There was also a shooting in Little Rock in 2009:
Apparently it does now.
Some do. My Dad, an E7 had one. Nor should it be “everyone”. No one is saying that. Only those who wish to carry and are trained and certified.
Nice slippery slope and strawman. No one is suggesting :“all members of the Armed Forces must be armed”.:dubious::rolleyes:
Yeah, obviously. We should only arm a selected few members of the armed forces. We’d train them to handle handguns, and how to handle criminal-type situations. Since they’ll be a smaller size force they can’t be everywhere at once, so we’ll set up a special number to reach them if they’re needed at any particular location. They’ll need to be able to get there quickly, so we’ll give them special cars that people will know to move over for. We should probably give them a special uniform so people can identify them when they see them–maybe a different color uniform? Then we’ll come up with a special name for them–any suggestions?
The Justice League?
That’s not necessary. They only need to know how to defend themselves and others.
But of course, only the Police can defend us, eh? We should lie there and take it until the Police arrive- sure. :rolleyes::dubious:
I gotta think it’s pretty fucking common for employers not to allow their employees to carry loaded firearms at their place of business. I also gotta think that given the number of shootings v. the numbers of potential accidental discharges, those rules are probably saving a lot of lives.
Did you read above where an actual military veteran said that a hundred military personnel had been killed by accidental discharges by trained soldiers? So your solution to this is to give more guns to more people? Brilliant.
Evidently that’s not apparent.
E-7 issued a weapon in the US to have with him at all times? When was this?
Are you sure that nobody’s saying that?
What’s this, the Hawkeye Pierce approach to SDO?
Compare how many lives Police save vs accidental discharges.
Not verified and that was in a war zone, where people carried full auto weapons not in a holster.
To you.
On a missile base, when on duty. A .45 in fact. 1960’s-70’s.
Is anyone?
What is this- confusing TV metaphor time?:rolleyes:
Again, “police”. You understand that police receive extensive special training, right? And they still pretty frequently end up killing people who shouldn’t have been killed, right? You understand that military aren’t police, right? You understand that we, as a country, decided not to have the military acting as police, right?
And you didn’t answer my question: you understand that it’s pretty fucking common for employers to not allow their employees to carry loaded firearms at their place of business, right? What’s special about recruiters?
The fella here guarding our local recruiting stations seems to have been well received, the other businesses are approving and the restaurants are feeding him.
I direct your attention to the last word.
Of course nobody there is asking a few good questions regarding this volunteer armed “guard”:
[ul][li]Is he trained in the use of that firearm?[/li][li]Is he an accurate shot?[/li][li]Is the firearm in good and safe operating condition?[/li][li]Did he obtain the firearm legally?[/li][li]Is he legally allowed to possess a firearm?[/li][*]What are his “rules of engagement” for the use of deadly force?[/ul]
Well, he was pretty much only on the base when “On duty” so… but if you are being pedantic it was also when he was the* senior NCO on Duty*, which of course was pretty much whenever he was “on duty”.
Military Police carry weapons issued to them while performing law enforcement duties. When they finish their shift, the weapons are returned to the unit arms room and the soldiers are subject to the same regulations as every other soldier.
Military Intelligence are not Military Police. Perhaps you’re confusing them with the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command (formerly known as Criminal Investigation Division).
True. And that’s exactly what my dad did, even tho he wasn’t a MP, just the Duty NCO.
True. But Counterintelligence Special Agents used to carry sidearms. I dunno if they do now, but usually the “Special” part means you are authorized to. USACIDC Special agents still carry sidearms.
And, I am saying that if a recruiter, etc was willing, rcvd special training, etc, he should be able to carry when on duty.
You keep harping on special training and certification. When and where and how much time do you think this will cost? Who’s to pay for it? What weapons will the recruiters be issued? Why not have all soldiers armed at all times then? What’s the cost-benefit analysis of this? The current hysteria is just that, hysteria. It’s an over-reaction and there’s no well-thought plan to implement it.
And those pretending to guard the recruiting stations are not actually guarding a blame thing. They’re strutting, they’re performing. They’re not even at the recruiting stations, of course; they’re merely nearby.
He was standing his ground.
Some friendly advice, Monty:
Never wrestle with a pig. All you’ll get is covered in shit, and the pig likes it.
When someone believes “Guns good. More guns better!”, there is no logic or reason that will sway them.