14 Wounded, 4 Dead at Fort Hood. Shooter ID’ed as Ivan Lopez

 

Chairman of House Committee of Homeland Security Michael McCaul (above) just told CNN that there are four confirmed deaths at the Fort Hood shotting, including the shooter, identified as one Ivan Lopez. No doubt the press will use his middle name as and when. Meanwhile, updates as we get them here, on Facebook and Twitter.

comments

  1. avatar SD3 says:

    Great. Let’s learn nothing from this. Again.

    1. avatar Rabbi says:

      All the Brass involved in the decision to disarm our soldiers should be charged with murder.

    2. avatar Frankster says:

      Exactly. When will the anti’s figure out that legal gun carriers are the solution, not the problem?

    3. avatar Ryan says:

      I’m a 20 year Army vet and an Infantry Platoon Sergeant. I will tell you that the idea of most soldiers carrying on post scares the living crap out of me. Anybody who has ever gotten that 1AM call on a 3 day weekend from a soldier who just got his 3rd DUI can attest to this. If you are in the military you know exactly what I am talking about.

      Privates drink, stupid stuff, speed on their motorcycles and fight. But mostly they drink. Add a gun into the mix and we are talking disaster.

      I know I sound like an Anti right now using the same arguments the use about campus carry, but this is totally different.

      I have no problem with Staff NCO’s carrying a service pistol when on CQ or Staff Duty. I have no problem with Privates who take some kind of safety course and get permission from their commander carrying to and from post if they live off post, but the gun needs to be put in the Armory until the end of the duty day.

      I expect to get flamed for this, and flame away. But this is one of those cases where the bad outweighs the good.

      In the mean time I’m going to say a prayer for the victims and their families. Then I’m going to say a prayer for the 29 soldiers who were killed in POV accidents this year. We had 40 soldiers die in accidents in 2013 and summer is just getting started. I am more afraid for my joes when they leave for their 3 day weekend than I am for an active shooter.

      1. avatar Paul G. says:

        Soldiers, and people in general, lower themselves to the level of responsibility that you empower upon them. When you legislate and administrate away personal responsibility, you get what you were seeking.

      2. avatar Sammy says:

        If they are too incompetent to carry a gun, they should not be in the military.

        1. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          Put it slightly different, if they are too incompetent in their judgement to carry a gun and determine a rational and justified course of action without instruction from higher, they shouldn’t carry a gun by themselves. Otherwise, my old company would have lost about a third of its strength as too incompetent to be in the military.

          There are a staggering amount of DUIs and fatality car and motorcycle crashes in the military. This does not mean the men who died were not perfectly capable of driving. It means when they were out on their own, away from the chain of command, they got drunk and maybe showed off. They hadn’t finished growing up.

      3. avatar S_J says:

        Is anyone else stuck on the irony that we allow other trained professionals carry at their workplaces with the government’s blessing–including various branches of law enforcement that in general seem to be just as irresponsible or moreso as the examples you cite–yet the people who are on paper and in practice the MOST experienced at handling firearms have to sit in gun-free zones and wait to die when some armed psycho walks in and starts shooting?

      4. avatar Hasdrubal says:

        Well, I only did four years in, but as infantry. I know exactly what you mean.

        Something most of us forget is that the power of firearms comes with responsibility. We, here, forget it because most of us do a pretty good job of living it. The results are the low crime rate of CCW permit holders, the comparative rarity of NDs, and the sheer number of successful DGUs nationwide that we don’t bother trumpeting in the news because it was just another American taking responsibility for his (or oftentimes her) own life.

        The military is full of young men and women who have not yet learned that sense of responsibility, who have volunteered to be a part of a great organization which will in time, teach it to them. But until they finish growing up, which in my own personal experience can take a while for a lower enlisted man, many of the limits they have placed upon them are far more likely to keep them alive than to get them killed.

        Not all young soldiers are irresponsible. Unfortunately, anyone who has served knows that enough of them are to make ridiculous and painful rules a fact of life.

      5. avatar Sergio says:

        I see your point and agree with you – every 18-22 year old shouldn’t get a live weapon. It’s just too much of a powder keg, and while internally i’m ALL for Darwinism, I know that it’s not pragmatic. The only rebuttal I would give to you is that instead of EVERY enlisted, or JUST staff NCO’s – how about every person on duty? That’s the whole POINT of being on duty – to respond to situations. From the private to the Office of the Day, everyone on duty should be armed, and there should be rifle slung on the back of the guy patrolling. And the Officer of the Day shouldn’t just be someone you call while he’s at home with his wife and kid off base. He should be ON the base, ready to respond to a threat.

        We’ve gotten complacent.

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          Absolutely, right on point.

        2. avatar Ryan says:

          That I could see.

          The staff duty guys and the CQ runners armed.

          Although I’m a little hesitant about some new LT’s. God save me from Second Lieutenants.

      6. avatar Doug says:

        Ryan is 100% right. I was in the Infantry and we had – literally – privates stabbing each other outside of the barracks and pulling guns on each other off post all the time, between DUIs. I think limiting on post carry to E-5’s and above NOT living in the barracks would be a decent middle ground, but PFC Joe Snuffy having a firearm when he’s off duty on the weekends is a recipe for disaster.

      7. avatar Jason says:

        Limiting armed soldiers to bases would be the answer. If they leave base they check their military issued firearms at the security post. Personnel on base should be armed. It would be the ultimate fire watch and nobody in their right mind would come in for a shooting spree much less get very far if they do. Bill Clinton should be charged with accessory for even having the audacity to make military bases gun free zones. Bases are filled with highly trained soldiers for Christ’s sake!

      8. avatar John in Ohio says:

        but this is totally different

        How so? You are correct that this is the same argument as the antis. Soldiers and civilians, how is this much different? If the soldier is not competent and commits a crime then that soldier ought to be punished. The same goes for a civilian. There’s really no difference. When you make the argument that you are making; you make the same for civilian disarmament in everyday life.

        So, we have a large body of veterans saying that we have SO many personnel in the military who can’t be trusted to be armed but we are okay with sending these same people armed to a foreign land, among foreign civilians?!?! WTF. Think it through…

        So, all this rhetoric about “I served my country” and “I should be allowed to be armed” is all bullshit, right? How about y’all remember the oath and understand, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I haven’t forgotten. 🙁

        1. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          This is a complex issue, and you have to start off with the premise that the military is fundamentally different than civilian life because you become part of a very different society, with a very different culture, so different that you even have a separate set of laws. You can be executed for trying to quit your job, in certain circumstances. Can you say the same for any civilian job in the country?

          Further, as an all volunteer force, the group is self selected, especially in combat arms, to be more composed of young men willing and eager to take risks that most people would dismiss as just plain stupid. Who here wants to go someplace where they know, for an absolute fact, that people will shoot at them or try to blow them up?

          Take those young men who already decided that an abnormal level of risk is perfectly fine, and spend months training them to ignore the risks even they would have declined, so they won’t hesitate when they need to attack a machine gun nest, won’t freeze in a doorway when clearing rooms, and react to an ambush by instantly attacking with everything they have.

          Encourage them to compete with each other in every measure of manliness. PT tests, rifle qualification scores, hand to hand combat. Try to make them think they’re invincible. Now you have a private you can trust when you say, “follow me.” You know they will do it. You know what else they will do? Keep pushing themselves even when it’s stupid, because the risks don’t matter.

          They don’t know any better because they are young men. They don’t have a reason to grow up fast, either, because growing up means, among other things, developing judgement, and taking responsibility. The Army does this for you, in the infantry. All the decisions are made for you. It’s comfortable, you don’t have to worry about anything as long as you go where you’re told and do what you’re told when you get there.

          By the time you have any real responsibility, to where your decisions make a difference, you’re a squad leader or higher. This usually means you’ve been in the Army for four years or more, unless you showed a remarkable ability to make rational decisions and be responsible as a private.

          The young men who have skill, fitness, and training, but no judgement, can function with weapons from pistols and rifles to artillery and anti-tank missiles overseas because there are NCOs and commissioned officers who keep them focused, keep them organized. So far this system has worked pretty well- the number of atrocities committed by American soldiers is probably among the lowest of any modern military which has actually fought wars. Sorry, the Swiss don’t qualify for comparison.

          Once they take the uniform off at the end of the day, and go out the gate into the civilian world, by all means let them arm themselves in accordance with local laws (and hope they didn’t get posted to NY), but understand that this is when the DUIs and wrecks happen, too. While you’re actually wearing the uniform, though? It is, in fact, totally different.

        2. avatar rlc2 says:

          Ryan, Hasdrubal, Bob, thanks- great explanations.
          RESPECT. And thank you for your service.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          This is a complex issue, and you have to start off with the premise that the military is fundamentally different than civilian life because you become part of a very different society, with a very different culture, so different that you even have a separate set of laws.

          I agree that it is different and I agree that the UCMJ is necessary. However, I don’t necessarily agree that the problem is all that complex.

          You can be executed for trying to quit your job, in certain circumstances. Can you say the same for any civilian job in the country?

          That’s not directly relevant unless you wish to propose that this looms perpetually in the minds of those with sensitive military functions. If it were the case then it would likely create mental instability in the individual and permanent psychological damage. Soldiers can go AWOL on liberty… IMHO, this assertion is a red herring and a bit dramatic.

          Further, as an all volunteer force, the group is self selected, especially in combat arms, to be more composed of young men willing and eager to take risks that most people would dismiss as just plain stupid.

          Not all of the young men from that pool go into the military. How is the civilian risk to be mitigated and still not run afoul of shall not be infringed? Protip: It can’t.

          Who here wants to go someplace where they know, for an absolute fact, that people will shoot at them or try to blow them up?

          That’s an overly dramatic statement and is more a reflection of cultural decline than of something borne of military service. Sure, there’s much bravery in our men and women serving today. But, overall, I believe that self reliance and individual courage has been on the decline for some time now in our society. The comparison is skewed. That is, unless you are stating that individuals signing up for the Army are somehow mentally deficient or affected somehow.

          Take those young men who already decided that an abnormal level of risk is perfectly fine, and spend months training them to ignore the risks even they would have declined, so they won’t hesitate when they need to attack a machine gun nest, won’t freeze in a doorway when clearing rooms, and react to an ambush by instantly attacking with everything they have.

          We agree. The training and discipline are some of the fundamental things that set military personnel apart from civilian. However, no regular military training removes free will from the individual. Should veterans not be allowed to keep and bear arms? Have they been permanent damaged by their military training? If you answer no then I proffer that these same individuals are just as capable of exercising free will while actively serving in the military.

          Encourage them to compete with each other in every measure of manliness. PT tests, rifle qualification scores, hand to hand combat. Try to make them think they’re invincible. Now you have a private you can trust when you say, “follow me.” You know they will do it. You know what else they will do? Keep pushing themselves even when it’s stupid, because the risks don’t matter.

          (Of course, the above depends on the branch. It wasn’t my experience or that of most family members and most friends.) Again, they still posses free will. Unless they are of diminished capacity, this argument is weak at best.

          They don’t know any better because they are young men.

          They are of diminished capacity then? There are young men in the civilian world and last time I checked, they existed when the Second Amendment was penned.

          They don’t have a reason to grow up fast, either, because growing up means, among other things, developing judgement, and taking responsibility. The Army does this for you, in the infantry. All the decisions are made for you. It’s comfortable, you don’t have to worry about anything as long as you go where you’re told and do what you’re told when you get there.

          I agree and not only that branch of the armed services. However, why continue to infringe upon their rights when part of the problem is systemic and the Army should be changing? Why does the individual have to forfeit rights because the Army wishes to operate in this manner? Do the People exist for the Army or is it the other way around?

          By the time you have any real responsibility, to where your decisions make a difference, you’re a squad leader or higher. This usually means you’ve been in the Army for four years or more, unless you showed a remarkable ability to make rational decisions and be responsible as a private.

          It’s called growing up. It happens in the civilian world too.

          The young men who have skill, fitness, and training, but no judgement, can function with weapons from pistols and rifles to artillery and anti-tank missiles overseas because there are NCOs and commissioned officers who keep them focused, keep them organized.

          So what happens when/if they get out? Are they to be denied their RKBA?

          So far this system has worked pretty well- the number of atrocities committed by American soldiers is probably among the lowest of any modern military which has actually fought wars. Sorry, the Swiss don’t qualify for comparison.

          Okay, but that still avoids the issue. There’s a certain hypocrisy in having a Constitution when the military violates it on something so basic as the RKBA while one is not on duty. If an individual commits a crime then that individual pays for it. How is this not the way it’s supposed to be done in this country? So far, all that you’ve said is that young men in the Army are too irresponsible (and possibly mentally ill) to be trusted as free men!

          Once they take the uniform off at the end of the day, and go out the gate into the civilian world, by all means let them arm themselves in accordance with local laws (and hope they didn’t get posted to NY), but understand that this is when the DUIs and wrecks happen, too. While you’re actually wearing the uniform, though? It is, in fact, totally different.

          My statement was framed as to when they were not at their duty station pulling their duty (not in uniform was implied). We agreed from the beginning on that. Where we differ is on a base on US soil. I say that they ought to be able to carry even on base when not on duty and in civvies because it is a fundamental right and by depriving them of it, we are putting them at risk and solidifying in their minds that shall not be infringed doesn’t mean what it says. You say that they cannot while on base because they are irresponsible and potential unstable. That’s the same argument that the antis make about law abiding gun owners today.

        4. avatar Paul G. says:

          What about any police officer or LEO, especially those on SWAT teams or working in the inner city? Into harm’s way, voluntarily. Fire Fighters as well, unarmed even. Plenty of civilian careers that mirror the military in risk and other areas being called out here.

      9. avatar joe says:

        I hear what you are saying and largely agree. We had knucklehead junior enlisted, junior NCO’s and junior officers that I wouldn’t trust with a slingshot much less a handgun when on their own time, but there were others that I’d trust with my life. E6 or 03+ automatic yes. commander and 1sg decision for those in junior ranks rather than a blanket ban. Seems fair.

      10. avatar Ginger says:

        Standing with you, Ryan! I hear you!!
        I am also a 20 yr vet, Iraq 2003.

  2. avatar Paul G. says:

    Who?

  3. avatar PeterC says:

    Not Ivan Mohammed Lopez? That’s the trifecta!

    1. avatar Thomas Pain says:

      oooh, white muslim hispanic.

      1. avatar Robb says:

        *Commie Muslim Hispanic.

    2. avatar surlycmd says:

      Ivan Mohammedovich Lopez?

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Just sayin

  4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    At 8:00 p.m. Fox News reported the same numbers … 4 dead including the attacker and 14 wounded.

  5. avatar Robb says:

    I wonder where the anti’s will come out on this one. Seeing as they always state only police and the military need guns, yet our govt doesn’t allow our soldiers (other than MPs?) to carry on base. But low and behold, a bad guy done and went and done a bad thing in a gun free place.

  6. avatar Art G says:

    Not a born and raised American citizen, you cannot join our armed forces.

    1. avatar Colby says:

      Wrong.

    2. avatar DaveL says:

      Kind of turns the requirement in the naturalization oath to be willing to take up arms in defense of America on it’s head, don’t you think?

    3. avatar caffeinated says:

      I have good friends who have made a career serving in our armed forces who were not citizens at the time of enlistment. They’ve made the same sacrifices serving as any US born enlistee and somehow you see fit to make such a bigoted general statement. I would argue they are better citizens than most natural born US citizens.

  7. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

    Let’s keep disarming American heroes on U.S. military bases (MPs excluded) and keep them from defending themselves, let’s keep putting these mentally demented Muslims in the military and let us be politically correct…and dead.

  8. avatar Victoria says:

    Wait, who says he’s Muslim?

  9. avatar APBTFan says:

    So all the big name acronym agencies are as useless as tits on a boar. Too busy training against fantasy Tea Party insurgencies to look for real terrorists.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

  10. avatar tdiinva says:

    This sound like another Navy Yard type event. If there is a rational motivation It is more likely to be cartel related than terrorism.

    Time to require staff ncos and officers to carry while on duty.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Why shouldn’t all military personnel have the option to carry? Any given service member could be key to acquiring something of value for a foreign government and thus a target … not to mention the random spree killings like this event.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        That was the custom in the pre-WWII regular Army and it continued during the war. My father was an E-5 airborne cadre guy at Fort Benning. He was required to be armed. Of course there was a very large contingent of Kraut POWs in the base compound. There were also a lot Italians but they were more interested in getting paroled and going to live with cousin Luigi in Newark.

    2. avatar rlc2 says:

      +1 on armed E6+ and 03+. Long overdue, IMHO.

      I’d recommend going lower in certain rates and MOS,
      with Unit CO approval, according to performance on qualification testing, like this:

      http://www.guns.com/2013/08/13/the-new-marine-corps-combat-pistol-program-video/

  11. avatar Sammy says:

    It defies logic to have our fighting men and women cowering, unarmed against 1 or 2 cowards. This would have me demoralized were I in their place. Supporting the troops’ should include supporting their right to repel attackers. For God’s sake the Park Rangers at Independence Hall are armed. I don’t see anyone victimizing them. We don’t make our 50 disarm. Are the Armed Forces less trustworthy?

  12. avatar Loaded Diaper says:

    Found a picture of an Ivan Lopez at Ft. Hood (could be a different Ivan Lopez)

    Spc. Ivan Lopez 1st Battalion, Warrior Transition Brigade

    About 2/3 down in the document. He is making an Fishing Fly!

    http://kdhnews.com/fort_hood_herald/fort-hood-herald-in-review/collection_6f4624e4-e578-11e1-ba33-0019bb30f31a.html

    1. avatar Paul G. says:

      Transition Brigade? Is he a returning vet?

    2. avatar The average American says:

      Fourth row, fourth photo from the left. FYI.

  13. avatar Iron Spartan says:

    From that WTU? Motivation in spades right there.

  14. avatar Alan Rose says:

    They sure did name him quick.

  15. avatar JC says:

    Of course not all soldiers would carry. By doctrine, even in combat, only senior NCOs and officers carry sidearms with the exception of specific MOSs (tank crewmen, MPs etc). I think even the above naysayers could live with that “risk.”

  16. avatar Shunin Xuo says:

    I wonder how the antis will spin this to use it as a reason to disarm all law abiding citizens…..

  17. avatar Jus Bill says:

    And I wonder why the situation report statement came from the Secret Police Czar,er, Chairman of House Committee of Homeland Security and not the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Army. Where are they?

  18. avatar scallywag says:

    The shooting started after an argument between two soldiers. But that report has yet to be confirmed. Some on twitter have wondered whether today’s attack was made all the more easier because of the complex’s lingering contention of having enabled on site antagonism and low morale since the 2009 Ft Hood shooting. Others have wondered if the shooter, Ivan Lopez was harboring animosity towards the army itself or fellow personnel ….?

    http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2014/04/ivan-lopen-fort-hood-shooting-4-dead-14-injured/

  19. avatar Bob Smith says:

    As a retired Major who held some very high clearances I find it a problem that I cannot have my handgun in the car when travelling to/thru a military installation. I routinely go to a base in GA near our daughter and son and keep a pistol in most vehicles. I have carry permit in my homestate that is recip with GA. I do not feel a need to carry on post but feel a lockable(internal) gun in a locked case should be legal. My only option legally is go on to daughter’s house and leave pistol there. There should be some way to do this without the hassle.

  20. avatar Lfshtr says:

    All of these murderers are COWARDS and BULLIES, shooters of children and the un armed citizens. We must be prepared at all times, be careful and be prepared and of course pack and carry of you can. Most of these killers would S _ _ _ there pants if they faced another armed person! Take care out there and keep aware of your surroundings.

  21. avatar LikaDiabladelSol says:

    The killer Ivan Lopez was a driver (88M?) assigned to the WTU. He was not a transitioning soldier.

  22. avatar Taras_Ukrainian says:

    when will they learn that gun-Free zones kill the innocent? all who Disarmed our troops need to face treason and murder charges

  23. avatar Hap says:

    The Isreali response to the Ma’alot school massacre in 1974 in which 21 Israeli children were murdered in a brutal terrorist act generated a simple response, armed Soldiers in the class room and on public transportation. Part of the answer was given to us within the bill or rights. The key to meeting the threat of violence is for the people who make up society and who work and live near each other is for US to be responsible for OUR OWN families every day. It is a freed and armed people that tyranny will shrink from, whether a government or evil men.
    Arm the mothers of young children, get them trained, provide them 5,000 rds of starter ammo and paid-for access to ranges for their first two years of open carry. Watch evil shrink. The answer is in front of us. US citizens are capable of reclaiming the first national sport of this country– shooting. FEAR NOT! Walk tall, smile big.

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