Bucky86
Footballguy
Yeah! Everyone shoot the bad guy wearing fatigues that is shooting everyone!!Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.
Yeah! Everyone shoot the bad guy wearing fatigues that is shooting everyone!!Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.
I would assume most soldiers or military folks would know how to handle a gun and in general are for being armed. How long have army bases been gun free? Has it always been that way?Yeah! Everyone shoot the bad guy wearing fatigues that is shooting everyone!!Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/17/When-Military-gun-freeI would assume most soldiers or military folks would know how to handle a gun and in general are for being armed. How long have army bases been gun free? Has it always been that way?1 confirmed dead, 8 wounded, 3 critical from what I am hearing on the feed.Yeah! Everyone shoot the bad guy wearing fatigues that is shooting everyone!!Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.
That sucks.
Snopes is your friend - http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/baseguns.asphttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/17/When-Military-gun-freeI would assume most soldiers or military folks would know how to handle a gun and in general are for being armed. How long have army bases been gun free? Has it always been that way?1 confirmed dead, 8 wounded, 3 critical from what I am hearing on the feed.Yeah! Everyone shoot the bad guy wearing fatigues that is shooting everyone!!Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.
That sucks.
I'm sure you already know this, but you're a moron.Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.
I'm sure you already know this, but you're a moron.if this guy was a soldier, he's pretty terrible at his job.20 shots fired, 1 dead.
Did they change the security measures on the West side of Chicago where there are ten shootings a day?Honest question, and I'm not trying to be like MOP- I just don't know the answer, but: didn't they change security tactics at Fort Hood and other military bases after the last attack? In order to prevent this very sort of thing from happening again?
ThanksDid they change the security measures on the West side of Chicago where there are ten shootings a day?Honest question, and I'm not trying to be like MOP- I just don't know the answer, but: didn't they change security tactics at Fort Hood and other military bases after the last attack? In order to prevent this very sort of thing from happening again?
If you live on Fort Hood you can have a gun in your domicile, as long as you register it with the base. If you don't live on base you could probably sneak one in if you were wanting to confront someone (which seems to be the case here). This is a base with 40k troops, you can't search every car.
The reason this story or any story about a shooting on a military base, is they are pretty infrequent as compared to the general population. Also considering what happened at Fort Hood a few years back, it becomes a monster story.
To be fair, the Breitbart article you quoted did not claim that Clinton issued an executive order. And Clinton had two months to do something to prevent the change, as well as 8 years to reverse it, so Clinton deserves at least partial blame / credit for the change.Snopes is your friend - http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/baseguns.asphttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/17/When-Military-gun-freeI would assume most soldiers or military folks would know how to handle a gun and in general are for being armed. How long have army bases been gun free? Has it always been that way?1 confirmed dead, 8 wounded, 3 critical from what I am hearing on the feed.Yeah! Everyone shoot the bad guy wearing fatigues that is shooting everyone!!Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.
That sucks.
Please note the date in upper right corner - http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf
It doesn't seem like enough people care. Every time there is a shooting, there is shock and outrage, and then after a couple weeks people forget about it. Sandy Hook couldn't change things. This won't either.Honest question, and I'm not trying to be like MOP- I just don't know the answer, but: didn't they change security tactics at Fort Hood and other military bases after the last attack? In order to prevent this very sort of thing from happening again?
JFC you're stupid.To be fair, the Breitbart article you quoted did not claim that Clinton issued an executive order. And Clinton had two months to do something to prevent the change, as well as 8 years to reverse it, so Clinton deserves at least partial blame / credit for the change.Snopes is your friend - http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/baseguns.asphttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/17/When-Military-gun-freeI would assume most soldiers or military folks would know how to handle a gun and in general are for being armed. How long have army bases been gun free? Has it always been that way?1 confirmed dead, 8 wounded, 3 critical from what I am hearing on the feed.Yeah! Everyone shoot the bad guy wearing fatigues that is shooting everyone!!Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.
That sucks.
Please note the date in upper right corner - http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf
The Bush administration may have done it just to cause Clinton potential trouble with the NRA lobby later on or something, but Clinton didn't do anything about it.
That would have been a neat trick.The Bush administration may have done it just to cause Clinton potential trouble with the NRA lobby later on or something
Don't know what this has to do with Sandy Hook.It doesn't seem like enough people care. Every time there is a shooting, there is shock and outrage, and then after a couple weeks people forget about it. Sandy Hook couldn't change things. This won't either.Honest question, and I'm not trying to be like MOP- I just don't know the answer, but: didn't they change security tactics at Fort Hood and other military bases after the last attack? In order to prevent this very sort of thing from happening again?
People do not care enough about shootings.Don't know what this has to do with Sandy Hook.It doesn't seem like enough people care. Every time there is a shooting, there is shock and outrage, and then after a couple weeks people forget about it. Sandy Hook couldn't change things. This won't either.Honest question, and I'm not trying to be like MOP- I just don't know the answer, but: didn't they change security tactics at Fort Hood and other military bases after the last attack? In order to prevent this very sort of thing from happening again?
People were randomly (assumed today) killed by a lone individual for no reason in a public setting. Do you really not see the point the poster you quoted was saying? Sub the Co. Movie massacre, the Navalyard shootings... The point is the same. News is made, gun control is a hot topic for a few weeks, politicians grandstand and by the time it happens again, most have forgotten about the last incident. What is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing yet expecting different results.Don't know what this has to do with Sandy Hook.It doesn't seem like enough people care. Every time there is a shooting, there is shock and outrage, and then after a couple weeks people forget about it. Sandy Hook couldn't change things. This won't either.Honest question, and I'm not trying to be like MOP- I just don't know the answer, but: didn't they change security tactics at Fort Hood and other military bases after the last attack? In order to prevent this very sort of thing from happening again?
I get that, and FWIW I am in favor of reasonable gun control measures, like universal background checks and registration. But the situations are so wildly dissimilar. When a shooting occurs on a military base like Fort Hood, I'm not sure what if any gun control measures would have prevented it.People were randomly (assumed today) killed by a lone individual for no reason in a public setting. Do you really not see the point the poster you quoted was saying? Sub the Co. Movie massacre, the Navalyard shootings... The point is the same. News is made, gun control is a hot topic for a few weeks, politicians grandstand and by the time it happens again, most have forgotten about the last incident. What is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing yet expecting different results.Don't know what this has to do with Sandy Hook.It doesn't seem like enough people care. Every time there is a shooting, there is shock and outrage, and then after a couple weeks people forget about it. Sandy Hook couldn't change things. This won't either.Honest question, and I'm not trying to be like MOP- I just don't know the answer, but: didn't they change security tactics at Fort Hood and other military bases after the last attack? In order to prevent this very sort of thing from happening again?
So you're going to stop whining over gun control after each shooting then?People were randomly (assumed today) killed by a lone individual for no reason in a public setting. Do you really not see the point the poster you quoted was saying? Sub the Co. Movie massacre, the Navalyard shootings... The point is the same. News is made, gun control is a hot topic for a few weeks, politicians grandstand and by the time it happens again, most have forgotten about the last incident. What is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing yet expecting different results.Don't know what this has to do with Sandy Hook.It doesn't seem like enough people care. Every time there is a shooting, there is shock and outrage, and then after a couple weeks people forget about it. Sandy Hook couldn't change things. This won't either.Honest question, and I'm not trying to be like MOP- I just don't know the answer, but: didn't they change security tactics at Fort Hood and other military bases after the last attack? In order to prevent this very sort of thing from happening again?
Why? Because I think people who are trained to handle weapons should have them in plentiful supply?I'm sure you already know this, but you're a moron.Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.
I'm sure that's not the only reason.Why? Because I think people who are trained to handle weapons should have them in plentiful supply?I'm sure you already know this, but you're a moron.Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.
Took me a second.Kent State on lockdown after shots fired there.
Are you against citizens owning guns? Do you think they should be banned?I'm sure that's not the only reason.Why? Because I think people who are trained to handle weapons should have them in plentiful supply?I'm sure you already know this, but you're a moron.Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.
single shot fired.Kent State on lockdown after shots fired there.
You're just digging yourself a deeper hole as per usual.Are you against citizens owning guns? Do you think they should be banned?I'm sure that's not the only reason.Why? Because I think people who are trained to handle weapons should have them in plentiful supply?I'm sure you already know this, but you're a moron.Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.
If in fact he was surrounded by armed soldiers, then I think this is a reasonable point which speaks against the NRA argument, repeated endlessly, that the solution to bad guys with guns is more good guys with guns.Shocker the guy with the gun was still able to kill many people despite being surrounded by people who were armed.
Well yes, but that doesn't mean "gun-free" to me. You can have them in your home if you live on base, so there are a lot of guns on base in the hands of non-MPs. Pretty similar to the state of Maryland's gun laws, and probably several others.I thought Hood was a gun-free zone, meaning only MP's were allowed to carry.
Yeah. They're called revolvers.The CNN scroll reads: "Shooter believed to have a semi-automatic handgun."
Question- are there any handguns sold these days that AREN'T semi-automatic?
Is there that big a difference in how quickly you can fire the next bullet?Yeah. They're called revolvers.The CNN scroll reads: "Shooter believed to have a semi-automatic handgun."
Question- are there any handguns sold these days that AREN'T semi-automatic?
Right, guns are allowed to be kept in homes, but not on the base, so it's not like this guy was firing a handgun into a crowd of armed soldiers, as Timmay thinks is a possibility.Well yes, but that doesn't mean "gun-free" to me. You can have them in your home if you live on base, so there are a lot of guns on base in the hands of non-MPs. Pretty similar to the state of Maryland's gun laws, and probably several others.I thought Hood was a gun-free zone, meaning only MP's were allowed to carry.
Well there are thousands of homes on base, I think around 25k people live on base. It's basically a small city at night, a medium sized city of 50k during the day. I've been on it, it's a monster.Right, guns are allowed to be kept in homes, but not on the base, so it's not like this guy was firing a handgun into a crowd of armed soldiers, as Timmay thinks is a possibility.Well yes, but that doesn't mean "gun-free" to me. You can have them in your home if you live on base, so there are a lot of guns on base in the hands of non-MPs. Pretty similar to the state of Maryland's gun laws, and probably several others.I thought Hood was a gun-free zone, meaning only MP's were allowed to carry.
Actually it was Run It Up who made that assumption, not me. Of course I think it's a possibility; intuitively, I would think it would be more likely at a military base that a random shooter would face armed opposition than in a public area. But I could be wrong about that; I really have no idea. I'm sure we'll find out shortly what actually happened.Right, guns are allowed to be kept in homes, but not on the base, so it's not like this guy was firing a handgun into a crowd of armed soldiers, as Timmay thinks is a possibility.Well yes, but that doesn't mean "gun-free" to me. You can have them in your home if you live on base, so there are a lot of guns on base in the hands of non-MPs. Pretty similar to the state of Maryland's gun laws, and probably several others.I thought Hood was a gun-free zone, meaning only MP's were allowed to carry.
Why? Because I think people who are trained to handle weapons should have them in plentiful supply?I'm sure you already know this, but you're a moron.Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.
No, because name-calling is what the left does.Why? Because I think people who are trained to handle weapons should have them in plentiful supply?I'm sure you already know this, but you're a moron.Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.
I didn't mean to suggest you assumed that to be the case, just that you thought it was a possibility based on the fact that they were on a military base. It's a reasonable assumption to make, but my impression is that when you're in an actual building, you're not allowed to carry. There would be some armed MP's, but who knows how many, how far away they are, etc. I thought I read he was in some kind of medical wing or section, but I could be making that up. We'll find out more as we go on, and in the mean time, I'll defer to Detroit on these kinds of things.Actually it was Run It Up who made that assumption, not me. Of course I think it's a possibility; intuitively, I would think it would be more likely at a military base that a random shooter would face armed opposition than in a public area. But I could be wrong about that; I really have no idea. I'm sure we'll find out shortly what actually happened.Right, guns are allowed to be kept in homes, but not on the base, so it's not like this guy was firing a handgun into a crowd of armed soldiers, as Timmay thinks is a possibility.Well yes, but that doesn't mean "gun-free" to me. You can have them in your home if you live on base, so there are a lot of guns on base in the hands of non-MPs. Pretty similar to the state of Maryland's gun laws, and probably several others.I thought Hood was a gun-free zone, meaning only MP's were allowed to carry.
Fair enough.I didn't mean to suggest you assumed that to be the case, just that you thought it was a possibility based on the fact that they were on a military base. It's a reasonable assumption to make, but my impression is that when you're in an actual building, you're not allowed to carry. There would be some armed MP's, but who knows how many, how far away they are, etc. I thought I read he was in some kind of medical wing or section, but I could be making that up. We'll find out more as we go on, and in the mean time, I'll defer to Detroit on these kinds of things.Actually it was Run It Up who made that assumption, not me. Of course I think it's a possibility; intuitively, I would think it would be more likely at a military base that a random shooter would face armed opposition than in a public area. But I could be wrong about that; I really have no idea. I'm sure we'll find out shortly what actually happened.Right, guns are allowed to be kept in homes, but not on the base, so it's not like this guy was firing a handgun into a crowd of armed soldiers, as Timmay thinks is a possibility.Well yes, but that doesn't mean "gun-free" to me. You can have them in your home if you live on base, so there are a lot of guns on base in the hands of non-MPs. Pretty similar to the state of Maryland's gun laws, and probably several others.I thought Hood was a gun-free zone, meaning only MP's were allowed to carry.
I carried a loaded weapon all the time in Iraq and Afghanistan, never went anywhere without it. That's what "the left" has done for you, **** Cheney.Why? Because I think people who are trained to handle weapons should have them in plentiful supply?I'm sure you already know this, but you're a moron.Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.No, because name-calling is what the left does.Why? Because I think people who are trained to handle weapons should have them in plentiful supply?I'm sure you already know this, but you're a moron.Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.
BTW, I was in the military for 2 years, including a year in a war zone. At no time was I issued a weapon to carry around or keep in my locker. I was in logistics, so while technically in a war zone, I was only issued a weapon when I had guard duty or if there was a practice alert...luckily, there was never a "real" alert.
More likely to tell us about mental illness, if anything.Fair enough.I didn't mean to suggest you assumed that to be the case, just that you thought it was a possibility based on the fact that they were on a military base. It's a reasonable assumption to make, but my impression is that when you're in an actual building, you're not allowed to carry. There would be some armed MP's, but who knows how many, how far away they are, etc. I thought I read he was in some kind of medical wing or section, but I could be making that up. We'll find out more as we go on, and in the mean time, I'll defer to Detroit on these kinds of things.Actually it was Run It Up who made that assumption, not me. Of course I think it's a possibility; intuitively, I would think it would be more likely at a military base that a random shooter would face armed opposition than in a public area. But I could be wrong about that; I really have no idea. I'm sure we'll find out shortly what actually happened.Right, guns are allowed to be kept in homes, but not on the base, so it's not like this guy was firing a handgun into a crowd of armed soldiers, as Timmay thinks is a possibility.Well yes, but that doesn't mean "gun-free" to me. You can have them in your home if you live on base, so there are a lot of guns on base in the hands of non-MPs. Pretty similar to the state of Maryland's gun laws, and probably several others.I thought Hood was a gun-free zone, meaning only MP's were allowed to carry.
Either way, like most of these anecdotal situations, no matter how tragic they are, I don't think they're going to tell us much about gun control issues one way or another.
Unfortunately, probably one of the first things on the chopping block when people advocate for cutting military expenditures.Doctor Detroit said:So he was diagnosed with PTSD, served in Iraq, and was confronted by military policemen.
ETA: Not "diagnosed" but "sought help for PTSD." Having the Army "diagnose" you with PTSD is an atrocious process, basically you have to have half your brain hanging out of your head.
It's more of the runaround you get. I can't even imagine the World War II guys with "shell shock" they saw things none of us has seen since. Vietnam vets were just ignored, awful.Unfortunately, probably one of the first things on the chopping block when people advocate for cutting military expenditures.Doctor Detroit said:So he was diagnosed with PTSD, served in Iraq, and was confronted by military policemen.
ETA: Not "diagnosed" but "sought help for PTSD." Having the Army "diagnose" you with PTSD is an atrocious process, basically you have to have half your brain hanging out of your head.
I'm a little older...okay, a lot older. Vietnam, Qui Nhon to be more specific. But lived/worked in a fenced-in compound. There was little to no danger in daylight. I never left the compound at night, aside from pulling guard duty elsewhere a few times.Doctor Detroit said:I carried a loaded weapon all the time in Iraq and Afghanistan, never went anywhere without it. That's what "the left" has done for you, **** Cheney.Jim11 said:Ministry of Pain said:Why? Because I think people who are trained to handle weapons should have them in plentiful supply?Doctor Detroit said:I'm sure you already know this, but you're a moron.Ministry of Pain said:Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.No, because name-calling is what the left does.Ministry of Pain said:Why? Because I think people who are trained to handle weapons should have them in plentiful supply?Doctor Detroit said:I'm sure you already know this, but you're a moron.Ministry of Pain said:Soldiers are not armed on this base? Wow!
Soldiers have a right to defend themselves. Weapons should be in plentiful supply. Just my opinion.
BTW, I was in the military for 2 years, including a year in a war zone. At no time was I issued a weapon to carry around or keep in my locker. I was in logistics, so while technically in a war zone, I was only issued a weapon when I had guard duty or if there was a practice alert...luckily, there was never a "real" alert.
Where were you, Grenada?