Comments on: Fort Hood: Unanswered Questions http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/09/fort-hood-unanswered-questions/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:00:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Sigivald http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/09/fort-hood-unanswered-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-232412 Sigivald Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:56:35 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=30797#comment-232412 Beyond what KJB said, remember that initial reports are always wrong, and "confirmed" from an anonymous report means nothing other than they talked to someone who said "it's totally so". Beyond what KJB said, remember that initial reports are always wrong, and “confirmed” from an anonymous report means nothing other than they talked to someone who said “it’s totally so”.

]]> By: Zack http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/09/fort-hood-unanswered-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-232390 Zack Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:18:09 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=30797#comment-232390 My guess, and this is only wild speculation, is the possibility of a couple of good old boys doing some (against the rules) on-base concealed carry; they may have pulled their weapons when they heard the shooting and were spotted, or they may have been discovered during a post shooting "pat down" of everyone in the area. My guess, and this is only wild speculation, is the possibility of a couple of good old boys doing some (against the rules) on-base concealed carry; they may have pulled their weapons when they heard the shooting and were spotted, or they may have been discovered during a post shooting “pat down” of everyone in the area.

]]> By: JKB http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/09/fort-hood-unanswered-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-232383 JKB Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:10:08 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=30797#comment-232383 My initial thoughts were that there were an awful lot of people in that room of the type to run toward gunfire instead of away. As such, some could have been mistakenly thought as shooters instead of responders. This is a risk for anyone who is proactive in a shooting. If you're not running away or cowering in fear, you tend to stand out and witnesses under stress jump to conclusions. My initial thoughts were that there were an awful lot of people in that room of the type to run toward gunfire instead of away. As such, some could have been mistakenly thought as shooters instead of responders.

This is a risk for anyone who is proactive in a shooting. If you’re not running away or cowering in fear, you tend to stand out and witnesses under stress jump to conclusions.

]]> By: Wolfwood http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/11/09/fort-hood-unanswered-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-232376 Wolfwood Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:31:21 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=30797#comment-232376 I don't know, but I suspect that the two guns used had different sounds and this may have been part of it. There could've been echoing or other sound distortions, or the efforts of the early responders could have been mistaken for being those of the shooter. We do need an answer, but there seems to me to be a decent chance that it's just reasonable confusion. What I'd like to know is why this guy wasn't picked up ahead of time. Who made the ultimate decision? Was this a policy change that came from the new administration? I could believe that there either wasn't enough hard evidence at the time or that there was the belief that the shooter wasn't violent and might help them discover other possible sympathizers. While inexcusable, it could also be simple bureaucratic inefficiency. I don't have a problem with a general policy of not having every soldier be armed 24/7 while stateside; there are enough reasons out there. At the same time, though, <i>some</i> of them should be. Have some officers and NCOs, and perhaps some MPs, always around. That <i>no one</i> in the area was armed is inexcusable. I don’t know, but I suspect that the two guns used had different sounds and this may have been part of it. There could’ve been echoing or other sound distortions, or the efforts of the early responders could have been mistaken for being those of the shooter. We do need an answer, but there seems to me to be a decent chance that it’s just reasonable confusion.

What I’d like to know is why this guy wasn’t picked up ahead of time. Who made the ultimate decision? Was this a policy change that came from the new administration? I could believe that there either wasn’t enough hard evidence at the time or that there was the belief that the shooter wasn’t violent and might help them discover other possible sympathizers. While inexcusable, it could also be simple bureaucratic inefficiency.

I don’t have a problem with a general policy of not having every soldier be armed 24/7 while stateside; there are enough reasons out there. At the same time, though, some of them should be. Have some officers and NCOs, and perhaps some MPs, always around. That no one in the area was armed is inexcusable.

]]>