be less effective. Oh and Regulus, it's off topic but Dingos don't just live in Australia, they're spread all throughout indonesia as well.

Corvid makes a few good points. I don't think you're an idiot.

I didn't take offense to it or anything i just didn't think it was necessary to make it even slightly personal especially since we're two dudes on the net discussing things we have no control over.

My use of the word "idiocy" referred to your arguement, not you. If people can't distinguish that, then that's their problem, not mine. I've heard this arguement numerous times, and I'll just never buy into it.

Again, banning semi auto weapons will not work here. All that's going to do is give honest citizens less tools and less choices, while criminals will still have all of the current weapons at their disposal. The only way you'd be able to clear up the tremendous black market here would be to demand every weapon producing nation to control their supply to the utmost possible. Then, you'd have to go door to door to find the current supply of now-illegal weapons.

Aside from being a logistical nightmare, it'd be crminal under our Constitution. At that point, the federal government would have stepped over way too many boundries. Keep in mind that the American Revolution's real beginnings were when the British attempted to disarm the Americans. Its a very serious matter.

Why should we have to conceed a bit of our safety when its a few psychos that give the rest of us a bad name? Furthermore, will the Army take a step down and start using revolvers, M1 Garands, and hunting shotguns? Yeah right.

They'll get to keep their M16s, grenades, and other high tech goodies, and the citizens have to make due with 100 year old Wild West tech? A point is being missed here, and a very important one that Regulus touched on.

One of the reasons the Second Amendment was included in the original Constitution was that regular citizens were supposed to be armed, not only to form an impromptu militia, but to keep the Army in check. Our founding fathers knew that an Army that was devastatingly over-armed compared to our regular citizens could be misused, and used by a tyrant to subjegate people.

"A Government big enough to give you everything you ever wanted, is also big enough to take it all away."

That's a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson, and it pretty much sums up the rationale behind the Second Amendment. The world hasn't outgrown tyranny or power-mad politicians in the past 200 years. We mustn't become arrogant or rely on the government for everything, otherwise that'll lead us to disaster, in one form or another. Its a point that isn't just based on weapons, but every single right found in the Constitution. We must never conceed these rights under any pretenses, or else we sacrifice too much for too little.

Basically, if we conceed and take a step back, while the Army has us all hopelessly outgunned (as we already are), we're taking a very big risk. A risk that can be avoided. I'm not advocating that citizens should be able to own tanks or easily be able to get machine guns, but we need to keep the gap to a minimum. It is another instance of deterrence- if it isn't worth it to attempt a coup or total take over, then it will be less likely to happen.

My second point is that revolvers aren't any less dangerous than semi-autos. Did you know that with some practice, you can reload a revolver even faster than a semi-auto? It only takes a cheap, easy to get device called a "speed loader", and you can reload all chambers nearly instantly.

Pretty much nullfies the supposed firepower advantage that semi-autos have over "those old" revolvers. Hasan could have done as much damage with a revolver as he did with that semi-auto. Maniacs simply use semi-autos nowadays because they are percieved to be better in every single way, but really, the strengths and weaknesses of these two designs make them about equal at the end of the day.

I like having a choice. I prefer semi-autos over revolvers because I like the designs of them and the wide range of little choices I have with them. I can also conceal a thin-shaped semi-auto against my slender frame better than a bulky revolver, which would pretty obvious. I feel self-concious as it is carrying a 3-pound chunk of dead weight that can be hidden fairly well- it'd be a different story if it was twice as wide and created a very obvious bulge on my body, no matter where I hid it.

By the way, the most popular semi-auto design in the world is still the Colt 1911. The magazine capacity of that gun is usually between 7 or 8, while most revolvers use 6 (with some modern ones having 7 or 8 cylinders). That's not a huge advantage over revolvers, is it?

No, it's not. Most self-defense shootings are over in less than 3 shots, meaning it all boils down to preference of the shooter. A semi-auto ban would merely take away a choice for the shooter. It wouldn't make shootings any less deadly.

Also, a semi-auto ban would hurt the already damaged economy at this point. Pretty much all of the American weapons makers would either go out of business or leave the country, while the foreign brands would also be hurt, which will damage the world economy as well. Ammunition sales would be hurt drastically. The firearms industry is one of the few bright spots we have right now, and taking that away would not be a good political or economical move. Putting even more people on the street with out many chances of landing good work? Great move.

In other words, how will you pay for this decision? You really can't at this point.

When people make rash, sweeping generalizations, without considering ALL of the after effects of that choice, THAT'S what I call idiocy. Maybe the Austrailian gun ban worked for you, but you never had a big firearms industry over there, it was never a huge part of your culture, and it was never a garaunteed right. That isn't the case over here. So, when you open your mouth without doing the research or considering all of the possibilities, it just doesn't make sense. You simply don't live here, so you haven't seen what I've seen. You haven't seen how people can go down to the ghetto in Detroit for an hour and come back with a full-auto AK-47 that the government doesn't know is here. A gun ban would not do anything to stop that. All it'd do is make these illegal weapons peddlers richer.

People around the world complain that Americans try to dictate world policy and tell everyone else what to do, but other nations' citizens are just as guilty as us. Me? If you think the gun ban works for your country, good for you. I don't agree, but I won't stuff a gun in your hand, nor will I attempt to tell you how your country should be run. Try it some day.

You may feel you have no control over what your country does, but I know I have a voice here in America. I enjoy using it. Without it, politicans could pass whatever retarded nonsense they wanted to without ill-effect. At least here, I can find other like-minded people, and our collective voice becomes too hard to ignore.

You have a voice too. Maybe not as strong a voice as mine, but you have one. It's up to you if you want to use it or not, but don't claim you're helpless against your own government. If you are, what does that say about your government? I wouldn't be able to stand that myself, so I'll fight anything that makes my voice weaker.

What works for Austrailians won't always work for Americans, and vice versa.

Back to G, that bullet is a good luck charm I carry around, regardless of me being armed or not.

I didn't want to proclaim I was carrying because I didn't know how everyone felt (I don't talk to Needle all that much, so I didn't want to scare her. Likewise with Gemmy, or anyone else who may not have felt comfortable with the idea). I know its not a concept that sits well with everyone, and I can understand that. This isn't the Old West. The least I could do is show some respect and make a compromise.

I'm not disappointed at all that you didn't take the "invitation". It may have been for the better. Maybe someone may have inwardly felt a little intimidated or insecure with that knowledge- I wouldn't know.

Hell, to be honest, it was my first time carrying. I felt pretty self-concious about it. I don't actually like carrying, but I like that I have the option to. I don't have to carry the damned thing with me everywhere I go, and I wouldn't want to. The point is that I can, because it is a right that people fought for, and I honor that.

I only carry when I feel its necessary. I feel it is a tool that needs to be used with discretion and moderation, and shouldn't be taken to extremes. If more people understood that, we'd live in a less violent world.