I am afraid your attempt at scathing sarcasm or wit has left me only confused. The point is, these attacks have only started occurring recently, thus the Military should get it;s act together and allow it’s men to be armed- with proper training, etc.
I always think to myself, “self, someone who would post something that stupid has got to be doing so because they choose to deliberately misinterpret what I said.” And then I hope that I am right in thinking that.
“These attacks”? How many shootings have occurred at Armed Forces recruiting stations?
In other news, maybe, just maybe, these “yokels milling around in parking lots” should have been defending cinemas instead.
Questions for those who think Armed Forces recruiters should be armed:
[ol][li]Should they be armed at all times, or only while performing their recruiting duties?[/li][li]If armed, what weapon should the be issued and what controls should be in place to ensure the security of the weapon?[/li][li]If the recruiters should be armed, why shouldn’t all members of the Armed Forces be armed?[/li]Where do you think this nonsense should stop?[/ol]
Yes he was too being completely trusting. He completely trusted himself to be able to handle that Big Stick he was carrying. As we have now seen, that proved to be mistaken.
There’s also the 2009 Fort Hood shooting.
And here’s a list:
The attacks dont have to be just at Armed Forces recruiting stations, you know. The shooting started there but ended at a naval training center.
[quote=“Monty, post:64, topic:725929”]
Questions for those who think Armed Forces recruiters should be armed:
[ol][li]Should they be armed at all times, or only while performing their recruiting duties?[/li][li]If armed, what weapon should the be issued and what controls should be in place to ensure the security of the weapon?[/li][li]If the recruiters should be armed, why shouldn’t all members of the Armed Forces be armed?[/li][li]Where do you think this nonsense should stop?[/ol][/li][/QUOTE]
What nonsense? Don’t you trust a member of the fucking military to be armed?
They should be armed with normal issue sidearms, if trained, and certified in their use, and they want to be so armed.
The nonsense is this incredible over-reaction to the incident. Sure, I trust a member of the military to be armed when the requirements of the job at hand necessitate said member being armed. Working in a recruiting office does not require sporting a firearm.
Nope. Can’t agree with that. That’s not the case on the bases and that makes sense. This might come as a surprise to you, but there’s a lot more to being in the military than carrying a weapon around with you. If the weapon is not necessary for the immediate duties, then there is really no reason to issue a weapon. Another thing is that most enlisted men don’t get “normal issue sidearms”; they get issued rifles when a rifle is required for the duty at hand. Of course, there’s also the issue of maintaining the weapon and securing the weapon. Training, certifying, and retraining, not to mention procuring enough of the “normal issue sidearms” (by the way, that’s not an actual thing) to have everyone–why stop with just arming the recruiters, hey?–issued that sidearm would be a major production that is actually not needed. Even during actual wars, military members did not carry weapons unless their immediate duties actually required it.
I seem to recall that dude being a member of the Armed Forces. So if an “all members of the Armed Forces must be armed” policy had been in place then, the dude would’ve been walking around with a government-issued weapon. Many of the shooters in your list happened to be in the military, by the way.
I wasn’t allowed to carry a loaded weapon around most of the time in Iraq. Sure I had a weapon and ammo but one did not touch the other until needed. The military recognizes that carrying a loaded weapon is a risk. To mitigate that risk the military has always limited allowing troops to carry loaded weapons to situations where there is an immediate need. Even still over 100 soldiers died in Iraq due to negligent discharges of weapons.
Almost all. But if you allow more to be armed there will be less. Or something like that.
The guys in the pictures look no different from Dylann Roof. If you put them all together, would you be able to distinguish the Good Guys With Guns from the Bad Guy(s)? In time to make a difference?
If you’re only allowed to carry an unloaded weapon on military guard duty, then why carry it at all? Does it have some effect on the thinking of people who see it, some effect that civilian open-carry advocates think should not happen and is actually a sign of a mental disorder?
I think this stuff is kind of stupid - if, as Debaser says, it’s a “symbolic gesture,” they should be unarmed - but I also think it’s pretty unfair to tar and feather all these people as racists and yokels. They may very well be racists and yokels, but I certainly haven’t seen any evidence of the former in this thread.
[parenthetical]
Am I imagining it, or do the (American) “arm the soldiers 24/7” advocates on these threads mostly people who did NOT serve, while the actual veterans are mostly those explaining why not?
[/parenthetical]
People need to stop coming down so hard on that Reed guy.
He only shot the asphalt because it was black. Clearly self defense.
And it was coming right at him!
It does seem that way, but it’s important to remember that the SDMB is a bastion of liberalism (and, dare I say, common sense) even among its veterans. I think Loach and Monty would agree that for every service member who thinks as they do, there are a dozen service members who think it’s ridiculous that they can’t go around bristling with firearms at all times.
I wonder if there is any overlap with the Jade Helm/Obama is coming for our guns crowd. Because you would think they wouldn’t want the troops that are tools of the evil president to carry weapons on US soil.
There is some of that. Most of those who were in command positions have flashes of how horrifically wrong it can go.
Carrying loaded weapons results in increased risk, even for trained soldiers? Imagine that.
(Thank you for this post, by the way–good perspective)
Oh, I have no doubt that there are service members who think they should always be packing. I don’t think, though, that it’s as prevalent as you do. Another thing is that the military really isn’t looking for trigger happy folks. “I want to join the Army so I can pack some heat like Rambo” isn’t exactly an attitude conducive to a long military career.
Yeah. Oh, you can check out post #4 in this thread, too.
Completely agree.