There is a policy about not being armed on base. Plus, apparently, the shooter used Biden's favorite gun and got the other firearms from shooting the security/police.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Printable View
There is a policy about not being armed on base. Plus, apparently, the shooter used Biden's favorite gun and got the other firearms from shooting the security/police.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Doesn't your last sentence contradict your first? Ergo, arming the security...bad idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by notdrunk
No, the last sentence doesn't contradict the first sentence. A Clinton-era policy allows only military police and civilian police to carry firearms anytime on a military base unless there is a credible and specific threat in the area. There should be armed security at military bases because they are high profile targets. For example, back in the 1970s and 1980s, the Red Army Faction in Germany had a habit to attack American military bases in Germany. Also, there was the Fort Hood shooting caused by that Islamic terrorist.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Sure it does. The base security was armed. The policy wasn't that nobody on base could be armed, but rather some people should not be armed and others should be armed. The irony is that the NRA recommends that schools hire armed security teams and yet we see that (if your account is correct) arming the security, even on a military base, was a bad idea.
A man with anger management issues and a record of incompetence has access to weapons of human destruction, and uses them -sadly not the first case, and it won't be the last either.
God you are thick headed, increasingly so as the facts once again demonstrate you do not know what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
It's almost like you get off on dancing on the graves of the dead (who are not even buried yet) while spouting your ignorance.
Domestic military bases (foreign ones have their own rules depending on the situation), just like public schools, airports (beyond the screeners), court houses, prisons, federal buildings, etc... are all gun free zones by law for all those who are not explicitly granted the right to carry within (which is usually restricted to police & (some) security personal.
So yes... some people, a limited # on the base would have been armed... just like how a limited # of people are officially charged with being armed in your town... the police. In neither case can either group guarantee a nut isn't going to do harm, let alone shoot a cop or guard, take their weapon and move on with more mayhem (as it appears happened here).
No, the irony here is that we've had another mass shooting in a federally controlled gun-free zone, and that anti-gun bigots like you will demand (yet again) that the federal government further attempt to control firearms for the masses across 50 states when they have once again demonstrated their inability to control their use on federally run and very secure facilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Besides, unlike on such a domestic base, beyond normal law enforcement, in the civilian population there at least exists the prospect of an armed civilian who may be at the right place & the right time to act... which oddly happens far more than you'd think.
Rather than getting off on this event... why not wait for the facts to come in and see how the system failed... rather than continue to make up facts and jump to conclusions?
[QUOTE=bobvela;1392061]
No, the irony here is that we've had another mass shooting in a federally controlled gun-free zone, and that anti-gun bigots like you will demand (yet again) that the federal government further attempt to control firearms for the masses across 50 states when they have once again demonstrated their inability to control their use on federally run and very secure facilities.
/QUOTE]
Bobvela -maybe the issue here is not to try and 'control firearms for the masses across 50 states' but to take guns away from people who have shown they ought not to have them, because they are on medication, have a record of violence, uncontrollable rage etc -if this man had been deprived of his weapons following earlier incidents, he may still have been able to get hold of weapons illegaly, but it would at least have been harder for him to do so. Otherwise you are not going to stop these incidents from happening again, even if people in the location -shop, school, mall, cinema, are armed. Aren't most of the people who have committed these crimes shown to be nutters?
Thank you for your thoughtful invective.Quote:
God you are thick headed, increasingly so as the facts once again demonstrate you do not know what you are talking about.
It's almost like you get off on dancing on the graves of the dead (who are not even buried yet) while spouting your ignorance.
Nevertheless, what I said was true: the base security was armed.
Yet people were killed (twelve at present count)
and if notdrunk's version of what went down is true two of the assailant's weapons were taken from security guards (though I haven't heard this last bit reported as yet).
I have no problem with the military having armed security on their bases. I do think it's expensive and unwise for public schools to employ armed security teams. This incident should invite us to question the efficacy an armed security as well.
No, the government will never be able to control crazed men out for vengeance for some imagined grievance. But we can make it more difficult for these guys to arm themselves.
CNN says that the police recovered a shotgun and two handguns. Sources told CNN that the handguns might be from security guards. The rifle being found is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/nav...ain/index.html
On a side note, many schools already have an armed presence on their campuses but they are school resource officers.
Thanks for the update.