Fort Hood, Part III

Any time a mass shooting of some kind occurs several things usually happen. Those that believe in more or a different kind of regulation on guns, let's call them the left for the sake of convenience, usually take the opportunity to bring forth their agenda. Those that believe heavily in the Second Amendment, let's call them the right, usually come forward and pronounce whatever mass shooting had occurred probably wouldn't have been as bad if more people had guns on them. Those that don't want to be bothered by the entire conversation usually claim "it's too soon" as their stance on the issue. 

The latest mass shooting at Fort Hood seems the perfect time to address some of the real issues about our gun culture that we usually don't get to talk about because of all of the other programmed responses we typically have to endure during a time like this. There are some dynamics at play in this shooting that make it possible to negate some of the normal gibberish and address some of the more sensible approaches we should take moving forward. I'm not even talking about legislation or regulation; moreover, it's simply about a mindset.

Because this incident took place at a military "fort", basically a decent sized city, we can all accept the fact the "right" amount of guns were in play. Those on the left would be hard pressed to say we should somehow reduce the amount of guns at this location. The people that live in this city probably have more guns per capita than 99 to 100 percent of any other city in this country. And, that seems alright considering the type of city that it happens to be. For the most part, it seems like the people that own these guns in this city are the right type of people to be owning them. They are highly trained and very knowledgeable about their weapons. Often times they are a necessity for performing their particular type of work. This entire dynamic takes away the normal talking point about restricting gun rights. These people have to have guns in this city. No one with a reasonable opinion wants to restrict these people from having guns. 

It would also be hard to argue from the right and say more guns were needed in this particular incident. I'm fairly confident there were just the right amount of guns present during this shooting; this compound wouldn't allow any less than that. No one with a reasonable opinion wants to suggest the military doesn't know how many guns should be in circulation at their own compound. 

An additional dynamic that allows for a different angle on this topic is the fact it occurred at a location where another mass shooting had taken place less than five years ago. The people of this community have to have the confidence their community is "safe" going forward. I'm sure they addressed some major concerns the last time this happened, but now that it has happened again there will most certainly be more they will want to address. Mainly, they will just want to feel some type of assurance that the "wrong" people won't be the ones with the guns in the future. It won't be about the Second Amendment or regulations for the people of this particular community. It will simply be about having faith in their employer, a branch of the US military, to make sure they are doing everything they can to make sure people that shouldn't have guns don't have them. 

The shooter in this latest incident was going through psychological therapy. He was possibly suffering from PDST from a tour in Iraq and had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety. 

I haven't offered any type of solution that can prevent this type of incident. I'm not sure there is one. It's always a little bit astonishing to me that things like this don't happen more often in a diverse population of 300 plus million people. But I am suggesting we take a little bit of time to observe what is going to take place from this moment on within the Fort Hood community. 

The military world doesn't really operate like the civilian world operates. The system and structure allows for the people with authority to wield that authority as they best see fit for the betterment of their system and, ultimately, the country at large. They won't need to go through Congress to enact policies to address this type of phenomena that has afflicted their community on two occasions. They will figure out, within their own military system, a strategy to provide themselves and their community better odds of not going through this type of ordeal yet again. I doubt whatever remedy they accept will be perfect, but I suspect it will evaluate exactly who it is that should NOT have a gun, regardless of their employment in the military. 

Isn't this the strategy we all want for the entire country?