Posted on Apr 3, 2014
How can the military best reduce active shooter threats (like Fort Hood)?
27.7K
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
Suspended Profile
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?
0
0
0
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!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
This is one of those damned if you do damned if you don't situations.
(0)
(0)
Maj Walter Kilar
I would give CC #1 and #2 some credit. We are professional military members. Although this scenario is possible, I cannot imagine that 50 concealed carry permit holders are going to unload on one another by mistake. The fog of war is difficult enough when the adversary wears a different uniform or none at all, but I have to believe that a trained CC would have the sense to observe the situation before firing, and that observation would decrease, but not eliminate, the chances of fratricide.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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
(0)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
SFC,
Let me address a few of the items you brought up in your post:
“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.” This speaks to a lack of consistent,
sustained basic marksmanship training at the unit level; it takes involvement
of leadership at all levels to ensure this training is conducted to standard. I
have conducted much of this training in the past 21 years as both a student and
an instructor.
“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.” Who defines a responsible gun owner for the purpose of carry
on post? Additionally, who says the training wouldn’t be pencil whipped as you
pointed out above?
The bottom line to what you argue is that there is a lack of integrity
at the unit level and that Officers and NCOs are failing to maintain the
standard. I encourage you to confront this type of pencil whipping of the
standards when you encounter it to ensure training is conducted properly. But
these same SDO/ SDNCOs that you are talking about are the same ones that could
end up in the foxhole with you downrange, shortchanging the standard not only
hurts them, but you as well.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google