Thursday, April 03, 2014

The Fort Hood shooting. A tragic deja vu.

Courtesy of the Chicago Tribune:

Investigators delved into the background Thursday of a soldier who had been treated for mental illness before he killed three people and himself a day earlier at an Army base in Fort Hood, Texas, where another deadly rampage took place in 2009, military officials said. 

The suspected shooter was being seen by a psychiatrist and showed no signs of violence or suicidal tendencies, U.S. Army Secretary John McHugh said on Thursday. 

McHugh also told a U.S. Senate committee there was no indication that the soldier was involved with any extremist organizations. 

There was no motive given for the incident, although officials ruled out terrorism. The shooting also wounded 16 others, and the gunman, who had been treated for depression and anxiety, was yet to be officially identified. 

The victims were all military personnel at the massive Army base, which houses many soldiers who have seen combat abroad. 

The soldier had served four months in Iraq in 2011 and was undergoing evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder, said Fort Hood commanding officer Lieutenant General Mark Milley. 

Security officials said preliminary information identified the gunman as Ivan Lopez, but Milley declined to name the shooter, who is married, until his family was notified. (This has been confirmed just now on MSNBC.)

The suspect's wife was cooperating with law enforcement officers, a Federal Bureau of Investigation official said, according to CNN. 

The shooter had "self-reported" a traumatic brain injury after returning from Iraq but was never wounded in action, Milley said. He arrived in Fort Hood in February from another military installation. 

At about 4:00 p.m. local time on Wednesday, the soldier went to two buildings on the base and opened fire before he was confronted by military police, Milley said. 

The gunman then shot himself in the head with a .45-caliber pistol, he said. U.S. Representative Michael McCaul of Texas told reporters the man was wearing an Army uniform. 

Milley said law enforcement was looking into reports of an argument at the base ahead of the shooting. 

"At this time there is no indication that this incident is related to terrorism," Milley told a news conference.

I decided to wait to post about this tragedy, because I have learned from experience that the initial information is always incorrect in its details. 

The original reports were of about six injured and the one death, and that tentatively identified as the gunman. Sadly later we  learned that there were many more victims.

Of course as most of us remember this is not the first mass shooting at Fort Hood, there was one in 2009 which many have linked to a terrorism, because the individual was Muslim.

In that shooting there thirteen causalities and over thirty wounded.

That time, and I am sure it will happen again this time, there were calls from gun control advocates for stricter gun laws and calls from the other side for arming everybody on the base. You know, cause THAT will help.

I heard this morning that the precautions that were adopted probably helped to save lives in this incident. We will have to learn more to determine if that is true.

I actually don't think this will have much of an impact on gun laws, nor am I sure that it should.

Even though the guy was seeing a psychiatrist he did not show any serious signs of mental illness, and he did not demonstrate any indications of suicidal ideation or homicidal fantasies.

As much as we would like to think that stricter gun control laws can prevent any such tragedy, and certainly they could prevent many, in this case I don't think it would have made much difference.

The man was a soldier, so he had adequate training with firearms. He had the right under the law to own a gun (Though the gun was not registered, not that that makes any difference.), and he did not demonstrate a reason to restrict his access to firearms. Even with stricter laws, it is does not appear he would have been impacted.

I would still like to see stricter laws, including registering all serial numbers with the government and background checks at gun shows and for purchases online, but I am not sure any of that would have saved lives this time around.

Just a sad, and tragic story of somebody in great pain who nobody seemed to hear until it was too late.

26 comments:

  1. Anonymous9:11 AM

    Guns keep us safe. If every schoolteacher had guns, then there would be no school massacres. This is evidenced by the fact that a soldier on a military base - probably the most heavily armed place you can imagine - was able to gun down eighteen people before he was stopped.
    Gun rights nuts will completely ignore this irony as they call for more guns in society. You know, to keep us safe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:24 AM

      You're an idiot. Soldiers aren't allowed to carry private arms on a military base so your argument is dead right there.

      This shooter was breaking the law and because of the law, none of the victims was allowed to protect themselves. They were just as unarmed as school children are and just as inviting of a target.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/04/02/here-are-the-rules-on-carrying-firearms-on-fort-hood/

      Delete
    2. Anonymous12:13 PM

      Anon at 11:24 AM, if you think there were not a minimum of 1,000 armed troops on base at the time of this incident then you apparently have never been on a military base, let alone one the size of Hood.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous12:16 PM

      Palin Curse again.... well 3rd times a charm.
      Gabby, Tuscan Massacre
      FT Hood (again)
      What next?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous3:20 PM

      Actually 11:24 I have been to Ft Hood. My son in law was stationed there until last year. And again I tell you packing your own private heat is against the base rules. No matter if there are 1,000 armed people there or 10,000, if they aren't where you are, they can't protect you. You are on your own.

      This latest shooter wasn't stopped until ARMED MPs showed up, then he did himself in. So 16 people were wounded, and three were killed before someone who could stop him showed up.

      But I'm sure, you are OK with that.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous4:40 PM

      anon at 3:20 PM
      No, I am not okay with the shooting at all. But you first stated that no one was armed. When, in fact, there were armed MP's right IN that medical clinic where this took place, so saying no one was armed to stop them is ridiculous, we have never armed our medical military members. I certainly volunteered for 3 YEARS in Nam as a nurse and never had a weapon.
      But, it is too bad that we don't have laws in place where someone buying a weapon wasn't stopped because they were seeking treatment for being mentally unstable. Now a law like that would have stopped both shootings that have happened on Hood in the last few yrs, but I'm betting you are okay with not having laws determining who can acquire a weapon even if they are mentally unstable.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous7:08 PM

      Of course the a$$hole had to weigh in, must be a white easter or something she is tweeting a storm apparently..."Sarah Palin: Allow troops to be armed on base"
      http://politi.co/1sf0h06

      Delete
  2. Nobody in their right mind thinks that restricting gun access and having background checks will eliminate all random shootings, any more than enforcing drunk driving laws has eliminated drunk driving. Nobody has ever claimed that. It will reduce the incidence of shooting events and innocent victims, and that's enough of a goal.

    The NRA used to support background checks. Unfortunately, the wingers in our society have gone crazy and taken control of the issue. We need to wrest it back.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:29 AM

    you cant pigeon hole veterans. they cant live in apts
    or subdivs for long.
    its time the vets got what THEY need.
    not what some 'program' decides they need.

    #Veterans need a Reserve #landtrust set aside to live on.
    #NoMoreHomelessVets. #ReservationForVeterans pass it.
    precedent exists. #helpUs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:07 PM

      Anonymous10:29 AM
      What "program" like the VA care? And while your at it why don't you email all the RW Congress who cut the Vets Benis and food stamps!!!
      I don't care pain or whatnot no excuse to go on a kill rampage!

      Delete
  4. Anonymous10:48 AM

    Something to consider, and hopefully rule out as a contributing cause: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/are-va-medical-centers-over-prescribing-narcotics-to-veterans/

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous11:00 AM

    My heart goes out to his wife and family.Being a service wife is no easy path, I know from experience. Hopefully she will get all the help she is going to need to move on with her life and children. Now, here is a case that Issa can investigate - were the Bush wars worth the cost? Who profited from them, certainly not the troops and their families.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:03 PM

      We don't treat veterans right - you think we'll take care of their families? Unfortunately I'm not optimistic.

      Delete
  6. Anonymous11:01 AM

    sorry 10:45am...its not about pain meds. it may be about
    PAIN but its not the meds UNLESS you look at the horrid
    med crap they are feeding the vets, and active duty, per
    lobbying from bigpharma.

    recently, vicodin is now under a new patent so NO ONE
    here can get that now on INS. instead all the pain vets now
    HAVE to use WORSE meds and higher narc content
    all becuz Abbott decided to repatent that Word via a new
    formula, which is FULL of symptoms no one needs.

    PAIN is real. it has to be quieted or all function is lost.

    not to say both VA and Mil arent shoving awful shit at
    these people. bigpharma has their hands in it all.
    all the vets seek is pain relief so they can get some
    some REST.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:29 PM

      That is with EVERYONE not just Vets! Big Pharma goes to med schools and tells them what to RX, then REPS come and tell them what to rx. Not just the VA EVERYWHERE!

      Delete
  7. Anonymous11:20 AM

    Also@11:01am.....most of the service people will be on pain
    management the rest of their lives.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous12:01 PM

    He was under evaluation for PTSD - and had suffered a traumatic brain injury. THAT should be one of the criteria for turn in your gun until we evaluate you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:17 PM

      We being you? No thanks.

      So you are good with sending young soldiers to witness and engage in the attrocities of war, then you have the gall to discuss taking away their rights when they come back. Promptly go fuck yourself.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous3:36 PM

      12:17

      You're a pussy.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous5:09 PM

      Anonymous12:01 PM
      You would think so?
      Why didn't they take his gun away?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous5:11 PM

      Anonymous3:36 PM

      12:17

      You're a pussy.
      ******
      You're a fucking asshole! Isn't it a law that mentally ill should not have a gun? A gun should be a privilege not a "Right"
      Just like driving a car is a Privilege...go fuck yourself!
      And further more all guns should be insured as deadly weapons like Cars are. Take that and shove it where the sun don't shine!

      Delete
  9. Anonymous12:12 PM

    Sorry to tell you Gryphen but he did NOT have the right to own that weapon on base without consent of his superior officers.

    While I understand this guy had issues, we haven't scrapped the top of the barrel, let alone the bottom, with these types of incidences. Never before in US Military history have we deployed soldiers again and again and again. I know men that have served up to 8 deployments in a matter of 12 yrs( one is my son) and if the American people do not think this is affecting those military members then they have blinders on.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous12:14 PM

    12:01PM...if that were the criteria for gun owning then no
    one in the MIL would have them.
    the civ wurld is full of PTS also which is why they want
    all these damn weapons.

    a Mil base has NO Active weapons unless they are
    issued for purpose or event. Mil people are fully
    weapons trained. they are not willy nilly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous4:22 PM

    I would like to see as much discussion of mental health treatment as I see about gun control. Destigmatizing mental illness and increasing the number of therapists and treatment centers available to soldiers and veterans should be a top priority. They deserve nothing but the best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:32 PM

      My ex BF every-time he went to VA the second question was "Do you have PTSD"?
      Always got quality care at the VA.

      Delete
  12. Anita Winecooler6:27 PM

    I agree with Anon 4:22.
    The VA Hospitals are a mixed bag when it comes to quality of care for Mental Illness and PTSD. There's an Iraq War Vet my husband is friends with and the VA hospital near us wasn't giving him the therapy and medication he needs for PTSD and other issues. There was a waiting list everytime he went, and he was seen by whatever psychiatrist was on duty that day. My husband drives him to a VA hospital in Delaware and he's improved greatly. The stigma has to be lifted and we need to treat our vets much much better than we are. At the very least, assign them to a doctor they're used to seeing.

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.