I wouldn’t take the bet. The odds of anything happening whatsoever are pretty low. But the odds of anything happening as a result of a legitimate threat or terrorist-like activity are so astronomically low it calls me to question their need to even be there in the first place.
Now here’s a bet I would take: IF shots are fired, people are killed, or some other type of violent activity occurs because of these armed guards, it will afterwards be discovered that these guards acted inappropriately and that the perceived threat was really no threat whatsoever.
You have hit it on the nose. Much ado about nothing.
IIRC, the guy pulled up in a car and almost immediatley began shooting with an automatic weapon. Not sure what a bunch of (probably) untrained guys would have been able to do except increase the body count.
Against someone who did not want to die that day, maybe a deterrence; against someone who has decided that this was a good day to die, not so much.
OK, now that Finagle has disposed of the topic, we can now sit back and watch the Monty-Debaser “debate” for general entertainment purposes.
Well, I admit it is not in the ballpark with the ElviSLives vs Scumpup blood feud over in the gun thread, but I have great confidence that Monty can provide his share of (moderately mindless) entertainment…we’ll see if Debaser has the staying power…
Always reminds me of this guy I used to work with.
Security supervisor. Was 50-75 pounds (can’t remember which) too heavy to get into the military. But sat around all night watching war porn (videos from the Iraq War going on at the time) and talking about how he needed to get over there “to help out my guys”
While never losing a single pound that would allow him to do that.
Same with these people. Big mouths, make a lot of noise to make themselves feel like they’re doing something important when the truth is that they’re just a bunch of losers.
It’s funny that anti-gun people think they can claim to not be anti-gun and then go right on in the next sentence being anti-gun.
Thinking that guns themselves are inherently dangerous and make it highly likely that someone would get hurt by the mere presence of them is anti-gun.
It’s odd because you don’t see this with other stances.
It’s rare to see a person say “I’m not pro-life” and then go on to disparage people who have abortions or say that we should ban them. But you see this with gun rights all the time.
You even see it in legislation. There was legislation that stated it didn’t intend to ban any common hunting ammo and then went on to have language that would have banned all hunting ammo.
Are these pro-gun flag waving anti-gun people trying to fool others? Or are they just kidding themselves?
I think it is quite funny (in a way insulting to those showing up to ‘stand guard’) that the Army Recruiting Command sectionhas issued orders to recruiting offices to treat any armed civilian in area as a ‘security threat’, and to call police if/when they feel they, or civilians, are or feel threatened in any way by their presence. Makes it pretty clear that these folks ain’t welcome around recruiting offices. Should send a clear message for those folk to get the hell away from the offices, I would think.
A snippet from the linked Stars and Stripes article:
"Recruiters were ordered not to interact or acknowledge the armed civilians, who have been greeted by a mix of concern, indifference and gratitude by the public.
If questioned by these alleged concerned citizens, be polite, professional and terminate the conversation immediately and report the incident to local law enforcement …,” the command advised."
No guns are not inherently dangerous. Guns in the hands of idiots are. Read the article I posted above. That is the quality of personnel that are coming out to guard. Look at me! Look at me!
So, there you are, standing watch in the red zone, and a random guy strolls up and asks to take a look at your weapon. And you say “Sure, here it is.” I’m curious how Reed determined that the guy was not a threat. I mean, there Reed is, in an area just lousy with hostiles, and he’s able to determine that this stranger is OK enough to just hand over his rifle to him. Body language I guess.
I always think to myself “self, the United States needs to be more like a third-world country, let’s have armed military roaming the streets.” I admire men like yourself who are willing to work to make that happen.
Until recently, there has never been a reason for anyone in a recruiting office to be armed. The regulations against recruiters carrying firearms go back decades. (There was a brief flurry of idiot Republican grandstanders claiming that Clinton disarmed them–carried by Faux News, of course.) The reality to that claim was that the Armed Forces revised some regulations during GHW Bush’s term in office that included the “no personal weapons” rule that was implemented in March, 1993, but which Clinton never saw or approved. (Presidents don’t get involved with daily regs.) Of course, even that revised regulation simply replaced a differently worded regulation going back to the Reagan era that said the same thing, that replaced a reg going back to the Nixon(?) era that said that same thing, that went back. . .
