Exactly. Why did you storm a military base and start killing people? Because gun-free zone.
Exactly. Why did you storm a military base and start killing people? Because gun-free zone.
I didn't say they have no training (though I did know a fellow who was qualified by the US Navy on firearms he'd never fired), but firearms training wouldn't help a soldier or sailor who's not carrying a firearm, and there are plenty of personnel who wouldn't normally go around armed, particularly on a base in the US.
Or because that's where the people who've pissed you off are located. The "gun-free" aspect makes them a softer target, but it doesn't necessarily make them targets.
DC gunman obsessed with violent video games, reports say
There are those "violent video games" again. We need to ban those along with any other entertainment outlet that's more violent than Ozzie and Harriet.
There are those "violent video games" again. We need to ban those along with any other entertainment outlet that's more violent than Ozzie and Harriet.
That was my point about allowing them to carry if they wanted to and requiring some to carry.
I really don't care what his reason was, that is of zero consequence to me. The point is that it happened on a US naval facility that should never be considered a soft target in the first place! Would you walk into a police station and start shooting? Hell no, you wouldn't make it 15 feet. Take away all their guns and now they are just sitting ducks. Gun free zones don't work. Obviously, I know that I am preaching to the choir here, but good lord, how dumb are the sheeple in this country that think a gun-free military makes sense? Oh, wait, they see the blue helmets who "police without guns".
If one guy can do that much damage then it makes me worried about our other bases that might have something dangerous to commandeer.
I still haven't seen a definitive, trustworthy report on what firearms he carried, and how he obtained them. I've heard that he started with a (Biden-approved) shotgun, shooting a security person and disarming them. I've heard that he bought everything he had.
Side note: when were troops disarmed? I know my FIL (was an Army Intel WO) spoke of carrying pretty much 24/7 due to his duties and knowledge. I've heard that up into the 60s, NCOs would carry a sidearm at all times on post. A friend of mine says it was post commander's discretion until Clinton's term when he disarmed all non-security troops. I know in the 80s in Germany, troops pulling post gate duty did not routinely carry ammo, unless THREATCON was elevated. As a gate-guard MP in 69th ADA Brigade, I carried 10 rounds in an ammo pouch, and woe unto anyone caught with a loaded weapon. Only loaded the magazine when I was on road patrol.
Side note: when were troops disarmed? I know my FIL (was an Army Intel WO) spoke of carrying pretty much 24/7 due to his duties and knowledge. I've heard that up into the 60s, NCOs would carry a sidearm at all times on post. A friend of mine says it was post commander's discretion until Clinton's term when he disarmed all non-security troops. I know in the 80s in Germany, troops pulling post gate duty did not routinely carry ammo, unless THREATCON was elevated. As a gate-guard MP in 69th ADA Brigade, I carried 10 rounds in an ammo pouch, and woe unto anyone caught with a loaded weapon. Only loaded the magazine when I was on road patrol.
Just announced in a FBI interview: the shooter used a shotgun and two pistols in his killing spree.
No "military style" rifle was used.
Wonder if all of the idiots in the media that were so quick to say M-16, assault gun, etc will come out with apologies for misinformation?
No "military style" rifle was used.
Wonder if all of the idiots in the media that were so quick to say M-16, assault gun, etc will come out with apologies for misinformation?
Similar threads
