« | »

NYT: Ft. Hood Does Little To Keep Out Firearms

From the deep thinkers at the New York Times:

Soldier’s Attack at Base Echoed Rampage in 2009

By MANNY FERNANDEZ, SERGE F. KOVALESKI and ERIC SCHMITT | April 3, 2014

KILLEEN, Tex. — In the aftermath of a deadly rampage at Fort Hood here in November 2009 that left 13 people dead, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced a Pentagon review of the shooting to help ensure, he said, that “nothing like this ever happens again.”

Nearly five years later, it did, in eerily similar fashion.

The NYT have changed the headline for some odd reason. It was originally: "Fort Hood Does Little to Keep Out Firearms."

Now stop and think how bizarre it is to insist that guns be banned from a military base. As if it wouldn’t be easy enough to procure a gun, once you on on base. 

On Wednesday, when a troubled Iraq war veteran — Specialist Ivan Antonio Lopez, 34 — killed three people and wounded 16 others at Fort Hood before taking his own life, he did so in Army uniform after sneaking a high-powered handgun onto the base, just as the 2009 gunman had done. Specialist Lopez bought his gun at the same shop near the base where the 2009 gunman, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, bought his weapon. Each shooting started in a medical support area for troops, and each ended when the gunman confronted a female police officer rushing to the scene.

For some odd reason The Times ignores another important similarity. Each shooter was only stopped when they were confronted by another person with a gun.

There was also a fundamental difference: Officials say there is no indication that Specialist Lopez was inspired by Islamic extremism as Major Hasan was.

Which is why The Times is willing to talk about this attack.

But the replay of a mass shooting at Fort Hood, particularly coming on the heels of the shooting spree in September that left 12 people dead at the Washington Navy Yard, raised questions about what lessons Army officials had learned from the 2009 rampage; how effectively military installations can keep out unauthorized guns; and how prepared they are to deal with threats from within, including from soldiers or contractors intent on doing harm to others on the base.

Here’s a crazy thought. Let the soldiers carry weapons on base. Once again, both Hasan and Lopez were only stopped when someone with a gun showed up.

Before the 1990s, soldiers were allowed to carry weapons on base. And we don’t recall many mass shootings before that time.

At Fort Hood, which sprawls for 340 square miles over the Texas prairie, Specialist Lopez was being treated for behavioral and mental health issues. To enter the base, he would have undergone no security screening beyond showing his identification and would have passed through no metal detectors.

Military personnel who are not police officers are not allowed to carry privately owned weapons on Army bases. Soldiers on post must register their firearms, which Army officials said Specialist Lopez failed to do with the handgun he used in the attack. Fort Hood’s rules rely in large part on the honor system, and require all personnel bringing a privately owned firearm onto the base in a vehicle to declare that they are doing so and state why.

“Fort Hood is a big installation,” the base’s commanding general, Lt. Gen. Mark A. Milley, told reporters on Thursday. “We’ve got a population well over 100,000 here. It would not be realistic to do a pat-down search on every single soldier and employee on Fort Hood for a weapon on a daily basis.” …

Those who work at or visit the base agreed that it was not feasible for a post like Fort Hood to check thoroughly for guns…

But the NYT knows better.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Friday, April 4th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “NYT: Ft. Hood Does Little To Keep Out Firearms”

  1. I’m trying to imagine a Russian military base’s response to a jihadist/fruitcake enlisted man ordering them around like they’re a piece of under cooked ham … and all I’m coming up with is .. bam .. bam ..

    bambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambam .. is he dead?

    Bambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambambam ..

  2. canary

    Well, the bad guys and thugs are picking up on this. Unbeleivable their security is worse than most hospitals that have vdieo survelliance rooms and armed security. They need to hire more MPs and better survelliance equipment and communication.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »