It Should Have Been a DGU: Fort Hood Spree Killing

Staff Sgt. Alonzo M. Lunsford Jr (courtesy nytimes.com)

“Witnesses said that after wounding soldiers once or twice, he shot them again as they lay on the floor or crouched behind partitions,” nytimes.com reports from the trial of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. “Some he shot in the back. Staff Sgt. Alonzo M. Lunsford Jr. [above] told of being shot at as he lay bleeding outside and was being given first aid .  .  . Sergeant Manning watched Major Hasan shoot from a right-to-left motion, ‘firing as fast as he can acquire targets,’ he said Friday. He was first shot in the chest. After he went down, he was shot in the thigh as he tried to crawl away. Then he was shot a third, fourth, fifth and sixth time.” Quite aside from the Army’s heinous decision to label this terrorist attack “workplace violence,” ignoring the President’s unforgivable omission of Ft. Hood’s victims during his post-Aurora and post-Newtown anti-gun litanies, the question remains: what would have happened if the soldiers at Fort Hood had been armed when Major Hassan began his attack? At the risk of invoking the ghost of George Orwell, disarmament kills.

comments

  1. avatar William Burke says:

    OH! Look at the tracks of his tears…. he’s so SAD!!

    If only trained, combat-ready troops in their barracks and on base had been armed with the same tools they use to fight enemies, they would have been able to SHOOT HIM DEAD ON THE SPOT.

    But NOOOOOOO….

    If I didn’t know better, I’d think troops on base are unarmed so that someone can shoot them dead!

    1. avatar Davis Thompson says:

      That’s a soldier who got shot.

    2. avatar AW1ED says:

      I’d be sad too, if Hasan shot me six times. Idiot.

      1. avatar Wyatt says:

        Maybe he’s sad about his APFT scores.

        1. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

          Maybe he’s sad because he knows that the Anthony’s Pizza at the PX food court has all you can eat slices from 1530-1800, and he’s stuck testifying at this stupid trial.

    3. avatar jwm says:

      William, you went full retard. Which is about normal for you. I’m guessing you only know about the way the military does things on a stateside base from sucking up alex jones.

    4. avatar Charles5 says:

      I really hope you were not mocking the man in the photo with the knowledge that he was one of the soldiers wounded in the terrorist attack. If you did know, then you and I have a problem.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        That makes two of us.

        1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

          I suspect that dark skin resulted in the O.P. presuming the picture of the tearful (non bearded) gent to be of N.H. — due to profiling, no doubt.

          What a moron.

    5. avatar John in AK says:

      While you were correcting someone else’s grammar in another thread, someone using your name was going Full William Burke in this one. You gotta watch out for that. Maybe y’oughta also watch out for throwing them rocks while living in that there glass bungalow.

      NEVER go Full William Burke.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Thanks to John in AK a new description for a known mental illness was born. The Full William Burke. I like it a lot.

    6. avatar Nobby says:

      William Burke: You saw a Black male face and assumed guilt. Don’t feel too bad, you have a lot company and many Americans are programmed to share your prejudices. However, if you would just read before jumping to conclusions every time you see a Black face, you will realize that there are actually one or two decent Blacks out there and they go about their day just like everyone else.

    7. avatar marlin says:

      I believe the reason the troops are disarmed is to prevent this sort of thing… can’t blame the rules on this, only the enforcement

      1. avatar Charles5 says:

        And an excellent job that policy did in preventing this…wait. Seriously though, the rules are completely unenforceable.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Any military base outside of a war zone is what full-on gun control looks like. Registration. Lockdown of most weapons. Only LE and certain couriers can carry. Libtard heaven…

      2. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

        There’s also a law about murdering people, so that should’ve taken care of it.

    8. avatar DisThunder says:

      Yes, yes, let’s clown on the poor guy who gets wounded and watches several fellow soldiers die due to an asshole jihadist and some asinine base weapons regulations.

      Maybe you should find a new site to hang out at. I hear 4chan is a hoot.

    1. avatar JoshinGA says:

      “Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood…” What a great phrase.

      1. avatar Gtfoxy says:

        Chalk one up for “Wild Bill” Clinton & “Belly slither'” Gore.

        What, oh what, will be Barack “Pinochio” Obamas’ & “Shotgun Joe” Bidens legacy entail?

        Besides Governement spying, 15trillion dollar increase in the National deficit in less than 5yrs, not ending pointless aggressions he said he would, Attacking State sovereignty and the Constitution like he said he wouldn’t? Oh, wait, he already did all that and shows no signs of coming to a right frame of mind.

        Pinochio is quite fitting…

    2. avatar Blue says:

      I will lay it on the Jug Eared Commie named Barry. Barry is the punk that insists on it being work place violence to give the Allah Ackbar b.s. a pass by the traitor and murderer Maj. Hassan. He should be sent to Ft. Leavenworth for hanging. They let the Boston Bombers scate by NSA and the FBI. The press let the Santa Monica shooter skate as well. He shot his dad and brother yet he didn’t get much coverage outside of Wax-man pushing it for his agenda. Unlike Lanza, he was a Muslim.

      1. avatar Gtfoxy says:

        Certainly a discernment can be made by examining the current systems acedamia to always shrug their shoulders with a half hearted “Ooops” or “So sue us…”

        Unless something is pro-constitutional, then they are on it like stink on…

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      Sorry Can’t lay this one on billybob clinton.

      Reported to Ft Lewis Mar86 from Ft Benning. Post regs required all private owned fire arms be stored in company arms room. Main reason I moved off post. I don’t recall if Benning hand the same or if I ignored such reg.

  2. avatar C says:

    They’d still be trying to get the asshole’s brain out of the carpet.

  3. avatar JoshinGA says:

    If you gave up the retarded gun free zones on US bases, nothing would happen, save maybe an idiot losing their life trying to attack a base. Its shown time and again: gun free zones create mass causality situations. What is the rationale behind trusting these soldiers with heavy armaments in the sandbox, and then once they are in the US they cant be trusted?

    1. avatar ST says:

      Ah!

      My friend, even in the “sandbox” our soldiers are not trusted with arms! M9s have to be cleared at various places , and Army policy on deployed bases is to carry the handgun chamber empty and safety on! To think, a soldier with a CCW permit is allowed to carry however they see fit, but in a combat zone he is reduced to carrying a placebo firearm. It’s the result of a military which answers to a civilian government that despises the DoD’s very existence.

      Rest assured, were it up to Obama and his cronies the DoD would be shut down and the Pentagon converted into housing for the poor.

      1. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

        If the DOD were shut down they wouldn’t be able to funnel taxpayer dollars through defense contractors and then right back into their campaign coffers.

    2. avatar Gtfoxy says:

      Not about trust,
      About being unarmed and largely defenseless,
      Ready targets,
      Every Gun-free zone,
      Buildings,
      Towns,
      Cities,
      States,
      Country.

      Ready and Ripe for the slaughter, they are.

    3. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

      The reason that it’s okay to give them guns “over there” but not over here is because when they go nuts and start killing people “over there”, the only people who are killed are the people from the host nation and other soldiers. If, on the other hand, you let Soldiers carry guns on bases they might kill American women and children, maybe even an officer’s family, and that just can’t happen.

      1. avatar UnapologeticallyAmerican says:

        Have an axe to grind do ya…..

  4. avatar West says:

    Who is George Orwell?

    1. avatar Louis says:

      An author. Look up his works.

      1. avatar CCW Guy says:

        I laughed out loud!

      2. avatar Blue says:

        He probably doesn’t know who G.S.P. was either.

    2. avatar CWil says:

      Some old guy I think

      I just talked to an MP in my company that worked at FT Hood during that attack, and he proclaimed that the LEOs on post switched to hollow points because the ball ammo soldiers used to take down that terrorist was only effective when one round got stopped by his spine. I don’t know about the validity of his claims, but was that the first time the Army ever got complaints about ball ammo? As an Combat MP I can tell you, ball ammo is not the most effective way to neutralize a target. You’d think that 12 years of war would influence the choice for better suited ammo, but the Army doesn’t issue common sense either.

      1. avatar Charles5 says:

        The Geneva Convention prohibits the use of hollow point and fragmentation small arms ammunition. Even stateside, the uniformed armed services cannot carry said ammunition even for base security. I am not sure how that extends to government contractors that provide base security. That is why the Army hasn’t changed.

        1. avatar CWil says:

          Oh that Geneva Convention, you mean the one our enemies never follow?

        2. avatar Charles5 says:

          Well, since they never agreed to follow it, it isn’t surprising that they don’t.

        3. avatar Ralph says:

          @Charles5, the Geneva Convention has nothing to do with hollow point bullets. It was one of the Declarations to the Hague Convention, and it only prohibits the use of hollow points in conflicts between signers, not by a signer against a nonsigner. And the US did not sign that Declaration anyway, so we never agreed to that restriction.

        4. avatar B says:

          If we never signed it, why the heck are soldiers not using polymer tipped copper rounds? That right there would take care of the M4 and M9’s lethality problem.

        5. avatar Joe says:

          Not sure where you got that info, but its not correct. I’ve been Security Police/ Security Forces in the Air Force for 17 years and the Air Force transitioned to hollow points for stateside law enforcement about 10 years ago.

        6. avatar neiowa says:

          Because Homeland Security” bought all the good ammo?

      2. avatar Blue says:

        The M.P.’s could use .45 acp 230 grain ball ammo and still be in compliance with the Hague Accords.

        1. avatar CWil says:

          But that’s WAY too big and scary! We wouldn’t want to intimidate the terrorists.

      3. avatar Chaz says:

        Somewhere I read that Hasan used an FN Five-seven. Maybe it’s a small blessing that he did not use a 45ACP.

      4. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

        If they’d had .45 ACP they would’ve been able to rip him in half with just a near miss. That’s what some guy told me anyways.

    3. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Oh, dear…

  5. avatar Eric L says:

    Fort Hood holds a special place in my life. It was my first duty station after basic. I made many great friendships there, and got engaged while there.
    I was too young to really understand politics and I am not sure I understand them fully now, but I remember thinking about the no gun policy and how idiotic it was/is. While Hassan pulled the trigger, Clinton should be charged along with him as an accomplice

  6. avatar scottlac says:

    The really ironic thing is that after this attack, leaders throughout the Army went full blown crazy in attempting to make installations even more “gun free”. Many post level commanders demanded that all personally owned weapons kept both in on-post and even off-post quarters be turned in to the arms rooms. The Fort Riley KS command even demanded that all soldiers stationed there register the firearms owned by any of their relatives in the State of Kansas.

    To stop all that foolishness, it took sane congressmen including the Sec. 1062. “Prohibition on infringing on the individual right to lawfully acquire, possess, own, carry, and otherwise use privately owned firearms, ammunition, and other weapons.” into The Defense Authorization Act of 2011.

    During my time in the Army I saw that, like any other huge, butt-covering bureaucracy, they always over-react after a tragedy in ways that most crush individual liberty and initiative.

    1. avatar Chuck Burnett says:

      But Unfortunately, this was drafted and signed very soon afterwards.

      http://www.ncdsv.org/images/DOD_ClarificationSec1062IkeSkeltonDoesNotChangeClinicalPractice_7-22-11.pdf

      The issue is exactly as already outlined here and other places. Many of us in the military, like other types of public service that use firearms in daily duty are not gun people (me excluded). I’ve gone to the range, many a time and saw things that would make your head spin at a public indoor range let alone on a military range by those who the public expects to fight and win the nation’s wars. Personal marksmanship, gun handling and overall firearms savvy isn’t something that is stressed unless you are in a combat arms unit, SF or other unit that expects to actually have to fire a round in defense of themselves or their comrades.

      Yes, it is correct. Many people carry weapons around FOBs. But the overwhelmingly high rate of Negligent Discharges forced commanders to keep weapons unloaded, magazine in the chamber. Of course, no one trains how to place the weapon into operation from this state…but that isn’t important…I have T-Walls. So, it’s a circular training issue, that the majority of those in the military don’t take weapons marksmanship and handling as seriously as they should, unless they are back home in a bar trying to impress someone. I’ve seen PAC clerks turn to Rambo in a matter of seconds.

      Anyway, this is why I have, do and always will live off post. I own my weapons, and I believe it is my right to keep the extent of those details from those who do not have a need to know. And, unfortunately, it prevents me from using the “amazing” /sarcasm range facility on post and drive an hour to Austin just to practice.

      1. avatar scottlac says:

        Yes, the Ike Skelton thing came soon after. Section 1062 stopped the foolishness at post-level and reigned in the local commands. Meanwhile all the registration records for any service member who ever brought a firearm on post for storage in housing, hunting, or using the range still has a registration record in the federal system.

        I had to go to the MP station, JAG, IG and the DES Commander to finally get my record expunged.

        And yes, it is ironic that as a CCDW holder here in KY I carry in condition Red just fine when, on the FOB, I could only carry in condition Amber and Green. Some of those Yahoos didn’t need to be in Red at all.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        While in the NG had to help a Reserve Postal Unit from Chicago with their annual qualification. Aside they had M16A2s while my Inf Bn had old POS and the way scarry range safety and display of skill, and endless range of jokes available.

        As one might imagine, all appeared that they could be related to Obuma, from Chicago, with a firearm, postal workers.

  7. avatar Dennis J Psoras says:

    Fort Hood war criminal and traitor Major Hasan killed and wounded soldiers under his command .By calling this workplace violence President and commander in chief Obama ‘s misguided loyalty amounts to dereliction of duty . To deny our men purple hearts and other recognition and benefits while the traitor basks in the limelight praising Allah , collecting his pay , flaunting his allegiance to a foreign banner , this is the substance impeachment is made from .
    May the next president right this wrong and honor the wounded and the dead in a ceremony in the Rose garden .
    USCG. 1951, 1952 & 1953 .

  8. avatar Shane says:

    If the soldiers at that facility were armed, you know damned well Hasan’s cowardly ass would have went to the rec center or chow hall were he would have known his targets to be unarmed. He was not looking a battle, he was looking to run up a body count.

  9. avatar Erasmus says:

    You need to read Mark Steyn’s column this week:

    http://m.nationalreview.com/article/355421/know-thine-enemy-mark-steyn

    1. avatar What about Bob says:

      Outstanding piece by Steyn.

    2. avatar Merits says:

      Always an eye-opening read.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      The comparison to Pearl Harbor was appropriate. But Stein didn’t go far enought. We defeated the entire Empire of Japan (plus Germany/Italy) in LESS TIME than it has take Obuma/Holder/etc to bring this POS Mohammaden to trial.

  10. avatar Nagurski says:

    I was deployed out of Ft. Hood when that happened. When we got back home, we all had to do our reverse SRP at that same building. They had MPs at the entrance checking IDs with metal detectors. After about the 8th Soldier was turned back they made an announcement “Anyone who has a knife on them, please put it in your car.” Damn near the entire line went back to the parking lot while muttering profanities.

    1. avatar scottlac says:

      I’m surprised I still have my Leatherman Super Tool after 20 years of going through various airports on military flights. It’s ironic that we could carry M-4, SAWs, etc. on the aircraft but not a multi-tool.

      1. avatar Anon in CT says:

        There is something really cool and ironic about safely stowing your carry-on assault rifle in the overhead compartment in a civvie pattern jet, even if it is a charter.

        1. avatar scottlac says:

          Rifles go on the floor, muzzles outboard, butts inboard.

  11. avatar Matt in FL says:

    This whole mess is one of the more pathetic in a string of pathetic showings by this administration. Some things they’ve done are wrong, but their handling of this is shameful.

  12. avatar Accur81 says:

    If I was the CIC, I would immediately eliminate the Gun Free Zone effect on US bases and war vessels. My thoughts and prayers to the surviving warriors. I’m glad that my service was not under this administration.

    My USMC base was virtually gun free as well – since ammo was highly regulated. It wasn’t until I made 1st squad leader as a senior Corporal until I could carry 2 mags of “safety ammo” for our platoon during vehicle movements. One armed person (with a gun AND ammo) amongst roughly a platoon of Marines wasn’t stellar, but was better than nothing.

  13. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    At the risk of getting flamed to death, I must assert that the Fort Hood shooting was more akin workplace violence than to terrorism.

    Terrorism is generally agreed to mean attacking (killing/injuring) non-combatants in an unpredictable and unusually brutal manner, with the aim of frightening said populace into taking or ceasing some action in accordance with the wishes of the terrorist(s).

    “Reasons” and intentions can be the conversion or driving out of a religious faction, to cause the populace to force a change in governmental policy, to “inspire” one portion of a population to take some action against another et cetera.

    911, f’rinstance, was an attempt to get the U.S. to quit the Middle East.

    Military personnel can reasonably be considered combatants; they’re certainly not ordinary civilians.

    For all intents and purposes, Hassan “defected,” in effect joining Al Queda (basically a landless nation) and serving as (to us) an enemy combatant.

    Just as to an Englishman parachuting into Normandy or a NAZI Fallschirmjäger into Scotland, the opposing military are reasonable targets.

    This is complicated by his being in the U.S. military, in essence government property. That renders his actions treason in wartime, and perhaps spying as well as he was dressed in the uniform of his new enemy rather than the (undefined) uniform of Al Queda.

    Oh, he’s a sh¡thole of the highest caliber, and his policies, choices, beliefs and actions are thoroughly reprehensible, but they do not constitute terrorism, even were his intent to frighten some or all of the military.

    Also, while it by no means serves to exonerate him, there is legal standing to an argument that he was fighting against a renegade regime, just like Rommel when he participated in Operation Valkyrie.

    Remember, “My country, right or wrong” didn’t fly at Nürmberg. The decision of he Court was that soldiers have an obligation to disobey an illegal order. Hmmm…

    We did invade a sovereign nation on the basis of a pack of lies and have done some pretty ugly stuff there. Further, the New and Improved Iraq now suffers from a farrago of secular B.S. (including domestic terrorism) which was not a problem under the previous regime. They are considerably worse off than they were.

    While we as a people are generally good folks, the invasion of Iraq was a “might makes right” Charlie Foxtrot for everyone concerned which we will take a long time to live down — if we ever do.

    The “fighting the renegade” argument will be especially potent if he has any relatives in Iraq.

    The Hasan matter is complex, stupid and wrong, and the sooner he’s stuck in a cell with a big, violent gay guy the better.

    But it wasn’t terrorism.

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Edit: Not that workplace violence is appropriate either, except in so far as that it did occur “in the workplace.”

      It was an act of war, carried out by an enemy combatant — however recently he’d defected.

      My points are only that there are some very interesting legal angles and that while it might bear a resemblance to terrorism, it is in fact a totally different animal.

      Edit edit: sectarian B.S, not secular. Shouldn’t type this late…

    2. avatar Wyatt says:

      Your definition of terrorism is pretty specific. Why?

      The place, method, and his “Allahu Akbar!” seem like he was making an intentional point. Are we reluctant to admit that we can’t directly stop terror attacks?

      1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        Yelling “God is Great” in Arabic does not terrorism make.

        I didn’t make up this definition. The use of terror or intimidation against non-combatants in order to achieve (usually) political aims.

        I will grant that he probably wanted to make a point, but so did General (then Colonel) Dolittle in attacking Tokyo. The idea was not to inflict serious damage because we couldn’t, but to shatter the Japanese belief that they were protected by thousands of miles of ocean from direct attack. And many civilians died. But that wasn’t terrorism, either.

        Y’know, like that Norski who shot all those kids because Norskiland was gettin’ too liberal? That was terrorism.

        And no, we can’t stop every attack. 911 was our welcome to a world that the British, Japanese, Spanish et cetera knew all too well.

        But this was an act of war, carried out by a freshly-minted, treasonous, misguided and psychotic enemy combatant.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          I tend to agree. Just because he shouted “Hey you snackbar” doesn’t mean it was terrorism. Sure, terrorists are looking for the snackbar when they blow up a pizza joint, but they also say it when they use a single bullet from a single rifle to shoot a single soldier. The first one is terrorism, the second one is “enemy action.”

          I think calling what he did “workplace violence” is an oversimplification and a cop-out. I think he was acting as a soldier in a war, he was just 8000 miles too far west. I think the people that were injured or killed are deserving of whatever entails to soldiers who are injured in the line of duty, be that awards (less important) or medical care (much more important). Leaving those folks out in the cold is unconscionable, in my opinion.

        2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

          Presumably they’re at least getting good ol’ Army medical care…

          As for “Inshallah” (if God wills/I place thisin God’s hands), “Allahu akbar” (God is great) et cetera, is hat really so different from some Penecostal who says “Praise the Lord” 90 times an hour?

          It’s a cultural thing, yo.

  14. avatar Cubby123 says:

    Why is this piece of crap still alive at taxpayers expense,what is he not guilty?,are we not sure it was him ?,did he just have a bad day and throw a temper tantrum?
    This should have been taken care of right after it happened,none of this ” let’s think about it BS.HE IS A MURDERER of the highest order.It doesn’t matter what religion he is.They should have immediately court marshaled him,charge him with Treason and Firing squad .Done! Typical stupid Gov’t waste taxpayer monies,make the victim’s families suffer that this A-HOLE is still breathing and treat it like it didn’t happen.

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      He shouldn’t die by firing squad. That’s an honorable death, and he doesn’t merit it. Slow hanging would perhaps do, but that’d still be the Martyr’s death which he craves.

      He should go to prison and be placed forever in a cell with the biggest, most aggressive prison queen in the entire system. That’d be justice, of a sort.

  15. avatar LongPurple says:

    What I find as amazing ignorance is the number of comments I have come across that assume the Ft. Hood shooting took place where the victims were soldiers armed to the teeth, and not a “gun free zone”.
    They think that mainside of a base is bristling with loaded weapons in the hands of the troops.

    I correct them by pointing out Clinton’s directive eliminated any possibility of immediate return fire to end the slaughter.

  16. avatar Martin B says:

    This definition makes drone strikes terrorism, as they kill far more civilians than combatants. And the perpetrator of terrorism is a war criminal. Should O’Bummer stand trial as well? If only the war leaders of nations still led their troops into battle, and stood beside them when the bullets flew, there might be a little more respect for the art of war. As always, those at the bottom of the pile (the troops) get the short end of the stick, and the ass covering by those in charge is monumental. Nobody emerges with any credit here.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email