Fort Hood shooter showed 'no sign of likely violence,' probe finds

[DonViejo]

Source: Washington Post

A preliminary investigation into the soldier who shot dead three people at Fort Hood, Tex., indicates that he showed no "sign of any likely violence either to himself or others," according to Army Secretary John McHugh. McHugh said the soldier had seen a psychiatrist as recently as last month and was undergoing treatment for depression, anxiety and other conditions.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2014/04/03/d6d39986-bb30-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html

[Loudly]

1. That's why guns in the hands of the public is such a roulette wheel.

Everybody has had their bets placed for them, and when you win you lose.

[wall_dish]

2. The same is true with regards to drunks with vehicles.

[Loudly]

3. Every drunk driving casualty is an accident.

Reckless disregard for the danger notwithstanding.

Drunk drivers lack the intent to cause harm.

Unlike shooters.

[wall_dish]

6. Drunk drivers lack the intent to cause harm.

Drunk drivers know that when they enter a vehicle and turn on the ignition, they can cause a lot of heartache by their actions.

[Hip_Flask]

37. Wow...

I'll take my chances any day with the millions of gun owners who go their whole lives without an incident...

You won't catch me anywhere near someone who is pathetic and selfish enough to get behind the wheel while impaired.

[Jazzgirl]

4. False equivalence.

[wall_dish]

5. Not so.

[onehandle]

7. If only there were strict regulations and insurance requirements for vehicles...

...oh wait...

Nobody cares about your tired old NRA bullshit points.

[wall_dish]

8. NRA bullshit points?

The last gasp of a dying movement.
BTW, you don't have to have strict regulations and insurance requirements for vehicles if the vehicle in question isn't going to leave the owner's property.

[onehandle]

10. Oh, yes. The FOLLOW UP NRA BULLSHIT.

'Some cars sit in Cletus' front yard on blocks without the revenuers knowin'

Do you guys have a flow chart out there somewhere?

Goodbye.

[wall_dish]

12. Goodbye to you 2 kind sir.

[HangOnKids]

47. 6 days in and a hidden post?

CLASSIC!

[wall_dish]

48. Thank you.

[HangOnKids]

49. No no no THANK YOU! n/t

[wall_dish]

50. All right.

HangOnKids?
Is that because, like me, when our kids were growing up, we'd always tell them to hang on?
Just curious, no disrespect intended.

[HangOnKids]

51. This gives you more visibility

Thanks again.

[wall_dish]

52. I like your screen name.

When our kids were growing up, we were constantly telling them to hang on.

[wall_dish]

55. BTW, I did, through a pm, apologize to Hoyt for the uncalled for personal attack

and I deleted the other two.
I'm not saying it justified my transgression, but I did atone for it.

[Kelvin Mace]

13. The car has to get to the property somehow

Which requires:

Registration
Proof of insurance
Proof of inspection (in most states)
A licensed driver

So, can we pass laws requiring all of that, then you don't need it as long as the gun never leaves your property?

[wall_dish]

15. Trailer it.

As I have done on several occasions, as do most farms and ranches.

[hack89]

19. Cars are not registered for safety reasons

they are registered so that the state can collect property taxes.

Insurance for guns would be dirt cheap - I pay a pittance every year.

I agree with licensing gun owners - a good way to ensure a minimum level of safety training. Several states require Firearm ID cards and they work pretty well.

[Bjorn Against]

77. So let's require insurance for anyone who carries a gun off their own property.

[hack89]

82. To cover what exactly?

it would cost nearly nothing because gun accidents are rare. Since no insurance company would insure for criminal acts I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. It would not act as a deterrence to criminal violence and it would not prevent accidents.

[hack89]

18. The NRA would love guns to be licensed like cars

think about getting a drivers license - a simple test that 95% of Americans can pass, no background check, no waiting period and the license is good in every state in the union.

[beevul]

40. You're conflating "public use" with simple ownership.

You're conflating "public use" with simple ownership.


Pointing that out isn't an nra talking point.


If you don't want it pointed out, you might try not doing it.

[NaturalHigh]

24. FYI...

On Thu Apr 3, 2014, 12:39 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

The same is true with regards to drunks with vehicles.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=771455

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Poster registered on March 28 and is playing "false equivalence" by comparing guns and drunk driving. Has an axe to grind, from the multiple posts here. I smell a troll from Conservative Cave. Get on this MIRT!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 3, 2014, 12:47 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post isn't offensive, it's just moronic.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Difference of opinion does not equal a violation. Leave it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This does smell of NRA talking points
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yup. He's spewing total NRA/right wing tripe. Trolling troll is trolling.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[wall_dish]

25. Thanks for the info.

It seems that a difference of opinion is a reason to alert.
Sad, isn't it?

[NaturalHigh]

27. I was Juror #3, btw.

Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Difference of opinion does not equal a violation. Leave it.

[wall_dish]

28. Many thanks for knowing the meaning of a difference of an opinion.

[geckosfeet]

9. That could be said for anything.

[Loudly]

11. What can it be said for which causes massive deliberate harm?

Guns seem pretty unique in that regard.

[wall_dish]

14. So can drugs, vehicles.

[geckosfeet]

20. Not at all. It's not the weapon. It is intent of the wielder.

This is so tiresome and old.

[Loudly]

21. The WHIM of the wielder you mean.

That's what gun lovers want us subjected to.

People with guns who will settle personal grievances, commence crimes, and lash out at those around them as they alone see fit to do so.

[spin]

61. You're totally ignoring the fact that a firearm can stop an attack by the people you describe. ...

When misused a firearm can cause a tragedy. When properly used it can stop or prevent one.

[Loudly]

67. Here. This is for you.

http://www.wjbf.com/story/25151314/spartanburg-man-killed-in-drive-by-shooting

[spin]

70. Interesting story. I'm not sure what lesson you hope I will learn from this story.

No arrests have been made.

Therefore it is impossible for me to determine if the shooter was a violent felon or a previously honest citizen suffering from road rage.

Random shootings do occur and often people, including innocent bystanders, are killed. I will admit that having a legally concealed weapon on your person will do little good in such situations.

Here's a link for you to ponder:

http://www.selmatimesjournal.com/2014/01/18/customer-hailed-as-a-hero-in-orrville-shooting/#ixzz2xU6HurxY

[Loudly]

75. It's a gun-as-solution-to-gun story. The trouble begins when a man with a gun enters.

For that reason, zero points awarded, despite the "happy" ending.

[spin]

79. That's your opinion. If I was one of the people being forced into the break room ...

I would be damn glad that the customer was armed and was able to stop the bad guy. I probably would personally rip the "no guns" sign off the door of the Dollar Store. If I got fired for doing this, I would thank the people who fired me and wish them well. I would avoid working in any store with such a sign on the door again.

Since the individual why entered the store waving a handgun ended up dead, it is hard to say what he planned to do. I would be willing to bet that he had some bad intentions and probably would have carried them out. It obviously was not a simple robbery. Cash is not usually stored in the break room.

But that's just my opinion. Many here on DU will probably disagree with me. Like you they will feel that the article is a "gun-as-solution-to-gun story" and therefore it is invalid and useless.

Of course if the bad guy had killed the people he was herding into the break room, you and those who agree with you would point out that is why we need to ban and confiscate civilian owned firearms. I understand this as you strongly oppose civilian gun ownership. The media is largely on your side as they didn't feel this story merited any national attention by the main stream press or on the nightly news.

Firearms all too frequently cause tragedy when misused by irresponsible individuals, criminals and those with serious mental issues. However firearms in the hands of responsible and honest people often save lives.

In my opinion it's far too simplistic to say that all civilian owned firearms are always bad. However I would support your view if i had the same dislike of civilian owned firearms. I suspect that you and others have good reason for your views. I have suffered in my own life because a firearm was misused and a death resulted in my own family. However firearms have saved other lives in my own family. This has enabled me to form what is perhaps a more balanced viewpoint.

[former9thward]

31. This was a member of the military.

Not exactly the "public". Should we remove all guns from the military?

[Loudly]

34. Lopez just bought his gun in the last few weeks from Guns Galore in Killeen.

The same place where Nidal Hisan bought HIS gun.

For the love of humanity, shut that goddamned place down!

[Psephos]

35. Kind of ironic that the killer had a gun and the military guys he shot didn't.

Because safety.

[Loudly]

36. It's really a policy which provides cover for guns in the hands of the public.

The modified directive should read as follows:

All personnel are hereby encouraged to carry guns on base because DoD recognizes that America is absolutely fucking gun crazy and that base security is not impervious to being breached.

[Psephos]

41. The root function of a military is armed action against bad guys.

The gun-free zone has now failed twice at Fort Hood.

Because once is never enough.

[Ash_F]

57. If guns could be carried around the barracks, there would be so many more shootings.

No, just no.

Military command got one thing right. The rule is there for a reason.

[Psephos]

59. More shootings.

Like the two that already happened?

[Ash_F]

60. More than that. /nt

[Psephos]

63. One of our observations is based on specific facts at Ft. Hood.

The other is an opinion.

If we can't trust military personnel with sidearms at Ft. Hood, how the hell can we trust them in battlefields and foreign lands wielding insanely more lethal weapons?

I'm glad I don't have to try squaring that circle.

[Ash_F]

69. I don't know. Ask their commanders. /nt

[Psephos]

73. Ash, serious question. Do you think because someone is a "commander"...

...that they're beyond questioning?

My view is that we of the left *have a duty* to question authority. It's one of the foundations of the liberal mindset.

The policy that made these two mass murders far easier to commit was based on politics and the best interests of the officers at the top, and not "security." It has now been demonstrated twice and written in blood that it wasn't in the interests of the grunts. In other words, evidence-based proof.

[riversedge]

54. It is excess of guns-the easy availabily of guns that

I think is the problem. If one does not get them legally, they can get them off the street. Guns cause too much damage--it fast--to too many people when the suicidal person decides it it time. What was it?--14 wounded? or 16? Plus the 3 that are dead. If only a knife was available, there would be less harm--well, at least not as easily and probably less people harmed in the single incident. Yes, still tragic (and bloody) and the ideal is to get psychological help early on.

IMHO.

[rocktivity]

16. Hey, not so fast with that probe!

You're jumping the gun -- if you'll pardon the expression.

Of course the guy showed no "sign of any likely violence either to himself or others" -- they would done something about it otherwise, duh! They wouldn't have let him live off base, and they certainly wouldn't have allowed him to bring an unauthorized gun on base. Besides, Ft. Hood psychiatrists must really be top-drawer if soldiers only need to see them once a month. Too bad it takes so long to "determine" traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder -- or is the problem too many patients and not enough doctors? Oh, well, determination accomplished!


rocktivity

[wall_dish]

17. +1000.

[DesertDiamond]

22. My first thought was about the dangers of antidepressants. Not the first time someone on...

antidepressants has done something like this.

[rocktivity]

23. I've seen too many commericals for perscription antidepressants

that warn of suicidal thoughts as a side effect. Do we now have to worry about them causing homicidal thoughts, too?

Of course, we're assuming that the soldier's antidepressants worked -- suppose it hadn't, or it had been the wrong prescription?


rocktivity

[Lurks Often]

26. Or he stopped taking them

He starts feeling better, because the drugs are working and stops taking the pills. Depending on the kind, some meds will cause a person to become very depressed, very quickly when you stop taking them. In those cases normally they would use a different drug as a transition.

Kind of like using methadone to treat heroin addiction instead of forcing a heroin addict to go cold turkey

[PoliticAverse]

53. That's a very important point. Some of the drugs cause very severe reactions if the person taking

them suddenly stops, something I personally witnessed in a friend.

[spin]

62. Few people are aware of this and the media doesn't often mention this fact. ...

A high percentage of those who commit suicide are also taking antidepressants or have recently stopped taking them.

Obviously some future high quality research should focus on the relationship between the use of such drugs or combinations of these drugs and suicide and mass murder. I'm not sure that a correlation exists but such drugs are often passed out like candy by many doctors and therapists.

[Ilsa]

76. Or had started a NEW prescription because

a previous drug wasn't working well for him. Some drugs carry a higher risk for suicide.

[grahamhgreen]

29. What kind of 'psychiatric' drugs was he on??? Did any have this label:

or similar?

[nyabingi]

30. Everyone is a "law-abiding" citizen...

...until they take their gun and shoot up the place. Everyone is a potential criminal and murderer, that's why guns shouldn't be in everyone's possession.

[former9thward]

32. By that flawed logic guns should not be in anyones hands.

Including the military, police, FBI, Secret Service -- anybody. Since everybody is "a potential criminal and murderer."

[nyabingi]

44. In an ideal world...

...that would be fine with me. Violence will always exist but it would be nice if we could take it back to the times in which collateral damage wasn't in our lexicon and you actually had to be up-close and personal if you were going to harm someone. Guns are for cowards.

[former9thward]

56. Again flawed logic.

What about a 200 pound guy who tries to rape a 120 pound woman. Is she a coward if she uses a gun to defend herself?

[nyabingi]

81. Nope

[Hip_Flask]

39. Everyone with genitalia is a potential rapist...

Anyone with hands or feet is a potential murderer or at least assaulter...

What's the point?

[nyabingi]

42. Genitalia has other purposes...

...more useful purposes and guns don't. Pretty simple concept huh? I'm tired of hearing NRA types going on and on about "law-abiding" citizens having the right to own guns when technically everyone is "law-abiding" until they break it.

[Hip_Flask]

43. Sorry.. Doesn't pass the common sense test...

Is someone more dead with a 9mm round in the head than if a hammer bashed it in or if they were drowned?

You might have a point if there were no situations which would necessitate actually killing someone but intellectual honesty says otherwise.

[nyabingi]

45. no difference to the dead person...

...but at least you can't use your hammer to kill little children and other innocent bystanders having nothing to do with the situation.

[Hip_Flask]

46. I hate to tell you...

... but humans were quite adept at slaughtering each other en masse for a long time before the era of the firearm.

[De Leonist]

33. Hel's Half-Rotten Carcass....

I really wish we could see events like these talked about in the public discourse that don't always boil down to "SEE GUNS ARE BAD!" "NAH-AH GUNS ARE GOOD". Yes I realize those are both are horrendously mutilated strawmen of each sides' arguments. I don't understand why anymore than anyone else here as to why the shooter did what he did. Some have mentioned that Ant-Depressants, along with other factors, can lead to violent outbursts in certain demographics. Others are correct in pointing out the more risky aspects of civilian firearm ownership as well. These are partial factors and maybe not necessarily the most important ones as to why this particular event occurred. Quite frankly I tire of the single-issue based knee-jerkery that comes to the fore with events like these. Whatever you may think this event proves the shooting only happened yesterday and we only know so much as this point. So I would ask that everyone with holds their own judgment until more evidence is available.

[warrant46]

38. Just a little PTSD Here Nothing to see

or digest---

Move along

[olddad56]

64. I heard on NPR that he had recently had an appointment with a psychiatrist,

That in and of itself doesn't mean much. However, from what I gathered from the NPR story, his visit with the psychiatrist was the source of the pronouncement that he showed no signs for being violent. I know from working in the mental health field that a person could be contemplating something violent and easily be able to hide that from the psychiatrist.

[warrant46]

65. +1

The field of diagnosis in mental health is not a science it is an art.

[Ash_F]

58. Were there really no military shootings between 1995-2008?

I was looking at this timeline.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/world/before-fort-hood-a-history-of-shootings-at-us-military-facilities/916/


It seems like there has been a shooting every couple of months since 2008. Before that there were a couple in 1995. I guess the Iraq/Afghanistan occupations really did a number on our troops.

[hardtravelin]

66. Especially since Lopez and Hassan never saw combat!

Hassan never deployed, and Lopez spent 4 months in a rear area. How can you claim the influence of combat/PTSD?

[Ash_F]

68. How would you explain the 14 year gap of no shootings? /nt

Hassan cited tales of war crimes from his patients as a motivation for his actions. Lopez, we don't know much about yet.

Besides that is only two out of 15 shootings between 2008-2014. That does not even include off-base shootings by veterans, of which I have read of many.

[hardtravelin]

71. There have been, I think.

A 1996 shooting at Bragg comes to min, as well as at Campbell in 2006. In 2003, an Islamic Soldier rolled a hand grenade into an officer's tent and shot his fellow troops in Kuwait, I believe.There have probably been others.

Hassan yelled "Allah Akbar!" as he began firing. That, coupled with his actions prior to the event (such as correspondence with Anwar Al Awlaki), would lead many to believe his actions were that of a premeditated, self-styled,Islamic combatant.

Others are just criminals. The military has its share of people with mental problems as well.

There are plenty of people in the military who struggle with mental issues related to combat, but I do not think either of these men were.

[hardtravelin]

72. This is the latest theory.

An unstable person, who probably shouldn't have been admitted to the Army in the first place, got "mad."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fort-hood-gunman-devastated-mother-death-article-1.1744315

[Sunlei]

74. Ambien side effects-Increased impulsivity,Altered thought patterns,Delusions,Hallucinations, through

Hallucinations, through all physical senses, of varying intensity.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolpidem

[Oakenshield]

78. Why would a security check before being allowed to enter the base be "untenable"?

It would have prevented this event, had this been in place. Time to re-evaluable security. Our soldiers shouldn't have to worry about being murdered stateside.

[herding cats]

80. Nailed it! Not.

I have no idea what caused this person to go off on a killing spree, but that they did it isn't disputable. Pretending they were fine before the incident does nothing to address the problem, even if it makes some people closely involved with the shooter feel better about the matter.

We need to figure these things out. Politics and gun rights aside, we need to think about these things intelligently as a society and come to viable solutions to the problems. That we're so easily polarized whenever something like this occurs is one of our greatest weaknesses as a nation. These matters are complex and require a great depth of thought to find the proper solutions. Sadly, we can't achieve that due to our lack of openness to accept there's even a problem. We're broken and can't even recognize that we are.