Shooter at Ft Hood.........
- Thread starter proud dad
- Start date
GNBRETT
Registered
Vabs I know dozens of ppl that take medications for some sort of mental problems. some ADHD, some for depression, some for bi-polar etc.... and most all of them function just fine and have families and hold jobs.
that doesn't give them a pass or maybe not a pass but it doesn't mean we shud look at this and say oh this is so sad another spree shooting but the guy was mentally ill so that explains it. no it does not. plenty of people are being treated for mental problems but that doesn't mean they go out and kill people.
ppl still have free will and make their own decisions. he planned this out. this guy was a very experienced and respected soldier who was apparently pissed off at the military for some reason or another and on that day he decided he was going to kill himself but decided he was gonna take others with him so everyone can remember him. well, everyone will. he will be remembered as a COWARD!
Whoa, chill...you and I agree on this. I wasn't going to give the guy a free pass at all. I was wondering how the system failed here if he was being treated for a mental illness. All I wanted to know was how the military handles this situation and why aren't safeguards in place to prevent him from being able to go purchase a gun, or carry a gun? Was he still able to carry? For all we know, he was. The system fails over and over again. We are a society of pill pushers and that's a huge problem that IMHO leaves a huge amount of liability on the doctors and caregivers that push people through this process and stamp someone "OK for public consumption" when clearly they are not...what proud dad said is pretty much all that was going through my mind as well. Where were the flags when he went to buy the gun?? The system isn't just broken, it's nearly non-existent.
GNBRETT
Registered
cud not agree more. we hand out guns to anyone and everyone with very little scrutiny.Where were the flags when he went to buy the gun?? The system isn't just broken, it's nearly non-existent.
That's all because of this pussified politically correct world we live in. If we (as a country) denied someone something based on medications they were taking, the bleeding hearts would go ballistic..
A guy in the military buying s gun. That's an odd thing that deserves a flag to be raised.
There isn't a real system that can be put in place that won't take away the rights of people.
Put a system in place and there will still be an incident that will occur somewhere along the line.
Then make the system more strict and before you know it you wonder why you have a chip under your skin and a schedule of when you can go and do things. <--- far fetched as it sounds, people who keep pushing for safety and this will be a very possible outcome.
Me personally... I'll take the risk of incident to live relatively freely. Everything has a cost.
There isn't a real system that can be put in place that won't take away the rights of people.
Put a system in place and there will still be an incident that will occur somewhere along the line.
Then make the system more strict and before you know it you wonder why you have a chip under your skin and a schedule of when you can go and do things. <--- far fetched as it sounds, people who keep pushing for safety and this will be a very possible outcome.
Me personally... I'll take the risk of incident to live relatively freely. Everything has a cost.
I am wondering why, if you have a volatile member of the military that you're treating for "mental illness", wouldn't you limit his/her ability to get hands on guns? If not for the protection of society, then how about for the protection of all of those around this individual?
I would hope any person going through the same "labeling" would...hell, that would have possibly stopped quite a few of our more recent mass murders from ever happening.
I've been treated for depression in my lifetime; go ahead and put that on my chart and if that means I have to explain it while buying a gun, so be it. I don't mind...yeah, I went through this or that, oh you need a doctor's note to prove I'm OK? Cool...it beats having someone that's batsh*t crazy showing up, society is afraid to label, docs don't divulge the info even though their log books show he's said "I want to kill people" and who pays for that in the end? School children? Innocent people at the mall? Your coworkers? This society of "Oh we can't label/offend anyone" has gone way too far in protecting those that will do harm to others; meanwhile those that are OK with doing the right thing continue to pay the heftiest of prices...
Of course all of the rules in the world will never fix crazy or illegal, and both will get what they want in the end no matter what society does to try to hinder it, but I sit here wondering why it's so hard for someone like me, working class nobody, to get a passport or change my address when I move, or hey, let's talk about all those having to buy new health insurance nowadays, yet someone that's undergoing help for "mental illness" gets to go buy a brand new shiny gun? Something is very wrong here...
I would hope any person going through the same "labeling" would...hell, that would have possibly stopped quite a few of our more recent mass murders from ever happening.
I've been treated for depression in my lifetime; go ahead and put that on my chart and if that means I have to explain it while buying a gun, so be it. I don't mind...yeah, I went through this or that, oh you need a doctor's note to prove I'm OK? Cool...it beats having someone that's batsh*t crazy showing up, society is afraid to label, docs don't divulge the info even though their log books show he's said "I want to kill people" and who pays for that in the end? School children? Innocent people at the mall? Your coworkers? This society of "Oh we can't label/offend anyone" has gone way too far in protecting those that will do harm to others; meanwhile those that are OK with doing the right thing continue to pay the heftiest of prices...
Of course all of the rules in the world will never fix crazy or illegal, and both will get what they want in the end no matter what society does to try to hinder it, but I sit here wondering why it's so hard for someone like me, working class nobody, to get a passport or change my address when I move, or hey, let's talk about all those having to buy new health insurance nowadays, yet someone that's undergoing help for "mental illness" gets to go buy a brand new shiny gun? Something is very wrong here...
This is one that I am very conflicted about... hypothetically, let's examine a Veteran of the military that recently retired. Suppose that as part of the evaluation process he was sent to a "specialist" for mental health. Now, as part of his retirement processing, the VA takes the specialists evaluation and decides for the government that the mental capacity/health of the individual is such that he should not own weapons. The VA then sends letters to the individual and he is flagged in the national system as ineligible to purchase firearms.
Personally, I have a problem with this - but I am not sure if my objection is valid. So, for people exiting the military, flags are raised for people through the VA... problem is that if this person is not exiting the military, then there is currently no tie in to the VA or to the government outside of the DoD for flag raising; there is no method of communicating that a person is a potential threat... (but potential is my sticking point). The military and VA systems do not talk to each other - so information is only shared through records transfer...
People in the military a capable of some very nasty things... but not prone to them, per se; people in the military do and see things that are very damaging to mental state... as do police, firemen and women, etc... traumatic experiences affect people in different ways and since there is no real way of predicting exactly how a person will handle a situation or react to the aftermath, there tends to be a knee jerk reaction.
I agree that a person isn't right when they are able to hurt innocent people and mental illness is not a pass - but I also agree that mental illness is a very broad spectrum of issues and medical requirements that shouldn't all be categorized the same way.
I agree with VaBS, if I have to be interviewed prior to purchasing a firearm because of my medical record, I am fine with that... up until someone unilaterally decides that I can't own firearms based only on the record content...
Personally, I have a problem with this - but I am not sure if my objection is valid. So, for people exiting the military, flags are raised for people through the VA... problem is that if this person is not exiting the military, then there is currently no tie in to the VA or to the government outside of the DoD for flag raising; there is no method of communicating that a person is a potential threat... (but potential is my sticking point). The military and VA systems do not talk to each other - so information is only shared through records transfer...
People in the military a capable of some very nasty things... but not prone to them, per se; people in the military do and see things that are very damaging to mental state... as do police, firemen and women, etc... traumatic experiences affect people in different ways and since there is no real way of predicting exactly how a person will handle a situation or react to the aftermath, there tends to be a knee jerk reaction.
I agree that a person isn't right when they are able to hurt innocent people and mental illness is not a pass - but I also agree that mental illness is a very broad spectrum of issues and medical requirements that shouldn't all be categorized the same way.
I agree with VaBS, if I have to be interviewed prior to purchasing a firearm because of my medical record, I am fine with that... up until someone unilaterally decides that I can't own firearms based only on the record content...
So from what you are saying Shawn, if an active military member is being treated for "mental illness" and whatever that may mean, there's absolutely no flag set anywhere to prevent him/her from even carrying his/her own weapon? I guess the bigger question is this - is there ever a scenario in the military where, through treatment alone (discounting actions/illegal activity here) an active military member is deemed dangerous enough that he/she loses their weapon, based on a mental assessment?
I know this is all hypothetical and may not apply to this most recent shooting, but I'm wondering if there's even a line at all for the military...in my mind, if there's no line, you're putting every other member of your military in harm's way.
I know this is all hypothetical and may not apply to this most recent shooting, but I'm wondering if there's even a line at all for the military...in my mind, if there's no line, you're putting every other member of your military in harm's way.
Last edited:
The problem lies in the fact that there are VERY FEW people in the world that have an open mind when it comes to gun "control." There is either the anti's and the pro's.
I have a VERY open mind about this subject and I realize that we may have to sacrifice some liberty to retain freedom. There is no other way.
I have a VERY open mind about this subject and I realize that we may have to sacrifice some liberty to retain freedom. There is no other way.
+ 1000 This is so very true...
ADHD is NOT a mental problem.
Michelle, There are definite differences in how these things are handled, depending on the types of units, location and deployment status. It is important to remember that most military are not regularly armed as part of their duties unless assigned to military police, sentry or guard duty of some type. Even when deployed, the type of deployment (e.g., humanitarian, patrol/presence, humanitarian, etc.) Will dictate armament and weapons conditions.
During my last deployment to Iraq, my unit handled this very poorly. But before I get to that, let me point out that I was treated by the combat stress personnel while in country, twice a week for a full year (deployment was 15 months). Upon reporting to the facility, I was required to surrender all weapons, to include knives. There was a shooting at a combat stress activity in Iraq while I was deployed there.
In my unit, there was a practice of reliving a Marine of their weapon if they exhibited stress symptoms. This was determined to be problematic because it was determined that the process was causing more stress because everyone saw them without their weapons and knew something was wrong. So a process was adopted (unbeknownst to me) that instead of removing the weapon, they would simply confiscate the firing pins from rifles to avoid the stigma of being without their weapon, yet rendering the weapon they carried inoperable.
This became a problem when I sent a Marine out on a convoy, not knowing that his firing pin was sitting in the SgtMaj's desk. The roster for the convoy had been checked by the Marine, his section, his Officer in Charge and the SgtMaj; I approved the final list. This was very routine and it wasn't until the Executive Officer came to me inquiring about the Marine because he had been told I sent the him on a convoy.
In a closed door shouting match... scratch that, meeting - I learned that there were five firing pins in the SgtMaj's desk... I completely flipped out.
In our case, I had no only endangered the Marine, but also, every other member of that convoy operation.
I attacked the policy, because it did nothing to negate the potential for disaster - it only hid it, from everyone. I was outraged that none of the five Marines were being treated at the combat stress facility... how could it be that the Marines were a danger to the point that they had to be disarmed, but not so serious that they required treatment?
Also, due to Quick Reaction drills and requirements, weapons were staged in the working areas with ammunition. So, this Marine's rifle was inoperable, but he or she had 30+ others in arms reach that were perfectly functional...
I finally took the action of sending each Marine to combat stress and ultimately on the advice of the staff there, sent each of those Marines back to the states for treatment.
Local policies and procedures were in place, but were academic... they were CYA procedures, not steps designed to get Marines the help they needed.
During my last deployment to Iraq, my unit handled this very poorly. But before I get to that, let me point out that I was treated by the combat stress personnel while in country, twice a week for a full year (deployment was 15 months). Upon reporting to the facility, I was required to surrender all weapons, to include knives. There was a shooting at a combat stress activity in Iraq while I was deployed there.
In my unit, there was a practice of reliving a Marine of their weapon if they exhibited stress symptoms. This was determined to be problematic because it was determined that the process was causing more stress because everyone saw them without their weapons and knew something was wrong. So a process was adopted (unbeknownst to me) that instead of removing the weapon, they would simply confiscate the firing pins from rifles to avoid the stigma of being without their weapon, yet rendering the weapon they carried inoperable.
This became a problem when I sent a Marine out on a convoy, not knowing that his firing pin was sitting in the SgtMaj's desk. The roster for the convoy had been checked by the Marine, his section, his Officer in Charge and the SgtMaj; I approved the final list. This was very routine and it wasn't until the Executive Officer came to me inquiring about the Marine because he had been told I sent the him on a convoy.
In a closed door shouting match... scratch that, meeting - I learned that there were five firing pins in the SgtMaj's desk... I completely flipped out.
In our case, I had no only endangered the Marine, but also, every other member of that convoy operation.
I attacked the policy, because it did nothing to negate the potential for disaster - it only hid it, from everyone. I was outraged that none of the five Marines were being treated at the combat stress facility... how could it be that the Marines were a danger to the point that they had to be disarmed, but not so serious that they required treatment?
Also, due to Quick Reaction drills and requirements, weapons were staged in the working areas with ammunition. So, this Marine's rifle was inoperable, but he or she had 30+ others in arms reach that were perfectly functional...
I finally took the action of sending each Marine to combat stress and ultimately on the advice of the staff there, sent each of those Marines back to the states for treatment.
Local policies and procedures were in place, but were academic... they were CYA procedures, not steps designed to get Marines the help they needed.
Last edited:
I am certain it is not a black/white issue and therefore there are no black/white answers. It is just sad though, to know that if there are EVER signs, whether you're military or just an every day person, oftentimes those signs are ignored. Far too many cases as of late where doctors records show there was a history of violence, or threats leveled, but nothing was reported to authorities because we put the rights of that patient above all else. I'm with Bots on this one - to keep some rights, like our right to bear arms, we may have to give up some conveniences we are so used to having. If that means we are subjected to a bit more during the old background check, so be it. If that means that when I go in for my Prozac, a flag is thrown and that may require some explanation if I buy a gun, so be it...to get, you give. This getting no matter what the signs say is causing huge problems, and I'm a gun owner and I don't ever want to lose that right. But, these types of shootings tied to the histories many seem to have prior to "snapping" aren't helping our cause.
As an aside, it's being reported that Lopez (the recent shooter at Ft Hood) posted this on his Facebook wall on March 1st - "I have just lost my inner peace, full of hatred, I think this time the devil will take me"
At what point do we as a society say it's time to protect the masses from someone like that? Who's responsible when that person is no longer capable of making rational decisions and it's in the public eye like this, especially if the history exists and he/she is already being treated for "mental illness"? It's almost a rhetorical question because for me, we should be doing it now...
As an aside, it's being reported that Lopez (the recent shooter at Ft Hood) posted this on his Facebook wall on March 1st - "I have just lost my inner peace, full of hatred, I think this time the devil will take me"
At what point do we as a society say it's time to protect the masses from someone like that? Who's responsible when that person is no longer capable of making rational decisions and it's in the public eye like this, especially if the history exists and he/she is already being treated for "mental illness"? It's almost a rhetorical question because for me, we should be doing it now...
GNBRETT
Registered
its a mental disorder. google it.... call it whatever u want but if were gonna classify anxiety and depression as mental issues then we are surely gonna include ADHD as a mental problem.
Well these days, you're one of two things: A terrorist or mentally unstable. Last time I checked he wasn't a Muslim.
GNBRETT
Registered
lmao.... ever hear of domestic terrorism? if u think they are all muslim ur really ignorant....
Similar threads
