Posted on Apr 3, 2014
How can the military best reduce active shooter threats (like Fort Hood)?
27.8K
416
172
16
16
0
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?
Posted in these groups: 
Active Shooter
Security
Active Shooter Security
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 77
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
To bump a legacy topic and link it to a potential solution: like so!
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
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.
(1)
(0)
SGT Ben Keen
CPT C,
Yes I agree that the optempo has significantly eased since the 2006-2007 surge. However, I think we need to be careful about comparing the two shooters that set their sights on others at Ft Hood. The attack on the base by Inmate Hassan was a terriorist attack. He said that himself during the trail. The motive behind yesterday's craziness has yet to be determined but I personally feel that while at the basic level of things they shootings seem similar I feel that as details are discovered over the next few days we'll learn that the only thing these shootings had in common was the location. But then again I could be wrong.
I think combat cycled-induced stress effects each service member differently. Some of us hit the bottle. Some of us get divorced. Some of us may never show outwardly the effects but I feel we each feel it in some shape or form.
I for one will be interested to see where things go from here but sadly, like most news, I'm sure some Hollywood star will do something dumb in the next 24 - 48 hours that the news will then cover more in depth than this shooting.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I think the key point of your last comment was that you'll be interested to see where things go from here. You're entirely right. It may be to early to judge the long term impacts of this war. However, we didn't see too many Vietnam vets or WWII vets engage in mass shootings. I guess the point I was trying to make was that from what we know so far, none of the mass shootings on military posts can be attributed to significant combat stresses on the shooters. While Hassan and this most recent perpetrator have almost nothing in common, the one thing they do share is a lack of combat experience. The original question was what can the military do to address active shooter threats. Since GWOT began, none of the base shootings have been perpetrated by a Soldier who has seen significant combat induced stress. We've got a terrorist, a marine involved in a love triangle, a delusional contractor, and now this guy.
(2)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
Charles Whitman wasn't a war vet when he shot up UT Austin in 1966. But Aaron Alexis wasn't a war vet either when he shot up the Washington Navy Yard in 2013.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think the attitude towards arming base personnel is changing. I believe it is now left up to base commanders in many cases, correct?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google