Gun Control

Second Fort Hood Shooting Renews Same Debates over Security, Gun Control, Mental Health

Here we go again


A shooting at Fort Hood in Texas, the second in five years, left four people dead, including the gunman, an Iraq war veteran identified as Ivan Lopez, who reportedly killed himself in front of police.

An investigation is underway by authorities at Fort Hood. According to The Washington Post:

They want to find out whether a fight or an argument preceded the shootings. They're also looking at the treatment the man received while he was being evaluated for post-traumatic stress disorder, though, no formal diagnosis had been made.

He was also being treated for depression and anxiety, authorities said.

Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, Fort Hood's commanding officer, said the man had self-reported a traumatic brain injury upon returning to the U.S. but he was not wounded in action.

Within hours of the attack, investigators started looking into whether the man's combat experience had caused lingering psychological trauma. Authorities will also speak to Lopez's wife, and plan to search his home and seize his computers. An official at a press conference last night explained that all the relevant federal agencies involved in the investigation are already looking for clues about Lopez's motivation on Facebook and Twitter.

The morning after the shooting, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) suggested restrictions on carrying firearms on base left victims defenseless during the shooting:  

"I would just disagree with a lot of these gun control people who are trying to blame the gun and not the individual," Mr. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, told MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

He said when he was in the military, "we didn't have the restrictions that they have right now." The Washington Post explains the rules on carrying firearms at Fort Hood and other bases:

Soldiers on all military installations, including Fort Hood, are not armed while on post, nor are they permitted to carry any privately owned firearms. Only law enforcement and security personnel are allowed to have weapons on post.

On Fort Hood, the restrictions on personal weapons were expanded in the wake of the 2009 massacre and an epidemic of suicides on post, which is the largest active-duty armored post in the country. Current policy requires soldiers to register their own personal weapons with their commanders and to keep those weapons in the arms room. Nationwide restrictions on carrying firearms on base were first introduced in 1992.

In addition to expanding the restriction on carrying firearms after the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, a report in the wake of that shooting also made other suggestions. Via USA Today:

[The report] recommended that the Defense Department update training and education and coordinate with the FBI, which has studied behavioral traits that might provide an early warning of potential violence.

The report also recommended that the Defense Department develop procedures to better share information among agencies so commanders would know of any adverse information in an individual's past. That report was released in 2010, and its recommendations began to be implemented a few months later. Asked about those improvements and others implemented after the Washington Navy Yard shooting last year, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel admitted that "obviously… something is not working."

A preliminary investigation, however, found that Lopez showed "no sign of likely violence" to himself or others.

The cesspool of political opinion on Twitter, meanwhile, shows the incident already being used as a hook to push for gun control and to blame a "mental health crisis." The punditry usually isn't far behind.

NEXT: Poll: 51 Percent Disapprove of Obama's Job Performance, 43 Percent Approve

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Was the shooter on any medications?

    1. More importantly, was he licensed and trained appropriately? Did he acquire his weapon from a federally registered source after passing a rigorous background check? Were the rounds he used regulated in any way?

      How about the weapon that he used; Did it have a flash suppressor or bayonet mount? Vertical foregrip? Grenade launcher? And, for Christ’s sake, did he have more than 10 rounds in the magazine?

      1. If we had serial numbers on every bullet, this would tragedy would have been magically averted. Fact.

        1. then next you will need to number every knife,b.b,baseballbat, etc giving this guy leave would have prevented this, but whatever your priority. id rather fix it on the lowest possible level.

    2. Was the shooter on any medications?

      Ambien. Supposedly, anyway.

      1. Not to get all X-Files, but I’ve heard that Ambien has some crazy-ass side effects. My aunt took it for a little while and had to stop because she would have waking nightmares. Waking nightmares. Think about that shit for a second. As someone who has done a fair amount of acid in my time, not everybody is equipped to cope with seeing their reflection turn into the devil and start speaking in tongues while they’re in the can.

        1. Nice. High doses of Zolpidem have been shown to cause hallucinations and amnesia. Maybe lower doses affect certain sensitive people the same way? Or maybe he was just unstable all by himself?

          Acid, huh? I never got exposed to that. The consensus among my friends is none of them think drugs are a good idea for me. I’m not greatly inclined to disagree.

  2. Yep. The shooter was on medication.

    In addition to being examined for signs of PTSD, Lopez was undergoing treatment for depression, anxiety and a “variety” of other issues, Milley said.

    Lopez, who was on medication, served four months in Iraq in 2011 and had “self-diagnosed” a traumatic brain injury. “He was not wounded in action,” Milley said.…..s/7237489/

    1. Word is he never saw any action.

  3. As a youth, I lived on base at Ft. Hood. I fucking loved it. Every adult was carrying a gun, and yet there was never a shooting incident. Wonder why?

  4. “Punditry isn’t far behind…”

    You mean libertarian pundits who start posting articles on how annoying it is that the media continues to focus on gun violence? Or libertarians who apparently find nothing–at all– wrong with levels of violence 5 times higher than Western Europe? Or libertarians who dismiss the idea out of hand that permissive gun control laws might account for some of that violence?

    Yes, I too, find that cynical use of a national tragedy outrageous too.

    1. Or libertarians who apparently find nothing–at all– wrong with levels of violence 5 times higher than Western Europe?

      Oh, we find plenty wrong with it. We rail against the War On Drugs and the government’s economic policies which keep people mired in poverty all the time.

      1. no doubt about the WonD. i’m sympathetic to the goals of libertarians so i think that people should be as free to choose what they do in their life to the maximum extent posdible. They shouldn’t be subject to some politician’s policy choices (i’m looking at you, Most Interesting Man in the Senate) that only reflect their personal religious and cultural values.

        1. They shouldn’t be subject to some politician’s policy choices (i’m looking at you, Most Interesting Man in the Senate) that only reflect their personal religious and cultural values.

          It’s only your personal ideological views that cause you to support taxation and all violence that goes with it. I agree I shouldn’t be subject to your elected politician’s policy choices based on some logically inconsistent version of morality.

          1. … while being skeptical about their position paper economics, lack of concern about concentration of capitol in the hands of a super-rich elite, and their ridiculous conflation of taxation and theft.

            1. ridiculous conflation of taxation and theft.

              Both are money taken without mutual agreement.
              Both are money taken at gunpoint.

            2. If I’m conflating two morally different concepts, then tell me whats the difference between taxation and theft? Is it the special costume or some sort of majoritarian morality?

        2. i’m sympathetic to the goals of libertarians so i think that people should be as free to choose what they do in their life to the maximum extent posdible.

          Not while you advocate the use of violence to control individuals according to your own personal preferences, you aren’t. You have nothing in common with libertarians so long as you advocated the theft of private property by force. You’ve got more in common with John Boehner than you have with any actual libertarian.

          1. your comparison with john boehner hurts more than you know. Fyi, i’m a enthusiastic obama supporter–not because he supports my politics– but because he seems to run the country with a degree of competence that his predecessor completely lacked. i’m a victim of reduced expectations when it comes to what i expect of this country’s politics.

            1. Of course you think Obama is competent. You’re a socialist, which means you’re all for citizens deferring to a central government that acts on their behalf. That’s Obama’s ideology.

              Do you know of any magic kung fu that that can disarm criminals who invade your home with guns they purchase on the streets? No background checks for those guys.

              Please, don’t insult our intelligence with your delusional praise of socialism. My parents and grandparents can still recall details from the Korean war. This nation was built on immigrants who fled collectivist societies.

              Your socialist buddies are taking over sovereign territories and denying basic supplies to their people. If you want to move to some podunk Eastern European coutnry with mostly white, xenophobic crowd, go ahead. I’m not leaving the comfy, spacious OC suburb to live in Der Dumburg because their healthcare is “free.”

              1. Or let’s say they manage to get all guns away from civilians…

                The 6’3″, 250 pound 20 year old man beats the 98 pound, 80 year old great grandmother to death for her Social Security. But at least it wasn’t gun violence. All better!

    2. They do it because they know how the left will react.


      Why don’t we ban guns on bases? Why don’t we make them put their bullets under lock and key in one room and guns under lock and key in another? It’s only logical.

      And spare. The left POLITICIZES EVERYTHING. It’s the raison d’etre to their pathetic existence.

      And your statistics are outrageous. Europe and Canada have MORE violent crime not involving guns than the USA. Deaths by gun have been on a steady decline since the 1960s.

      You’re pimping out the usual dated and refutable stats.

      1. this is where i got my numbers from. they are from the year 2012.…..cs2012.xls

        do you have another source?

        1. 1. Wrong spreadsheet. You want this.

          2. Even the UN acknowledges that gun homicide data is hard to obtain. Note the chart showing the myriad different agencies, groups, etc. cited as sources, and by the fact that a lot of data is missing, making comparisons between countries very difficult.

          3. From the spreadsheet:

          * For the United States of America number of homicides by firearm is adjusted for limited coverage of homicide by firearm data by multiplying the total number of intentional homicides by the ratio of homicides by firearm.

          I’m sure anyone on this forum would be happy to explain to you what that means in terms of statistical validity of the sample.

          4. The data doesn’t distinguish between illegally-obtained weapons and legally obtained weapons. Note that Mexico has the highest homicide rate while also having relatively strict gun control laws.

          5. Different countries report homicides differently. The US reports something as a homicide if the detectives on the seen believe it’s a homicide; in the UK, it’s a “suspicious death” until a homicide conviction is reached.

          6. In the US, if you shoot someone, are indicted, and successfully plead self-defense, it’s reported as a homicide.

          Until you can provide statistics that actually show a causal relationship between gun ownership and higher murder rates, save your breath.

          1. Since #3 might be unclear, I’ll put it another way. The data takes the gun homicide rate of Washington, DC (note this is a city with particularly strict gun laws, btw) and multiplies that rate by the total number of intentional homicides nationwide, then calls that the national gun homicide rate. Which is only accurate if you think that DC’s crime rate is about average for the country, which is stupid beyond the possibility of help.

            It would be a little like if you took the percentage of the population of Reno who worked as poker dealers, multiplied it by the number of decks of cards sold nationwide, and then used that percentage to claim that an equivalent number of people in, say, Biloxi worked as poker dealers.

          2. Great analysis. Nothing but crickets from amsoc in response…

          3. I don’t see anything in this spreadsheet that contradicts my assertion that levels of violence in the US are higher than Western Europe. maybe you are conflating concentration with amount?

            1. And I don’t see anything in this spreadsheet that demonstrates that legal gun ownership causes violence.

            2. No, but you’re certainly conflating homicide with levels of violence.

              Since you’re clearly not that bright, I’ll put it in a slightly different way: only a moron would think that homicides and violent crime are the same thing.

          4. Here’s two from the peer-reviewed literature. I can give you more if you like…



            1. Violent crimes, murders, and rape have been declining every year. There has been no explosive growth in gun ownership. The nations with the highest murder rate per capita aren’t some libertarian paradise. We don’t rank in the top ten of the nations with the highest murder rate.

              It’s an uncomfortable truth that we have more of the groups whose crime rate is disproportionate to the size of their population. Blacks account for something like third (if not more) of every violent crime, but they’re only 13% of the population.

              The chances of you getting shot in this country is low. More people drown to death than shoot themselves accidentally. The number of people who lost their insurance under ACA will outnumber victims of accidental ingestion of e-cig fluid by a 100 to 1 margin.

              Sorry, the USA is still good place to live. The closest thing to the revolts in Ukraine and Venezuela in the US was the LA riots, and that was over 20 years ago.

            2. “As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association.”

              Neither of these refute much of what wwhorton said and even suffer additional statistical misrepresentation that he didn’t mention.

        2. I love when they pull this. I’ve done my research. There are PLENTY of reputable websites, thin-tanks and sources that have covered this issue.

        3. The UN is hardly an unbiased source. May as well link to a Brady or a CSGV piece.

          Perhaps you could find a peer-reviewed study from an organization that doesn’t have a sculpture of a gun with its barrel tied in a knot out front?

    3. Permissive camera acquisition and internet access policies account for high levels of child porn.

      1. first, are you saying their aren’t peer-reviewed studies linking permissive gun control laws to an increase in gun-related violence? you might want to check on articles written in the Lancet instead of the Journal of Libertarian Hackery.

        you’ve thoroughly missed my point though– not surprising considering your proficient ability to do the Knee-Jerk Shuffle.

        1. Of course the peer reviewed studies will conclude that more guns correlates more gun involved violence. There’s also studies that will show the existence of cars will be correlated with more traffic fatalities. These studies don’t tell us anything that logic doesn’t already conclude. That is, unless you want to use the correlation/causation fallacy to mislead others about the meaning of those statistics.

        2. Here are some plain facts for you. In the US in the 1980s there were roughly 100million privately owned firearms. There are now roughly 300million privately owned firearms. According to the FBI’s UCR, violent crime is far lower now than it was in the 1980s.

          I know that the correlation=causation fallacy isn’t a fallacy at all to you but it takes the dimmest sort of socialist apologist to claim that more guns=more violence when plain numbers indicate that you are completely, woefully and inexcusably incorrect.

          1. The truth is less important than political preferences.

          2. its pretty funny that you make a correlation/causation fallacy in a post where you claim i have made one. i have made no assertions anywhere other than libertarians who say there is no relationship between gun control laws and gun-related crime aren’t reading peer reviewed journals from academics.

            i do make the assertion that the united states is not a particularly peaceful or prosperous country and compares unfavorably to its western european counterparts in most measures of quality of life.

            1. I don’t claim that more guns have lowered violent crime rates. Perhaps your reading comprehension is as poor as your preferred political system.

              You keep moving the goal posts. Gun-related crime != violent crime.

              I am a libertarian, I read peer-reviewed journals and there is a relationship between gun control laws and “gun-related” crime. However, that relationship is inverse to your claims so, again, reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

    4. Quite a few Western European countries have heavily armed citizens as well.

      1. It’s almost like almost every Swiss home has a no shit assault rifle in it while they enjoy very low violent crime rates.

        1. and stronger gun control laws.

          1. regardless, the guns are still there. A law isn’t what stops someone from taking the gun they have and using it to commit crime.

            Finland has very large firearm ownership rate with very little violence.

    5. Or libertarians who dismiss the idea out of hand that permissive gun control laws might account for some of that violence?

      Am I wrong in thinking the libertarian notion of reducing/eliminating the standing army and general policy of non-interventionism would’ve prevented many of the circumstances involved with this act if not the act itself?

      Otherwise, please find me a law proposed by any legislator anywhere that would’ve prevented this shooting. Even a loose verbal prototype like “No guns on a military base.” or “We need to keep guns out of the hands of soldiers.” would suffice.


      1. I’m not making any policy suggestions… just pointing out that there is someone particularly awful about the American experience that makes it a violent society. I’m with you on reducing the military and think that the fact that we spend half a trillion dollars on the military might be part of the problem.

        1. Must be all those people that we lined up in front of ditches and shot in the back of their heads because they disagreed with our political system. Oh wait! That was socialists. Never mind.

          Seriously, what color is the sky up your ass?

        2. I’m not making any policy suggestions… just pointing out that there is someone particularly awful about the American experience that makes it a violent society.

          I see. When I ask if you can find anything productive to contribute you blatantly admit to trolling.

          Personally, a less violent society with more trolls is more pitiful than the inverse.

          1. so claiming that i have no pat answers– in contast to the ridiculous assertions of libertarians tha what we really need is a shoot-out in a public space– is trolling?

            1. “so claiming that i have no pat answers– in contast to the ridiculous assertions of libertarians tha what we really need is a shoot-out in a public space– is trolling?”

              What?!? Who makes that assertion?

      2. “No guns on a military base” reminds me of Dr. Strangelove: “Gentlemen! You can’t fight in here! This is the war room!”

        I think the idea that a decade-plus of essentially pointless warfare combined with what seems like an all-time low amount of trust and confidence in the government and an economy in the shitter would influence more unhinged violence than soldiers having access to firearms. So, no, I think it’s a totally reasonable proposition that a more libertarian foreign policy would have prevented both Ft. Hood shootings.

  5. Hill GC is like a bug lamp for team blue. Go ahead fuckers, go full ban boner in an election year. I dare you.

  6. There were so many good things to be done in life …. why wasted your life in a pathetic military workshop …. this workshop was created to service the elite groups (bankers & oil barons). What wasted your life in fighting in pretext wars which has no meaning, no moral, no future …. except getting a huge chance of being end up as a PTSD victim.


    Shooting spree incident :
    FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) ? An Iraq War veteran being treated for mental illness was the gunman who opened fire at Fort Hood, killing three people and wounding 16 others before committing suicide, in an attack on the same Texas military base where more than a dozen people were slain in 2009, authorities said.

    * * *

    Before 9/11 incident , the biggest bombing of public place in USA was done by a war veteran…. the ‘ Oklamah bombing ‘ … which killed 168 civilian and wounding 680. This bombing was so powerful that it brought down numerous buildings.

    Since most US wars were made up of pretext wars …. and those who volunteered themselves as soldiers …..( this is a strong evidence that these volunteers are/were not smart, their intelligence is below average ) …. because a common sense & history had told us that this kind of military ‘ sucks ‘. So why join a sucking military …. why not joining other more meaningful patriotic jobs like … police, fire fighting, immigration officers …etc..etc… why let yourself to be fooled in fighting in pretext wars and end up as a PTSD victim.

    1. This is not my comment. It is one from CNN which was blocked, for some reason.

      1. Blocked by CNN or Reason?

    2. “why not joining other more meaningful patriotic jobs like … police, …, immigration officers ”

      HA HA! What?

  7. my roomate’s sister makes $72 /hour on the internet . She has been without a job for eight months but last month her pay check was $12251 just working on the internet for a few hours. have a peek at this web-site…….

  8. my roomate’s step-sister makes $77 /hr on the internet . She has been unemployed for 8 months but last month her income was $18827 just working on the internet for a few hours. see page…..

  9. funny how the mass shooting all happened after the gun control nuts had gotten their way

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.