How can the military best reduce active shooter threats (like Fort Hood)?
Active Shooter
Security
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.
You have an exellent point concerning leadership knowing Soldiers and establishing an esprit de corps that transcends work.
It also appears that in this case, that a conflict between the Soldier and his leadership may have been the root cause of the incident. Could that boil down to a lack of communication?
One thing I am deeply concerned with is that the emphasis on PTSD that is placed in nearly every media story, could stimatize and discourage seeking treatment. In many cases, I think leadership is unsure how to achieve a balance between being too hands off/ hands on.
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.
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.
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google