How can the military best reduce active shooter threats (like Fort Hood)?

LTC Yinon Weiss — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:51:01 -0400

Given the recent active shooter tragedy that happened at Fort Hood, how do you believe the military should best respond to help prevent future events from happening, and also casualties should they happen?

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 2:53 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 02:53:26 -0400

I think too much emphasis is placed on "treating" mental issues, with medication especially.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Apr 3 at 2014 12:56 PM

SGT Ben Keen — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:56:09 -0400

First off, great job on putting out a voting feature on here! Great addition to the forums.

Second, beyond the options above, I feel the military needs to do a better job in allowing service members to decompress from the vacuum of combat. Service members come home and are thrown right back into the crazy training cycles and what not. Where is the time to really decompress? Maybe with the drawdown, time will be made to do that but as of right now, that is one of the things that is leading to some of the craziness we are seeing in the military.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Apr 3 at 2014 1:05 PM

SGT James Elphick — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:05:29 -0400

I should add that while I voted for arming service members, I have a discussion going about it being the NCO or Officer on duty at the Company level and higher

Response by SFC James Baber made Apr 3 at 2014 1:10 PM

SFC James Baber — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:10:20 -0400

This is a hard vote as all of the choices are viable resources and could each in its own way help with the situation at hand and for the future as well.

Also each and everyone has its own drawbacks as well too.

Response by CPT Richard Riley made Apr 3 at 2014 1:13 PM

CPT Richard Riley — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:13:27 -0400

I agree that all of the choices are viable. I would tend to say picking one does not diminish any of the other choices but does show a priority pecking order of sorts. The admin is outstanding & good to see input-result=function.

Response by 1SG Shane Hansen made Apr 3 at 2014 1:17 PM

1SG Shane Hansen — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:17:25 -0400

I also think that the mental screening process prior to entry into the military needs to be examined for improvements.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Apr 3 at 2014 1:22 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:22:59 -0400

All of the above.

Response by SSG Anthony Schoepp made Apr 3 at 2014 1:28 PM

SSG Anthony Schoepp — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:28:03 -0400

Not only do the mental health screenings need to be evaluated but also the way they are administered. Anyone with even a little bit of experience can see where the questions are going and can skim through without getting caught.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Apr 3 at 2014 1:38 PM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:38:52 -0400

Really wish this allowed two options. I never felt that a single front assault was the best solution to a problem. I think improved mental health/early warning and more open carry on base would be good options. Worst case scenario, all the toxic folks get shot a lot faster and less likely to have collateral damage.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 1:47 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:47:59 -0400

<p>Major Weiss,</p><p> </p><p>As a concealed carry holder i am most vulnerable on a Military installation. The military requires us to carry weapons with rounds while deployed, but when we get stateside they want to take that away from Soldiers. Why is this? The trust us overseas, but do not trust us on American soil? I do not think that that is right. </p><p>  If there was a concealed weapons carrier on Ft Hood, back in 2009, maybe there would have been less Soldiers that were killed and wounded. Yesterday if there was a concealed weapons carrier that was in the area, there might have been less Soldiers that were killed and wounded. We would never know because we do not have that Second Ammendment right on Military installations. </p><p>    If i were on Ft Hood and I was able to draw my weapon, i would have observed the situation, and then made my decision on who was the next one that i am taking out. As responsible gun owners, we train, train, train, train. I think that if the Military was able to carry on Military installations, then there would be less active shooters on the installations. If you agree or not, i do not care, it is my opinion and my 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear Arms. However i encourage your comments.</p>

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 2:19 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 14:19:25 -0400

Allow Soldiers with a CCL that is valid in that state to carry on post!  I honestly believe this would act as both a detterent and as a supplemental force that could address an active shooter incident much more rapidly than the current 10+ minute response time.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 2:24 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 14:24:08 -0400

Here is the problem with a CCW soldiers already can't shoot plus have ND on ranges I don't think they should be able to carry while at work. How ever I do see a need to arm our staff duties and CO areas where soldiers are living and spend a lot of time at. Maybe even extend the mp's roving guard to some of those areas.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 2:41 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 14:41:47 -0400

We have to do certifications for everything else, why not have a concealed carry cerification for Military Installations? Get certified and then you can carry, must do an annual certification. We have to do Computer based training, why not do something like NRA Certifcations?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 2:43 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 14:43:50 -0400

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 3:15 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:15:31 -0400

In the Submarine Force, it is common to remove a Sailor from sub duty and have them screened for mental health issues.  I've personnally processed approx 20 Sailors out of the Navy in a 3 year period for these issues.  The Sub Force does it right in my opinion.  They quickly identify the issues, offer the member assistance and remove them from the situation that caused the issue, then process them out if they don't make progress or miss appointments.  I've seen the process take as little as a few weeks, up to a few months but seems to be much quicker and more decisive than other forces/branches.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 3:34 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:34:31 -0400

The .gov trained the vast majority of us to operate a weapon effectively and carry one safely... why not allow active duty to carry? It's bad enough we have hundreds of sitting ducks in gun free zones all over this country, but the people we have trained to handle weapons are also sitting ducks. Criminals and crazies don't pay ANY attention to gun laws.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Apr 3 at 2014 3:50 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:50:33 -0400

The only "prevention" I can think of is to make military bases a more unattractive target. The only way I can see to do that is to stop the practice of having people turn in weapons in the Arms room, and adapt the IDF model of constant weapons carry, on and off duty. Immerse our personnel in weapons training and education until their weapons become an extention of themselves, and require them to have them at all times. It's not like weapons immersion training would be wasted on military personnel....

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 3:57 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:57:09 -0400

1) Putting more weapons into the hands of service members
who are the main proprietors of these shootings is absurd. What is to say these
people aren’t themselves going to start shooting? We are welcoming an all out
war onto installations. Yes, we would have the means to protect ourselves from
those who are wishing harm upon us. But it is also making shootings easier to
carry out. Catch 22.

2) Mental Health evaluations are all well and good when
people take them seriously. Take, for example, the Global Assessment Tool that,
at least on the Army side, is an annual requirement. When is the last time
anybody took that seriously and didn’t just click, click, click done? You do it
because you have to. We can put all the road blocks, surveys, and mandatory
counseling sessions in the way of a Soldier, but if they aren’t taking it
seriously, then it is nothing more than a time eater.

3) Echoing that last point is threat reduction training and
classes. We as a force are bombarded by class after class that degrades the
morale and time we have to train in order to be mission ready. While I will
admit that a lot of the classes like SHARP, EO, etc. are great for refreshers,
but enough is enough. If the population attending the class isn’t paying
attention, then it is nothing more than a waste of time.

4) While there may be signs in some instances, that will not
always be the case. Sometimes people can be just fine one day and overnight
they snap because too much has piled up. Once again, it is up to the individual
to be honest.

With that in mind, all that can be done, if anything at all,
is increase the security at the gate. I, for one, maintain that no privately
owned weapons should be on post at all. Also, with these new scan your ID card “rapid
entry systems” popping up all over the place, it is so easy to get on any
installation. Whether dependant, service member, or DoD Civilian, it is so easy
to get on post with anything and anyone. While I know my opinions may not be
the most popular, they make the most sense.

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Apr 3 at 2014 4:28 PM

SFC Stephen P. — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 16:28:19 -0400

1. Reduce the administrative repercussions of seeking mental health services. Eliminating stigma is meritless if those in need are frozen in their careers.

2. Stop freaking out about mental health. Everything in the military comes in size 2; 2 big or 2 small. Our reaction to insufficient diagnosis has been to implement excessive diagnosis.

Our limited mental health personnel are now overburdened clearing healthy troops who simply answered a survey wrong. Have trouble sleeping? 3 in the PULHES! Don't like your 1SG? 3 in the PULHES!

3. Encourage commanders to arm the armed services. Immediate suppression is the best way to mitigate casualties.

Something that might work but I don't necessarily recommend:
Greater restrictions on quarters and movement of troops. An simple ban of weapons is futile, but forcing then enlisted to live in barracks (regardless of family status), restrictions on leaving the installation, and regular inspections (especially upon returning from pass) would greatly impede weapon access.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 4:45 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 16:45:13 -0400

<div>For you Soldiers, Sailors, and Airman, does your organization practice something similar to this?<br></div><div><br></div>A lot of you are talking about arming your personnel.  This is what the Marine Corps does, at Camp Pendleton, CA for example there are all these small Camps that are controlled by units.  Each unit provides bodies for camp guard which are armed personnel who patrol the the unit's camp and provide security to the armory and classified stuff.  On top of that, each unit on the Camp has an Officer on Duty and an assistant.  Typically these are SNCO's and Officers and they are always armed.  Any type of active shooting incident that would occur anywhere on a Marine Corps installation will be quickly stopped because we not only have Military Police and it's SWAT, but we have Camp Guard, and we have SNCO's and Officers on duty who are armed 24/7.    

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 6:58 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 18:58:01 -0400

I would support the DOD taking a look at allowing Service-members to be armed while on duty. There are several problems with this option, though, in terms of policies and logistics.

1. We do not need uniformed Service-members leaving post with concealed or even openly carried firearms. Can anyone speak authoritatively about MPs' jurisdiction for carrying, open or concealed? This policy would be in line with older policies prohibiting SMs from doing many things off-post in uniform, e.g. shopping. This is essential out of respect for State gun laws. Federal law is different. With that said, many States allow people to have firearms in their place of business, and on-post activities are our business.

2. I'm hesitant to endorse concealed-carry. That is never how we conduct ourselves, in combat or on the range. A strict open-carry only policy would help ensure the restriction in 1 above. Additionally, a standing order that weapons will be holstered or slung at all times, subject to UCMJ penalties, would help maintain discipline.

3. Gate security would likely need to inspect SMs leaving post to ensure compliance with 1 and 2.

4. These cannot be POWs. This is service-related, and should be constrained to service weapons.

5. Re: 3 above, this becomes regular arms room routine. Soldiers draw weapons in the morning.

I'm not convinced that CCP or any such policy would reduce the kinds of casualties that rocked FT Hood yesterday, but I would hope that such a policy would resemble the points above.

P.S. First, I'll echo the comments about improving mental health; getting people to actually do it, reducing the stigma, and improving the treatment. Second, If something like this were to happen, I hope everyone would be ready for a clearing-barrel fest.

Response by SGT Kevin Adams made Apr 3 at 2014 7:01 PM

SGT Kevin Adams — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:01:01 -0400

From what I have seen in regards to this shooting and the other shootings that have happen it is all due to the shooter being mentally unstable. I think the country really needs to step back and look at the mental welfare of its population and really go out and help them. Also we need to get rid of the stigma behind mental illness because it is just as real as cancer and it needs to be addressed as a real illness and not just swept under the rug.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 7:35 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:35:14 -0400

Allow people to carry weapons.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 8:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 20:07:08 -0400

I see a lot of people want to arm soldiers, those that have valid CCL license. I do not believe this is the right course of action. It is not a popular opinion but I base it off 20 years experience as a Military Policeman.

Scenario: A call comes in Active shooter in Bldg X on Post Y. Description of shooter is caucasion male wearing ACUs. Military Police respond enter Bldg X. They are moving down the hall to neutralize the shooter, around the corner comes SSG Snuffy who is a Caucasian male who is wearing ACUs. As he rounds the corner with his weapon up, he is also attempting to find and neutralize the shooter. The military police enter see this and fire killing SSG Snuffy. Is it the MPs fault? No, they are going to react. If that weapon is pointed in a threating manner that MP is going to have to make a split second decision that will have consequences for the rest of his/her life.

Is it SSG Snuffy's fault? No, because if he has been authorized to carry concealed he will be within his limit of his authorities. But he will be deceased none the less.

For individuals to carry concealed on the installation there is going to have to be some serious vetting processes, to the extent you may meet state requirements but not federal requirements. There will be areas that have to be thoroughly explored such as if that service member has been treated for PTSD, TBI and/or any other mental condition they would be automatically disqualified from carrying concealed.

There is no easy answer to this question, it will never have the "right" answer either. We as leaders can only ensure we are doing our due diligence in ensuring our soldiers are being looked after mentally and getting the help they need if they need it, and also training our units shelter in place and active shooter drills til it becomes second nature.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 8:19 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 20:19:31 -0400

You could let soldiers carry privately owned weapons on post under the concealed weapons law but there is no mental screening process for someone to get a ccl so someone who could possibly be an active shooter could be carrying and then you have to take into consideration ptsd if someone starts shooting another service member who might be carrying could snap as well. All that considered you have to think about cross fire as well if you have to many weapons firing at the same target you could end up with a lot of collateral damage at the end of the incident. I am currently stationed at fort hood and there is just too many soldiers for that to b feasible without some kind of backlash or a mistake being made.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 9:29 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 21:29:00 -0400

We will never know how many shootings DON'T happen because the person (Soldier or not) had to drive to their residence and retrieve their weapon. Having even 5 minutes to think it over makes a difference, versus the one second reaction of reaching to your hip. I bet at least once a week there is a gun sitting in a glove compartment or stashed under a seat that was originally intended to cause the harm or death of another person...until the would be shooter thought it over. You probably know someone that this is true of; you may have been the target and never knew it.

When I relieved my section NCOIC in Iraq, he lay in wait for me planning to shoot me. He fell asleep (an 18 hour shift is not unusual for me). Had he not fallen asleep, laying in the dark, me silhouetted, how many shots could he get off from his M-4, before I could draw my 9mm - even if it was loaded (which it wasn't). My weapon wouldn't have saved me. He wouldn't have shot anyone else (other than maybe himself). And really, that is the case in most shootings that you don't hear about: there is usually a target and a very specific motive. So while your "plan" to arm everyone would limit the number of victims in the very, very small minority of shooting cases (probably 1% or less of shootings are mass shootings), it would more than likely increase the number of "typical" shootings.

Why did I vote to improve mental health services? Because I pushed for a command referral to the Combat Stress clinic for that Soldier and within 3 hours he was back at the unit.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 10:35 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 22:35:12 -0400

Master Resiliency Training and Unit Resiliency Training Assistance, without question would have had a major impact on this event. This course is currently being implemented Army wide and its doctrine is focused on the individual, their characteristics, and their own personal thought patterns. It creates a sense of optimism that enables psychological health benefits and productivity. If every Soldier was able to harness these techniques and use them daily our military not only would become healthier, but their outlook on life and the lives of others would be a benevolent self assessment. It will become mandatory within a few years, but in the meantime there isn't enough awareness in the military of the legitimate case studied benefits (over 1,200 studies in the last 15 years) of resiliency training though, It should have it's own month. I would bet my ridiculous salary if that Ft.Hood Soldier was in a climate where this instruction was taught. He would have second guessed the thoughts that were influencing his emotions/actions.

This course even teaches you how to "combat breath" to lower your heart rate (pulse) and become more relaxed in "stressful conditions" or even when having negative thoughts, as those are the ones that we tend to blow out of proportion and those are the ones that fuel our emotions/acts. Combat breathing is just an example but are used all time for... i.e. sniper shots, combat situations, arguments with spouses, disobedient children, insubordinate Soldiers, or just the daily hectics of life. Where's the Secretary of the Army in these forums I need to solicit to him!

Response by SFC James Baber made Apr 3 at 2014 10:48 PM

SFC James Baber — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 22:48:23 -0400

I have seen and read tons of responses to this poll and question, while I support SMs being allowed to be CCW and CCL, I don't think many who have promoted all properly trained and licensed SMs being armed have looked at the big picture.

As one of my fellow senior MPs (SFC D.) has already touched on, if you have weapons carrying SMs show up at the scene prior to LE/QRF/First responders, you run the risk of the wanting to help SMs being shot by the MPs/Police/SRT/TRT members because they have to react in a split-second when they see a person with a gun, while yes they have to give an order for someone to stop and drop their weapon, if the SM who is trying to help doesn't realize that he is the one they are focused on and doesn't respond but turns towards them with his weapon pointed towards them at the same time, the LE has to follow protocol and react to protect other human lives and themselves in a split second thought process, so that SM that is trained and capable of assisting has now been shot because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, something that would not happen if all SMs that are trained and certified were not walking around strapped ready for action.

While this and other incidents are tragic and painful for all involved, it is best to leave the reaction forces and disarming of an active shooter to the personnel that are trained via MOS or academy and assigned to the job to do it, we appreciate any and all help while deployed in combat, but in garrison without knowing who is who in an active-shooter incident and coming upon a scene with a call for one or more shooters possibly will only result in the wrong shooters being shot by LE forces if they are in the area and haven't been identified as shooter friendly by 1st responders.

Again I support every SMs right to their 2nd amendment rights and to achieve their CCW/CCL, but not when it comes to carrying a weapon on post for defense/assistance, it is more headache and problem than it is worth during a reactionary moment for all involved.

Response by SGT Javier Silva made Apr 3 at 2014 11:07 PM

SGT Javier Silva — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:07:59 -0400

MAJ Weiss,

We must remember that not do we need to improve mental health services, but I honestly believe that we must affect a change in our atmosphere. Recently, the military has been trying to reduce the stigma of seeking or receiving mental health; however, there are commands who still attach the stigma to it. Yes, some of the generations today are ill-equipped to deal with military life. However, when a Service Member decides that (s)he will want to visit combat stress, mental health, or whatever the DoD want to call it, and Commanders refuse to let those Service Members do it because it needs to be done on their "free" time...it is unacceptable I agree with 1SG Hansen and the need to improve pre-screening but I will add that we must also hold those accountable who refuse to allow Service Members the chance to visit mental health and possibly help to prevent a shooting.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 11:15 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:15:17 -0400

Leaders should be allowed to conceal a weapon if they have a license to do so in that state they are in. On a military post is the only place where I don't carry because I like job. The world is full of crazy people and I have a family to go home to so
I would like a fighting chance if someone decides to go homicidal!

Response by SFC Lamont Womack made Apr 3 at 2014 11:21 PM

SFC Lamont Womack — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:21:23 -0400

I think there should be a few identified personnel that should be able to access firearms in the event of a shooting like this. However, I believe having everybody armed on base is a bad idea. I don't believe a situation like yesterday would have ended any better if Soldiers were allowed weapons on base. I think there would be a lot more innocent individuals who were trying to do the right thing with their firearms accidentally killed.

I see a situation where lets say it was a few random individuals who are legally carrying their firearms walking on base and they hear gunshots near their area. Each of these individuals approach the area by themselves from different angles with their gun not knowing there are other individuals who are not the active shooter doing the same. So they all arrive in the area of an active shooter within seconds of each other with guns drawn. Now you have multiple people in an area with guns out. In each individual's mind, who is the threat? How do you stop these individuals from shooting each other? To make things even more complicated the police arrive to see multiple people with guns drawn. Who do they engage? I think this turns into the O.K. Corral due to fear and multiple people being armed.

Response by Cpl Christopher Allen-Shinn made Apr 3 at 2014 11:32 PM

Cpl Christopher Allen-Shinn — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:32:33 -0400

I'd like to see the military improve the mental health services provided to service members and veterans. I also think that we need to be very careful of stigmatizing PTSD, depression, anxiety, etc. Every combat veteran should be valued for their service on deployment, not seen as a potential "ticking time bomb" (as some media outlets seem to think). In order to encourage people to get the help they need, confidentiality must be safeguarded and reputations should never be tainted in the instance that any service member is brave and humble enough to seek the support that they require.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 11:55 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:55:19 -0400

Allow trusted individuals to conceal carry. Must be mentally stable of course and be able to hold a security clearance. Also take a conceal carry class. Not all states require that.

Response by SSG Jason Deters made Apr 4 at 2014 12:59 AM

SSG Jason Deters — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:59:44 -0400

The Army, along with the sister branches must overcome the stigma of mental health issues. Seeking treatment for mental and behavioral health concerns CAN be a career-ender despite all those Power Point briefings we have all attended. Soldiers are reluctant to seek help for a multitude of reasons such as fear of adverse action, fear of judgement by others, and even a fear of admitting that they aren't in complete control of their thoughts and actions. If the stereotypes and stigmas can be reduced or removed, I think the mental health screening and treatment process would improve exponentially.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Apr 4 at 2014 2:06 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 02:06:43 -0400

Imagine if this guy had walked into the PX on Fort Jackson on family day. (If you've ever been here you know what I'm talking about. Think Black Friday at Walmart, once a week) It would literally be a killing spree. The scary fact is that ANYONE could do it. They could load up a ton of weapons in the trunk of their car, walk in there and just start blazing. It doesn't take a genius or a master mind to pull it off. Just some pissed off lunatic. It is THAT easy.

Here's what's even dumber. Out of all of those thousands of folks in the PX, not a single one has anything to defend themselves with. We'd just have to wait until he ran out of ammo. (Actually the do sell guns there, so we could run over there and try and get the locks off of them, but you know what I mean)

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 2:22 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 02:22:00 -0400

My Suggestion is to do the following:

1. Arm BDE and BN SDO and SDNCOs with unit
provided M9s and Ammo.

2.
SDO/ SDNCO personnel will account for
the firearms and ammunition during shift change through established
accountability procedures. (DA Form 2062)

3.
SDO/ SDNCO
personnel will also wear a black Duty Brassard on his or her left shoulder
denoting duty position (SDO/ SDNCO) while on duty.

4.
Personnel determined by Mental Health Professionals as a threat to themselves
or others will not be allowed (as they shouldn’t be currently) to perform SDO/
SDNCO duties.

My point in
the discussion is that we already issue weapons and ammunition for AHA guard,
why not to the Staff Duty Officers and Staff Duty NCOs in an accountable manner
in order to confront threats within their unit footprint. I am not talking a
blanket issue of firearms and ammunition to every Soldier.

This divisive
issue has Firearms Control advocates calling for stricter screening to identify
military members with PTSD to prevent these personnel from firearms purchuse.
(Laughable because you could argue anyone deployed has some form of PTSD. Top
that off with the fact you can suffer PTSD as a civilian etc...) Others are
calling for the federal Government to respect State/ County Concealed Carry
Permits on post. While I have no issue personally with that (given the
background check and process to get a CCP) I do realize that is a bridge too
far as you could wonder the effect that would have with a combination of type A
personalities and some members that lack the maturity to follow common sense
firearms handling practices. However, with four shootings on Military
Installations since 2009, something must be done. In the shooting just prior to
this one, a Shore Patrolman lost his life, however his armed shipmate on the
ship was able to limit loss of life due to his proximity. I feel we should give
the same chance to our Soldiers.

Response by SSG Angel Cruz made Apr 4 at 2014 2:31 AM

SSG Angel Cruz — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 02:31:47 -0400

It is hard to prevent such a tragedy. But I am curious why the Armed Forces treat PTSD and Sleep Disorder with Ambien medication. It is now for a many side effects including Hallucination, violent mood changes, suicide thoughts and you name many other side effects. I think should be an investigation not to how to prevented because that it is pretty much cover between discussion and Base Commander briefing, but why such a medication is giving to Mentally Stress brothers. What do you think?

P.D. Check the Ambien Medication side effects

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Apr 4 at 2014 2:53 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 02:53:52 -0400

Here's my main point. What happened the SECOND this shooter yesterday was confronted by someone else who happened to have a gun too??? He blew his own head off. He was a coward. I think that just about sums it up.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 9:46 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:46:02 -0400

I think this is a many part solution. Personally, I feel that more guards around post would make service members and their families uncomfortable and on edge. Many live on post, and to bring in armed personnel to monitor their home is like living in a concentration camp to me.

Though I believe we should all feel safe and secure on post, therefore not require to arm oneself, given the restrictions and reoccurring events, I believe having the ability to carry (with a license to carry!!) should be considered. I have known soldiers who lived off post and legally carried weapons because of events that had happened in the area.

Furthermore, we have GAT training to evaluate our mental, emotional, and spiritual well being. Obviously, there are not enough services for those who need it, and nobody is paying attention to the signs. We put so much stress on SHARP, Suicide Prevention, and Health Readiness, yet we miss the ones who rampage through mass attacks.

This is not the first time Ft. Hood has been the location of such events. Why is that? What happens there, what do they lack that other military institutions such as Ft Gordon, Ft Richardson, or Naval Base Newport don't?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 11:00 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 11:00:55 -0400

There is no one answer or silver bullet. It would have to be handled in multiple means.

1. Step one would be prevention. While it is impossible to prevent every incident, if they want to kill they will, it is possible to identify and treat those who could be at risk. We would also need to change to some extent the culture of our military to be more supportive of those who want or need help. We need to work on resiliency and coping skills. Something a lot of soldiers entering the force now don't learn in the civilian world anymore. Also should ensure that soldiers are provided more means of dealing with issues than medications. Cognitive behavioral therapy, counseling, and many other treatments exist, we just don't use them because everyone wants a quick fix to a problem that can't be treated that way.

2. Mitigation would be step. Allowing service members to carry would be an important mitigation step with proper training and SOPs. If they are in the vicinity or being actively engaged, then they are permitted to respond. If not directly engaged or in the immediate area, then they are to hold in place and wait for first responders and to be cleared by MPs. This prevents people from coming in at all angles and creating a worse situation. Also make sure if they are a CCL holder, they are identified by post so the MPs can clear them at the incident.

3. Response would be next. Ensuring there are enough personnel on post and teams equipped to handle an active shooter are all we can really do here.

4. Recovery and assistance for those involved to ensure they receive the support they need is last. This is self explanatory and should be done in conjunction with step one.

Response by 1SG Michael Minton made Apr 4 at 2014 12:51 PM

1SG Michael Minton — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 12:51:25 -0400

Arm Duty Officers/Quarters, Officers and Senior NCOs as first responders. These shootings might just be a couple people instead of mass shootings

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 12:57 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 12:57:25 -0400

SFC MIKE EASLEY

The only thing about "experienced people" is more than most they are the first ones to ND and can't shoot. So yes I would. You know how they say some one with no experience is better than some one with. People think they are pros and make mistakes. I know I have seen it happen I have worked a lot of ranges and sorry to say most of the time its senior NCO'S that have ND and can't shoot. Thank God for skill craft pens. Lower enlisted are to scared to have a ND with knowing the punishment for it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 2:17 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 14:17:28 -0400

This is the reality of the world we live in, regardless of the community you are a part of. Chicago and other major metropolitan cities that have used liberal anti-gun policies have proven that more restrictions and the like do not work, but rather, make the majority of law abiding citizens less able to defend themselves and their families.

As for military bases...If someone has made the decision to do such an act, the only way to prevent it is to see the early warning signs. Command teams and MP's and X-Ray scanners would not have the effect some think. The friends and family, just like in PTSD cases and suicide, have to step up and intervene when someone starts showing the warning signs...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 3:29 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 15:29:11 -0400

I think there has to be a better screening process at the gates. I guarantee there are more people with weapons in their vehicles that drive on and off the installation each day that you could even imagine. Then when these tragedies happen at bases across the U.S. security stays the same. Put armed security at these behavioral health facilities.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 4:52 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 16:52:28 -0400

Soldiers are trusted with firearms while overseas. If they possess a registered firearm and licensed to carry (as per the state's laws) then allow Soldiers to carry on post. Stop this BS about responding to active shooters by hiding and waiting for a response team. How is that in keeping with the Army Values and the Warrior Ethos?! An active shooter is an enemy combatant, treat him as such.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2014 8:32 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 20:32:41 -0400

Addendum to the survey options-

Allow more servicemembers to be armed while on duty, carry in condition orange or 3 (magazine in, no round in the chamber-while I don t advocate that I think its really going to be the only answer to allowing SM s to carry on installations), and any off duty servicemember to carry concealed, openly, or otherwise as long as it is in good taste and fashion. That is my solution.

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Apr 4 at 2014 10:33 PM

Maj Walter Kilar — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 22:33:27 -0400

Active shooter situations seem to be most dangerous to the masses when the shooter has the clear advantage of being the only one armed for a finite period of time before armed support arrives on scene. Whether the valley of death is in a hospital (Fairchild AFB 1994), within the confines of base (Washington Navy Yard 2013, Quantico 2013 or Fort Bragg 1994), the assailant never has to worry about anyone threatening to interrupt his killing spree.

Response by SGT Joseph Cox made Apr 5 at 2014 2:20 AM

SGT Joseph Cox — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 02:20:15 -0400

Chief,

While I do agree that the SDNCO and SDO should be armed, I think that the biggest issue that we're facing is simple leadership awareness. There is very little guarantee that being armed will prevent this, as an active shooter can simply plan to go where the SDO/SDNCO are not, there are simply too many soft targets.

The issue that I see is that leaders MUST be aware of the mental state of their soldiers, it is not so simple as just sending troops to ABH to be evaluated, leaders must know their soldiers well enough to see a possible threat.

I myself went through the medical chapter process for severe PTSD and I can say from experience, it was pretty much a solo mission. Regardless of being sent to a medical facility for a week for severe suicidal/homicidal ideations, I was still allowed to make my own appointments, manage my own time, etc. The thing that got me through the long and tedious process was relying on my battle buddies that had been through the deployment with me. Without the support of my fellow soldiers and family, who knows what may have happened.

And that's my point, we have gotten away from the squad and platoon being a family unit, brothers in arms. Before I left the service, most of the soldiers talked while they were at work and after work had little to no contact. NCO's didn't go to the barracks, company functions designed to build morale and form a tight bond didn't happen, and SGT's time training was nonexistent.

In an active shooter scenario, it can take as little as 5 minutes to inflict massive casualties, while arming our SDNCO/SDO may help, I think prevention through tight knit bonds and awareness of what your battle buddy is going through can do more than issuing M9's and hoping they are where they are needed when it goes bad.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2014 4:36 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 04:36:51 -0400

I feel that allowing Senior NCO's and some officers who receive some additional Active Shooter training to carry weapons on post, similarly to what the Marine Corps does with their Camp Guards is definitely a way forward that is worth looking into. In order to stop fratricide, they would need to put on some sort of identification when responding to a threat. In my opinion, the best way to stop bad guys with guns is more good guys with guns.

Response by CPT Richard Riley made Apr 5 at 2014 8:18 AM

CPT Richard Riley — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 08:18:40 -0400

You've developed a logical, thought out position to an exasperating issue. Yours could certainly be a starting point on the response part & I have to agree that heightened knowledge or awareness by command leadership with regard to the mental state of the soldiers is an issue. We need to step up and do a better job of taking care of our own in the PTSD department because we're all in this together.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Apr 5 at 2014 8:30 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 20:30:22 -0400

Also I hope to hell someone is looking into the business practices of the store that sold both shooters their weapons.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 11:11 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 11:11:26 -0400

OK, I can understand your logic to a point, but to arm every SD/SDNCO NO! The reason is this, we have all been to the range, there are several people out there that think that if you point a 9mm down range and try to throw the bullet, it will actually make impact. Well guess what it doesnt work like that. I say if they are a RESPONSIBLE gun owner, then yes let them carry, of course they would have to be POST CERTIFEIED to carry and take an ANNUAL refresher course. But for every SD/SDNCO to carry a firearm, that is insane. How many range qualifications have been pencil whipped for NCOs. Oh you were a SAFETY at my range so i am just going to give you a SHARPSHOOTER, knowing damn well they cant hit the broad side of the barn. Or Officers going to the range and and trying to throw the rounds down range? It happens, so not everyone should be armed, ONLY THE RESPONSIBLE gun OWNERS

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Apr 6 at 2014 2:08 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:08:14 -0400

It looks like the survey has spoken. Forward the results to the Joint Chiefs. I expect the policy next month.

Response by SFC Benjamin Harrison made Apr 6 at 2014 2:13 PM

SFC Benjamin Harrison — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:13:21 -0400

If Soldiers (ALL) where authorized to carry their firearms while on post, I truly believe this would reduce not only the threat of another active shooting incident, but deter another incident from happening all together. An armed population is a civil population. We all carry while deployed for combat operations with no active shpoter incidents, and very few accidents.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 2:17 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:17:24 -0400

Although I agree with allowing CC permit holders carry on a military installation, there is one small problem with it. During an active shooter incident 15 other service members draw their weapons and everyone is wearing the same uniform. Concealed Carry #1 sees CC #2 with weapon pointed at Active Shooter and since everyone is wearing the same thing assumes CC#2 is the active shooter and opens fire.

This is one of those damned if you do damned if you don't situations.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 6:31 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:31:35 -0400

Until the military can be 100% positive that they can identify someone who is having issues, and the leadership can take effective action, I would not want people to CC on post. I believe this would create more shooting opportunities. Leaders honestly dont do a good job at noticing when just one little thing is slightly off with a SM. Until we can perfect that I dont think it is a good idea. I have seen many past leaders shove a SM who is hurting aside for numerous reasons. Or even making the situation worse! If SM could CC on post I would avoid post even more!

Response by SGT Brendan Beely made Apr 7 at 2014 9:57 AM

SGT Brendan Beely — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:57:20 -0400

I would like to take a different path on mitigating the risks of active shootings. Armed force or not, if someone decides to go on a shooting spree, they are already demonstrating their inability to think rationally, so knowing that they are likely to encounter armed personnel likely won't stop them.

But what about dealing with those wounded in the melee? A simple first aid kit (which is all most units have readily accessible) won't do much against multiple GSWs.

Due to the currently ongoing investigation, I cannot say more on my particular experience this past week, but I will say that a) it is damn lucky that a company of medical personnel were able to stabilize a *relatively* minor injury without access to more and better-suited supplies, and b) I think that every unit needs, at a minimum, a fully stocked CLS bag in a centrally known location. I realize that a lot of units will have their medics with their full aid bags nearby, or some will have CLS bags for random training events handy, but in incidents like this, when the unit gets 100% locked down, it does nobody any good if your aid bag is across the street in Battalion HQ, or wherever else that is not immediately accessible.

EMS isn't coming anytime soon, until the threat has subsided enough to make it safe for them to collect the wounded, so they need to be treated in place. That means that your caring for your people with whatever you have on hand. I would like that to be more than some bandaids and an ace bandage.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2014 7:42 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:42:30 -0400

The Army is doing things right. You cannot reduce the risk of incidents happening to zero chance. You can only try to mitigate it as best as possible.

Response by SGT Jason Doyle made Apr 7 at 2014 7:53 PM

SGT Jason Doyle — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:53:43 -0400

The best way to combat active shooter scenarios is to allow NCO's and officers to be armed while they are on duty. This would decrease the likelihood of an active shooter scenario. If an active shooter event does take place under these conditions, the response time will be instantaneous and the loss of lives would be drastically reduced.

Response by SFC Ricardo Ruiz made Apr 8 at 2014 9:47 AM

SFC Ricardo Ruiz — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:47:12 -0400

Repeal the Clinton weapons Ban on military installations.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Apr 9 at 2014 8:32 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Wed, 09 Apr 2014 08:32:36 -0400

How is a military base different than any metropolitan or suburban area? Our GI weapons are locked up tighter than Fort Knox. Yes we are trained and qualified to carry weapons but where does the line get crossed? We don't want civilians being armed - God knows our government can't agree on ANY gun control measures - so how will arming non-security, military personnel be an improvement? If we're off duty we are essentially armed civilians with a special license, so long as we are on base. IMHO - I think this will lead to more unfortunate incidents. What will the rules of engagement be - I'm on base and I see SGT Schmedlap pull out a gun - is he/she responding to an incident or the cause of an incident? Shoot first ask questions later? Collateral damage from others in the area? Does every service member who wants to carry a gun need to be trained in armed response - at this point service members are individuals who aren't under incident command or part of a fire team. Oops I went off base and I'm carrying my weapon, what's my status - I'm no longer armed military personnel, now I'm an armed civilian - a civilian w/o local law enforcement training carrying a gun. Too many unanswered questions and yet another gun control quandary for our ever-so-responsive congress!

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2014 1:54 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 01:54:54 -0400

My wife and I both are CWP holders. I hate going anywhere without my weapon. I am not paranoid, I just like to think I am "prepared." However, on post, I am armed only with a knife. I just feel that the military trusts us with weapons downrange, but they do not give us the tools to defend ourselves at home. I also want to note that I have been on some posts that have no guards. There are civilian police at the gates and a few random patrol cards riding around checking for speeders. If a shooting took place on one of these installations, I fear it would result in a great loss of life before someone was able to gain control of the situation. On a side note, what about installations in areas where CWP are very difficult to get? For example, I am in California, one of the few states that does not recognize my permit from Tennessee. Would the military issue permits or provide reciprocity for our permits?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2014 10:10 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:10:45 -0400

I believe that increasing base security and truly improving mental health services by detecting early warning screeenings. Why is the Army not investing in having Soldiers identified by themselves or medical personnel assigned to units that can take care of their needs. When these Soldiers are kept assigned to regular units where the stress and personal interactions become stressfull and/or hectic is not serving them and the rest of us. Gate security should be a must! just like serving in our profession is a privilege, so should be entering at any of our installations. All guards should be armed, vehicles should be inspected, maybe scanning CAC and checking everyone's IDs. Our CAC should be able to have some kind of data if Soldiers have registered POWs, and if they don't register POWs, let's hold them accountable. There are SOPs and Regulations, if don't follow them and Leaders don't enforce them it's our fault that we react to incidents too late...right after they happen.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2014 11:31 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 May 2014 11:31:55 -0400

I don't think arming SDOs/SDNCOs is a good idea, not because they can't handle the situation, but because it could give an active shooter a "first target", or just clue them in as to where not to start shooting; there's no SD desk at the PX or commissary.

Understanding this would be resource intensive, I would suggest a DA-developed, Post-run program in which each unit is covertly required to maintain a certain number of volunteer CCW holders (ex: 10 x shooters per battalion). Big Army could develop the POI, background check and qualification standards, while the Post ensures these standards are met. I definitely have my opinions on what those standards should be(potential rank, training requirements, etc.), but that's for another discussion.

A program like this would allow the Post to have trained, motivated first responders dispersed throughout the installation, while simultaneously giving them control over the selection and training regimen (Big Army would never rely on "civilian" CCW training standards). In addition, by having volunteers (and I'm sure they're be a lot), the concern of having unmotivated Soldiers who don't want the responsibility (like you might have in a SDO/SDNCO) would be mitigated.

Thoughts?

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Jun 22 at 2014 4:19 AM

SSG Ed Mikus — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 04:19:11 -0400

Improve mental health services and early warning screenings while allowing more people to be armed when on duty

maybe a DoD conceal carry permit that includes a thorough mental health check, but definitely not a "duty" to carry a weapon.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2014 8:09 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 20:09:08 -0400

I voted for "Improve mental health services and early warning screenings," but I really want to say that we ALL need to be vigilant and aware of not only our surroundings, but those Soldiers, civilians, etc., who are around us. Somebody had to notice that MAJ Nadal was a little "off." Nobody apparently said much of anything ... or if they did, higher wasn't paying attention.

Do people know about 1-800-CALLSPY and the iSALUTE reporting system? These are great ways to report your suspicions, hunches, etc., and have professionals - outside the chain of command - look into what may appear to be the smallest thing. Security is a team effort, and identifying insider threats takes an engaged team.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Oct 23 at 2014 8:23 PM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 20:23:17 -0400

Maybe I am going to get called all kinds of names for posting this, but I really think that part of the tragedy of the Fort Hood Shooting could of been lessened if folks did their jobs. First, there were plenty of warning signs, he should of been reported. Second, if we did not live in a 'my cell phone must be 2 inches in front of my face at all times', folks would have had situational awareness, maybe things might of been different. I carried an AK into a building, sat down, pulled it out and started shooting without anyone knowing. That is a bit harsh, my apologies, I may have not either. My point is the same...situational awareness, whether we want to believe or not, there are folks to want to do us harm even here at home.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Oct 23 at 2014 8:31 PM

SGT Richard H. — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 20:31:07 -0400

Allow concealed (or open) carry in accordance with state laws of wherever the base is located.

As an aside, after that Ft. Hood shooting there were news and/or talk show personalities opining that less people would have died if that particular perpetrator had started shooting in just about any Walmart instead of a Military base. The reason being the high likelihood that there would have been at least one (legally) armed person to take him out.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Mar 18 at 2015 7:25 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:25:40 -0400

I just came across this inquiry report today. The civilian cops at NOB Norfolk, the worlds largest Navy base, failed to stop this guy from coming on base. He ended up shooting and killing a Petty Officer on the Quarterdeck of the Mahan.

Why can't we have secure gates at our bases? This seems outrageous...

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/03/18/inquiry-base-gate-errors-were-main-factor-in-mahan-shooting.html?ESRC=navy-a.nl

Inquiry: Base Gate Errors Were Main Factor in Mahan Shooting

The deadly shooting of a sailor aboard the destroyer Mahan as it sat pierside at Norfolk Naval Station a year ago can be blamed in large part on mistakes made by the civilian guards manning the front gate of the base, an investigation has found.

Response by CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 2:22 AM

CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 02:22:38 -0400

Why is it we have metal detectors at airports, court houses, and some high end corporate companies but can't find not one in any major areas on post except at the PX?

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Mar 19 at 2015 6:36 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 06:36:30 -0400

Arming more people will put an end to the situation faster. It is hard to stop a lone gunman without a gun. Almost every one of them have to be shot to be stopped. We train and trust servicemembers with weapons at ranges, live fire excercises, in combat operations etc. Why don't we trust them in garrison?

The Army, in the Hasan case, had many warning signs he was being radicalized and senior leaders ignored them. I know you cannot punish somoene for something they have not done yet but he should have been run out of the Army based upon his sympathies, his communication with radicals and some of the papers he wrote supporting radicals etc.

This was a leadership failure coupled with no security mechanism to eliminate the threat once it was fully revealed. A lot of good people lost their lives over politically correct nonsense.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2015 7:43 AM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 07:43:44 -0400

It is not really an issue and it is a much lower priority than other causes of death. Far more warriors take themselves out unintentionally or deliberately than those injured during insider attacks (Ft Hood, Washington Navy Yard, Kuwait, FOB Danger, Camp Liberty, Camp Pendleton, etc) There are also a lot more warrior on warrior run-of-the-mill murders (love affair, robbery, hate crime, drunken brawl, etc) than terrorist attack or going postal.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Mar 25 at 2015 8:43 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 08:43:38 -0400

To bump a legacy topic and link it to a potential solution: like so!
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Apr 27 at 2015 2:27 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 02:27:28 -0400

It's hard to defend against active shootings, when it happens, it will happen. The best way to deal with the situation would be to educate members on how to respond.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 5:34 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 05:34:31 -0400

I believe it's our duty as fellow service members to observe one another. We always have classes about suicide awareness and what to watch out for when people's attitudes and character change but we don't do anything about it. We overlook the situation and let it build up. I know that's not the case in every situation but if we focus more on helping others instead of just ourselves then I feel as if we could drop the number of shootings down.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 1:48 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 13:48:49 -0400

Mental instability of the soldier has been determined to be a factor in both Fort Hood shootings. That and combined failure of command structure to follow up on observations. No commander wants to say that a soldier is unfit for duty and or make seeing a mental healthcare specialist/evaluation a part of a soldier's record. Failure to do this and passing the buck on to the soldier's next chain of command and hoping he/she will be ok is not an acceptable risk. We hold soldiers accountable and we should hold ourselves accountable as well.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2017 1:28 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:28:33 -0400

I think the attitude towards arming base personnel is changing. I believe it is now left up to base commanders in many cases, correct?