another shooting at ft hood.

[SMEAC]

I wont argue that for the person who is immediately in front of an active shooter, having a gun would be a good thing. That is pretty common sense. The problem is with friendly fire related to literally everyone else.

The military has enough problems not shooting each other in the field when they are fighting a force that is not dressed the same way they are. On the same token, most bases have police forces on them now, and the police are also not known for exactly for showing restraint when facing a man with a gun. Having other armed people would create chaos on a base in that situation, and far more deaths would result.

The current policy of having people get to shelter obviously has some issues, like their response time, but it is the best option.

You obviously have not been in the military with your idiotic belief that the only have weapons at the gun range. So maybe you should not try and talk like you have any knowledge on this. Let alone to talk shit about fratricide.

 

[7437]

I just looked it up. The first mass shooting at a US military base happened exactly 2 years after the directive was implemented and have happened fairly regularly ever since.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...oting-attacks-military-bases-history/7225403/

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...litary-Installations-in-the-US-223933651.html

Hmmm. Banning guns hasn't stopped psychos from shooting people. What a surprise.

So you think Bush Sr. intentionally disarmed the military just so they would be more exposed? thats a pretty dumb idea.

Here is an article, from the Blaze and the heritage foundation no less, that clearly states that military personnel were NEVER allowed to carry on base.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...on-military-bases-and-its-not-clintons-fault/

There is an even earlier version of this directive from 1969, the one that is reissued in the 1992 version. Text of it is hard to find though. people not carrying on base is not a new thing.

I have yet to find any authority on the subject who thinks that having everyone carry on base is a good idea. There was an 86 page report done on security changes after the first fort hood incident, mostly having to do with background checks and prevention.
http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/four-years-after-fort-hood-are-bases-any-safer-1.241760

The fact is, the military itself does not want to have more guns on base.

 

[7437]

You obviously have not been in the military with your idiotic belief that the only have weapons at the gun range. So maybe you should not try and talk like you have any knowledge on this. Let alone to talk shit about fratricide.

I did 6. I know that EVERY emergency is made worse by a bunch of people who are not well trained trying to help. If your not on the response team, whether is be a ship, base, or whatever, you get out of the way. The last thing any emergency needs is some fucking cowboy getting in the way.

 

[45ACP]

So you think Bush Sr. intentionally disarmed the military just so they would be more exposed? thats a pretty dumb idea.

C'mon now. Of course that's not what I think.

Here is an article, from the Blaze and the heritage foundation no less, that clearly states that military personnel were NEVER allowed to carry on base.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...on-military-bases-and-its-not-clintons-fault/

There is an even earlier version of this directive from 1969, the one that is reissued in the 1992 version. Text of it is hard to find though. people not carrying on base is not a new thing.

Interesting. Thanks for that info. It's still quite a coincidence that the shootings didn't start until after the directive was passed, don't you think?

I have yet to find any authority on the subject who thinks that having everyone carry on base is a good idea.

That is not, and has never been my position.

 

[SMEAC]

I did 6. I know that EVERY emergency is made worse by a bunch of people who are not well trained trying to help. If your not on the response team, whether is be a ship, base, or whatever, you get out of the way. The last thing any emergency needs is some fucking cowboy getting in the way.

You know it says a lot when you just say years and not the service or what they did. You are clueless as fuck about the military

 

[7437]

You know it says a lot when you just say years and not the service or what they did. You are clueless as fuck about the military

Fine, Navy on USS Mason, USS ASHLAND. Do you have anything to contribute, any facts, links, studies, articles? or do you just run your mouth like every other wannabe hero?

 

[SMEAC]

Fine, Navy on USS Mason, USS ASHLAND. Do you have anything to contribute, any facts, links, studies, articles? or do you just run your mouth like every other wannabe hero?

So you have no clue what it is like on Ft Hood or any other base with infantrymen that are infinitely higher trained and experienced then some mp. Don't try and interject some Navy dc training.

Seriously you thought they would only have weapons out at the range, you're out of touch as fuck.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I know that EVERY emergency is made worse by a bunch of people who are not well trained trying to help. If your not on the response team, whether is be a ship, base, or whatever, you get out of the way. The last thing any emergency needs is some fucking cowboy getting in the way.

Maybe you just mean shootings? In civil emergencies or car accidents ordinary citizens or those with ties to civil defense jobs are expected to act (as best they can) as first responders if the need arises. I think it's generally agreed upon that this is helpful and likely to save lives. Maybe I've been mislead.

 

[7437]

So you have no clue what it is like on Ft Hood or any other base with infantrymen that are infinitely higher trained and experienced then some mp. Don't try and interject some Navy dc training.

Seriously you thought they would only have weapons out at the range, you're out of touch as fuck.

So, no, you dont have anything intelligent to say. Cant even do a cursory google of what ASHLAND even is.

 

[7437]

Maybe you just mean shootings? In civil emergencies or car accidents ordinary citizens or those with ties to civil defense jobs are expected to act (as best they can) as first responders if the need arises. I think it's generally agreed upon that this is helpful and likely to save lives. Maybe I've been mislead.

For a car crash or something like that sure. On bases its only going to be a couple minutes until someone is there, ships even less. Untrained responders to a fire or security situation are just going to end up being victims too.

 

[SMEAC]

So, no, you dont have anything intelligent to say. Cant even do a cursory google of what ASHLAND even is.

Cool you were gator, did you enjoy telling the Marines they were too dirty to go to chow or this was the Navy side?

Don't try to play cool by association

You have said the least intelligent shit in threads: they only have weapons at the range and referencing fratricide as if its common.

 

[7437]

Cool you were gator, did you enjoy telling the Marines they were too dirty to go to chow or this was the Navy side?

Don't try to play cool by association

You have said the least intelligent shit in threads: they only have weapons at the range and referencing fratricide as if its common.

its not common BECAUSE the rules in place work. there has been 3 shootings in military bases in the past 2 years. clearly an almost 50 year old policy is not the problem.

 

[oldshadow]

I did 6. I know that EVERY emergency is made worse by a bunch of people who are not well trained trying to help. If your not on the response team, whether is be a ship, base, or whatever, you get out of the way. The last thing any emergency needs is some fucking cowboy getting in the way.

Response time was 15 minutes. So why can't many of them be armed if they go through training?

 

[Scrody]

So you have no clue what it is like on Ft Hood or any other base with infantrymen that are infinitely higher trained and experienced then some mp. Don't try and interject some Navy dc training.

We get it, you're a certified badass. Your attitude is why a lot of people don't like veterans. Get off your high horse. You're no Walt Kowalski.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

We get it, you're a certified badass. Your attitude is why a lot of people don't like veterans. Get off your high horse. You're no Walt Kowalski.

You're the one with the shitty attitude.

 

[Scrody]

You're the one with the shitty attitude.

Me?!

 

[Its Me Austin]

Fine, Navy on USS Mason, USS ASHLAND. Do you have anything to contribute, any facts, links, studies, articles? or do you just run your mouth like every other wannabe hero?

Were you on it when all of the Navy personnel got a combat action ribbon in 05 for no reason?

 

[7437]

Were you on it when all of the Navy personnel got a combat action ribbon in 05 for no reason?

no. I was more recent. it wasn't for nothing exactly, just something dumb. some guy missed them with an RPG while docked in Jordan.

 

[SMEAC]

We get it, you're a certified badass. Your attitude is why a lot of people don't like veterans. Get off your high horse. You're no Walt Kowalski.

I guess I'm the idiot that came in here spitting bullshit like some authority.

I am sorry that your feelings of inadequacy make you lash out though.

 

[Scrody]

I guess I'm the idiot that came in here spitting bullshit like some authority.

I am sorry that your feelings of inadequacy make you lash out though.

No, your first question to anyone is "did you serve? Oh well you don't even know what you're talking about." It gets old. People are entitled to their opinion, and claiming they don't know anything because they didn't serve doesn't make them look like a dumbass. It makes you look like a dumbass, it's an easy way to get out of an argument, and to fish for compliments on your service. Whoopity doo.