In 1991, the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, was the site of the worst mass shooting in U.S. history -- at least, it was at the time. (The Virginia Tech massacre was worse.) A man named George Hennard rammed his truck into the restaurant, then proceeded to fatally shoot 23 people and injure 20. Hennard then committed suicide. Killeen is the home of Fort Hood, the scene of yesterday's mass shooting.
One of the customers present during the Luby's massacre was Suzanna Hupp, who had brought a gun with her that day, but left it in her car. Hupp's parents were murdered during the massacre, and a result, she later became an outspoken Second Amendment advocate, arguing that she could have saved lives if she were carrying her gun with her. The massacre helped start the push for wider acceptance of concealed carry.


For all of the victims and their families - there is a book written by a school shooting survivor named Missy Jenkins, who was paralyzed from the chest down, called "I Choose to be Happy" at missyjenkins.com. The book will not end your pain, but it will help ease it. God bless you all.
Posted by: Godblessthefamilies | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 06:53 AM
I'm with Miss Hupp. Not knowing who is packing keeps everyone in check.
Posted by: Kiss off Sara Brady | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 06:58 AM
I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the Luby's incident. I was stationed there 10 years ago and people still talked about the Luby's shooting.
One thing that James mentioned is concealed carry. You can't carry a concealed weapon on a military base and I'm wondering how that fact will be brought up. I'm sure some will advocate that a person with a concealed weapon may have stopped him sooner, and the other side will say that anyone carrying a gun and having a bad day could do the same kind of damage.
Posted by: D-man | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 07:11 AM
go to breige mckenna st. clare then click on prayer then click on green ball and listen to her words to a hurting united states of america
Posted by: cynthia | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 07:30 AM
AMERICIA YIU DESERVE WHAT YOU GET FOR YEARS YOU HAVE EXPORTED MURDER AROUND THE WORLD. WHEN IT COMES HOME TO ROOST YOU DONT LIKE IT .YOU USE AND ABUSE LAW AS IT SUITS YOU.AN ATTITUDE OF AS LONG AS IT DOESNT HAPPEN IN AMERICIA EVERY THING IS FINE.
Posted by: MICHAEL WEIGT | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 08:04 AM
D-man, obviously people have to give a damn about the consequences of their actions in order for laws to work. Clearly this person wasn't deterred by the fear of incarceration.
So while there is no way of knowing if a person carrying a concealed weapon could have stopped this sooner, I am certain that the law against carrying a concealed weapon on a military base did nothing to prevent this from happening.
Posted by: mutt | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 08:05 AM
stfu
Posted by: 1 | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 08:06 AM
cynthia thats not true...we just people that goes crazy and do stupid stuff. there are good people that dont do any of that kind. its just like where you live..theres people that dont care about what others exspect of you so they'll do anything to show there point
Posted by: Lacey | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 08:29 AM
Hey all caps boy pipe down.
Posted by: Chuck Rizzo | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 08:40 AM
I believe that I understand the Catch 22 of the concealed carry debate. It's the benevolent dictator hypothesis. We each believe that the world would be safer if we, individually, were carrying a concealed weapon. But most of us would be horrified to look around us on any given day in public and think that those other people were each carrying one.
I do not believe this question can be resolved.
Posted by: rhonda | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 08:54 AM
yeah mutt, I'm not saying that either way would have made a difference. What I am saying is that we may hear arguments from both sides of gun control based on this incident along with other recent shootings.
Posted by: D-man | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 08:59 AM
1
Posted by: 2 | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 09:22 AM
So Cynthia,
Are you one of our "blessed" that does not work for anything and is given all. You know. The fat lazy inbred that collects welfare food stamps and everything else you can get for free. If you worked in this country and watched this country going to he!! becasue of the lack of knowledge and the gimme gimme, you would be saddened by yesterday's events.
Or are you another illigal still raking in our benefita that our country has fought for? Whatever you are it is time for you to go. Go away! This is Amercia.
I just thought of it...you are both of these and the reason your message is in cap locks is becasue you had to send it through a spanish translator program.
What a joke you are. Too bad you were not one of the ones that were shot and killed instead. Then it would be one less welfare recipient America had to worry about.
Posted by: Jenn | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 09:31 AM
This event at Ft. Hood has some personal resonance as I have a close friend who is currently serving in Afghanistan who passed through Ft. Hood on his way and will likely pass through again in several months' time when he returns (God willing). He could have been one of those at the processing center. I'm not wise enough to know if someone with concealed carry could have stopped him sooner, but I do know that several armed and trained officers attempted to stop him and some were among the wounded and dead.
Ms. Hupp feels personal regret because she feels personal responsibility where she has none. She may have been able to stop the killer that day at Luby's, or she might have just made herself more of a target and died as well. We cannot know, and we cannot change the past. Either what happened at Luby's or at Ft. Hood. Until we know more about why this man went on his murderous rampage we will not know if the possible threat of concealed weapons would have deterred him, although I suspect not. Anyone brazen enough to undertake this type of an attack on a military base, must know there is a high likelihood of him dying himself. Further, concealed carry might have actually make it easier for someone like Hasan to get weapons onto a base/to the point where he wanted to carry out his attack.
I trust/hope this will be investigated including what additional security measures can be taken to prevent future tragedies. I hope and pray that Ms. Hupp and survivors of this attack find someway to forgive themselves for not saving friends or loved ones, and to grieve the loss of those loved ones in a way that allows them to move forward in loving memory of those who were lost. Peace be upon all those who are wounded, those who died, and those who remain.
Posted by: Man in a Mission | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 09:31 AM
Comparing one massacre with another is not a good justification for murder.
Posted by: duvexy | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 09:34 AM
Jenn - I think you mistook cynthia for MICHAEL WEIGT. The name of the author of a comment is below their comment.
Posted by: Man in a Mission | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 09:35 AM
Why conceal? Let's start a holster apparrel business. We could get one of those BeJewelers and make a lot of dough - the fashion accessory if a violent millineum.
Posted by: Jellybean | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 09:53 AM
Comparing one massacre with another is not a good justification for murder.
Posted by: duvexy
The bible says "an eye for an eye"
MIAM... don't scold or give a bible lesson on my comment. It is in jest of those who use it as an argument.....
Posted by: Wisdom | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Sorry Cynthia.
My message was intended for
Michael...or is it Manuel..or Mikal. I have never left a commment but felt I must voice my AMERICAN opinion.
Posted by: Jenn | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Eye for an eye?
Well this a-hole only has one life. So I guess we'll have to kill him, resuscitate him 12 times and kill him each time.
Posted by: D-man | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 10:56 AM
D-man -
Lets not forget about the 31 injuries. Not sure how we will manage to induce the pain, grief, and terror he caused so many others, though.
Posted by: Man in a Mission | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 11:04 AM
We could just let the CIA take him.
Posted by: Chuck Rizzo | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 11:26 AM
I'm still suspicious of the circumstances. Over forty killed or injured with 2 semi-auto pistols? You'd have to have people in an enclosed space for that kind of carnage.
Posted by: Marvin | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 11:51 AM
I thought it was 13 people killed and over forty wounded.
Posted by: Chuck Rizzo | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 11:56 AM
MICHAEL WEIGHT- WHERE ARE YOU FROM???
I really cant believe you just typed that!!
Because if you are from another country you know weel, that when all else fails, who do other countries come to when they need help?? USA!!!! whehn it doesn't suit then who do they blame? USA!!! If you are from this country- SHAME ON YOU!!!!
Posted by: SF | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Chuck Rizzo -
12 (killed) + 31 (injured) = 43 killed or injured which is "Over 40 killed or injured with 2 semi-auto pistols".
Posted by: Man in a Mission | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Carried reloads. Remember the shootings at the food plant in KCKS. ConAgra meat slicing plant. I was there. The shooter hunted down his victims at break. 2 of his targets were in the breakroom along with a lot of people.
He got his targets and then started firing away wounding some and killing some. Enclosed area with limited exits + psycho with a semi auto matic = lots of bloodshed.
Posted by: Wisdom | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Got it Miam, I guess the OR hid from me.
They said something to about once he started firing there were several people who fired back and they could have hit some people but that report isn't confirmed as of yet.
Posted by: Chuck Rizzo | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 12:30 PM
There's still a whole lot that is unknown or unconfirmed. However, even after everything is said and done, there may simply not be an understandable reason why this happened (i.e. guy may be mentally ill with no rationality in the why) or reasonable steps to prevent what is an extremely rare circumstance.
The reality is that regardless of what security measures are put in place, all that can be done is to make it very difficult for such events to happen, as a determined enough, and crafty enough person wanting to do something like this will find a way.
Sometimes it is necessary to have at least some stoicism or fatalism in your outlook in order to keep moving forward in life as it is simply impossible to remove all risks from all situations.
Posted by: Man in a Mission | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 12:40 PM
As reported on the news, he was a Muslim who did not want to go to Iraq. That he was mad at Obama for not pulling the military out of the mid-east. Next, over the years it has happened before where a Muslim is mad at someone and rather than go after that person they go murder a innocent third party or blow up a bus full of innocent third party people.
Posted by: gary | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 01:42 PM
gary -
It is also been reported that this is a troubled individual who had problems at his last duty station.
It has also been reported that he recently had an altercation with another soldier who allegedly keyed the shooter's car and damaged or removed a bumper sticker that said "Allah [God] is love" from the shooter's car.
It has also been reported that this is an individual who may have had psychological problems dealing with the type of work he was performing for the Army.
As I said in another thread you posted in - you are jumping to conclusions as to a motive. The religious prejudice you express is reprehensible and disgusting.
Posted by: Man in a Mission | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 02:03 PM
A civilian police officer, Sgt. Kimberly Munley responded within 3 minutes of the first shots fired. She was wounded while firing 4 shots that incapacitated the shooter. With that quick of a response time, I wonder if someone who was carrying a concealed weapon would have made that much of a difference given the surprise, shock, and speed of the attack.
Posted by: Man in a Mission | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 02:11 PM
Okay so I am not to remember past incidents that lead me to wonder about this? How many times over the years have Muslims set off bombs in buses, hotels, malls, etc..? A few years ago A Muslim tossed a gernade into the tent of his fellow soldiers. Tell the truth, did you or anyone else even get the slightest thought yesterday "sounds like a Muslim type attack?" Again, my point is why do they always want to murder an innocent third party instead of who they are actually mad at? Can you focus and offer a opinion on that? (notice I never slam you because you have a different opinion)
Posted by: gary | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 04:13 PM
gary -
I didn't slam you. I criticized your opinion. I can't explain why some terrorists who happen to be Muslim choose to attack innocent people any more than I can explain why some terrorists who are Catholic in Ireland chose innocent targets for their car bombs, arsons, and assassinations, or why some terrorists who were Protestants in Ireland did the same thing. I can't explain why terrorists who were Hindu chose to set a train on fire in Gujarat State in India killing more than 300 people. I can't explain why Serbian Orthodox Christians would slaughter 8000 Catholic and Muslim men in Srebrenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina. I can't explain why racist terrorists who claimed to be Christian bombed a church in Birmingham, Alabama. I can't explain why terrorists who are Basque kill innocent victims in their fight against Spain. I can explain why Tamils in Sri Lanka targeted innocents in their campaign against the Sinhalese majority there. I can't explain why two Americans would detonate a bomb killing almost 170 people and wounding almost 700 in Oklahoma City.
Of course I thought this might be a terrorist attack - but terrorist does not equal Muslim. I also remember a case from last year where a white soldier killed his lieutenant at Ft. Hood.
Which is the point I was making - it is one thing to speculate about the motive - it is something else to latch onto one aspect of a suspect's identity and assume that as the motive.
It may be that this guy did this out of religious or ideological terror. But to assume that just because he is a practicing Muslim that is his motive - or to impute similar motives or tendencies by such generalizations is religious prejudice.
The reason I cited the many other examples of others using terroristic tactics is to demonstrate that the use of such tactics is not exclusive to any one group, religion, or sect. The proper framing for your question is to ask why terrorists target and kill innocents. Again, to try to link all Muslims to terrorism is prejudice. If you don't like my opinion of your persistent use of religious prejudice in your argument, then perhaps you should consider what I am saying. I am not calling you prejudiced. I am simply pointing out the prejudicial nature of what you are saying and/or how you are saying it. I don't know if you don't understand the difference, or if you are just trying to be argumentative. I hope I have explained it to you in a way that you can understand the distinction I am making.
Regardless of if you understand or not, or if you change how you express your concerns, I will continue to call prejudice out when I see it and criticize it.
Posted by: Man in a Mission | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 06:18 PM
"Sometimes it is necessary to have at least some stoicism or fatalism in your outlook in order to keep moving forward in life as it is simply impossible to remove all risks from all situations."
I completely agree with your above statement Man in a mission. The sad fact is that this shooter, and all the other buttholes of the world wake up and know they are going to go out into the world and be buttholes. Everyone else that comes in contact with them just don't have a clue their standing next to a butthole until its too late.
Posted by: mutt | Friday, November 06, 2009 at 08:46 PM
Agree with mutt's assessment.
Posted by: Chuck Rizzo | Saturday, November 07, 2009 at 09:36 AM
Something is being covered up, there is no way this medical officer kiild and injured that manny with two semi-auto handguns or at least highly unlikely. Sorry but Islamics should not be allowed to serve in our military.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | Sunday, November 08, 2009 at 08:36 AM
This quote from Yahoo mid day SUnday;
There, students complained to faculty about Hasan's "anti-American propaganda," but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint.
This was refering to some years ago when Hasan himself was a student. So yes, more info continues to come out..
Posted by: gary | Sunday, November 08, 2009 at 01:04 PM
Ft. Hood jihadist shooter Hasan attended the fanatic Muslim Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists.
The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.
Dangerous fanatic Muslim clerics are clearly fomenting acts of domestic terrorism against Americans and American troops, as well as British, and must be investigated, stopped, imprisoned, and deported.
The U.S. military was warned for years that jihadist Hasan was a ticking time bomb in the ranks of the U.S. military officer corps. See, you bend over backwards to be tolerant of Muslims, and you get more violent terrorist attacks from them.
At least 1000 Muslims have infiltrated the U.S. military to undermine it and give aid and comfort to the enemy – Muslim terrorists.
Better hurry up with those bunker-buster bombs for Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities.
Posted by: parkay | Sunday, November 08, 2009 at 03:36 PM