Could have those deaths/injuries been prevented if firearms were allowed on the base?

[darkangel218]

Could have an armed civilian or military person stopped the attacker sooner, before he killed and injured so many people?

Just wondering

[louis-t]

1. Hmmm, maybe if he was on open ground with lots of armed people walking around.

The way I understand it, he went into a building, began firing, then left and went to another building to do the same thing. I doubt it would have ended much differently.

[jehop61]

2. or. . . .

would the death toll be much higher if everyone had a gun and started shooting randomly?

[darkangel218]

8. Entirely possible.

[oldhippie]

50. You think soldiers would just shoot randomly?

Really?

[jehop61]

57. panic does strange things

Remember the Times Square shooting where several civilians were shot by trained police when someone said someone had a gun? Stray bullets in a crowded area also could cause havoc. Not a great idea

[oldhippie]

61. Projection

Having spent 40 years with the military, I would feel much safer having dozens of armed soldiers around me in an incident rather than cops. I know how much training cops get, and I am not impressed. I would trust soldiers not to panic and spray bullets around rather than the police.

[A Simple Game]

70. Soldiers, where the phrase "shoot them all and let god sort them out" originated.

Are they really trained to identify their target before shooting?

Seems to me that the problem was a firearm did make it onto the base, not that there weren't enough.

I definitely agree with you about cops, many of which are former military.

[DrDan]

71. I also have LOTS of years in the military - I would not consider myself

any more proficient with a gun than the average "civilian".

Sure - there are certain groups that would be effective - that is because of their specific training, not the mere fact that they own a gun.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

83. derp

[lunatica]

3. Really?

flame bait.

[darkangel218]

5. Really?

Do you honestly think I posted this as "flaimbait"?

It's an honest question, my friends and I talked about it today.

Get over yourself.

[lunatica]

7. It's flame bait.

[darkangel218]

9. No, your accusations are.

Bye.

[Lizzie Poppet]

31. Calling another poster a liar is a personal insult.

It's a hideworthy offense (although I personally have no intention of alerting on it). So is calling another poster a troll (which is what your statement amounts to). I've had a post hidden for that.

Just a word to the wise...

[lunatica]

72. Actually I said he was posting flame bait

Which is the deliberate posting of a subject matter that creates strife among DUers. There's a good reason why the moderators have given the subject of guns it's own forum. Right now it's allowed because of the fight to change the laws regarding guns.

But if they want to hide my post that's fine with me. It's happened before.

[Lizzie Poppet]

77. And he directly stated that this is not the case.

I'm not commenting on who's right, only that your re-assertion of that claim after he directly denied is constitutes calling him a liar, that's all.

And yeah, gun posts in GD are okay just now because there's a "really big news" item going on. I don't consider that a good idea, but since even when the "big news" exception isn't in play, some folks blow off the rule anyway (and get away with it, mostly). Gun threads in GD rarely produce anything of the slightest value...and an absurd amount of strife and ill-will.

[lunatica]

87. I see your point

Thanks! I'll keep it in mind for the future.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Could those deaths/injuries have been prevented if nobody had firearms anywhere?

[darkangel218]

6. Absolutely.

The sad part is that won't happen anytime soon.

Good guys, bad guys , they all have firearms. If the bad guys didn't have them, I would not support the second amendment.
But they do.
How are we going to change that?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Remove the guns from all.

Or, at least, register them all, making it easier to remove them from the "bad guys".

[darkangel218]

11. Im all for registration.

Removal, not so much.

How are we going to prevent the criminals from obtaining them?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Take them off the market and make it a felony to have one.

Registration, with strong restrictions, and strong laws regarding resale (as in "no resale&quot would make it a helluva lot more difficult for criminals and everyone else to obtain them.

[darkangel218]

14. They will purchase them off the black market, just like they purchase heroin

Not to mention the millions of guns which are already here illegally.

It's not doable.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Why not? It's not "doable" because the politicians are afraid of the gun lobby.

Of course, criminals, psychopaths, and just ordinary citizens who want to will risk imprisonment to get their toys, but there would be a lot more citizens/criminals/psychopaths who wouldn't take the risk. And, there would be a lot fewer guns available which would drive the price up to beyond the capabilities of most.

[wall_dish]

17. You mean like in Mexico?

Oh, wait......

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Or, Japan, Germany, the UK?

[Starboard Tack]

60. In Mexico, ordinary folk do not have guns, thankfully.

The guns are all in the hands of cops and gangsters.. Don't mess with either and you will have no worries.

[darkangel218]

18. Perheps.

I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. I don't see it happening for a very long time.

Hell, I don't even see national gun registration happening any time soon.

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. It's not "doable" regardless of politicians OR the gun lobby.

Prohibition of civilian firearms is not doable because there is nothing remotely resembling a national consensus that it's a good idea. Moreover, a huge percentage of those that consider it a bad idea consider it such a bad idea that they would ignore any such law. They would consider it to be a violation of their rights. They would actively resist any serious attempt at active enforcement.

Not that an active, willing-to-use-force attempt at disarming the civilian population is even remotely likely, of course.

[Common Sense Party]

44. Tsk. Tsk.

On Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:40 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

They will purchase them off the black market, just like they purchase heroin
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4776143

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

RW talking point

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:47 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a dubious notion, but not hide worthy.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation:

Not a right wing talking point


Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Are you testing out the new alert system or what? (hope I'm juror #7!) Seriously... whatever your feelings are about gun control, the prohibition/black market angle seems like a valid point.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Please suspend the alerter's posting privileges for a week. This is a STUPID alert! Argue facts, don't try to play the RW card.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[darkangel218]

46. Wow, damn!!

That's sad in a way. We can't even bring up issues/solutions without getting alerted on .

[Common Sense Party]

47. You're upsetting people.

Think of the children!

[MicaelS]

28. Yes, Alcohol and Drug Prohibtion have worked so well...

We should definitely try Gun Prohibition.

We can't stop billions of dollars of drugs entering this country, and you think you can keep guns and ammunition out?

Those who believe guns are the sole problem in the world, that guns are an evil corrupting force in the world, that if all the guns in the world were destroyed, we would suddenly have World Peace™ and we could all hold hands and sit in the shade and sing Kumbaya, then they are exceedingly naive, and that is being polite.

They ignore thousands of years of human history where people slaughtered each other with rocks, sticks, bone tools, then eventually progressed to edged metal weapons, then to gunpowder and firearms. Because ignoring all that would mean the real problem isn't weapons, it is that humans like to kill one another and will find any means to do so. And it hard, near impossible, for some to blame human beings. It is a lot easier to blame an inanimate object.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Oh, well. I guess letting anyone or anyone play with guns is really a better idea.

And, why not bombs, flamethrowers, hand grenades, nuclear weapons? After all, prohibiting them isn't working. People still get them, and use them. Just inanimate objects that shouldn't be restricted they're really no different than rocks, sticks, and bone implements. Hell, why not issue an armory to everyone at birth?

[beevul]

12. Of course.

Not that many will admit it.



New Life Church shooting

One message read: "I'm coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the ...teeth and I WILL shoot to kill. ...God, I can't wait till I can kill you people. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don't care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you ... as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world."

At about 1:00 p.m. MST (20:00 UTC), thirty minutes after the 11:00 a.m. service had ended at New Life Church, Murray opened fire in the church parking lot, shooting the Works family and Judy Purcell. Murray then entered the building's main foyer where he shot Larry Bourbonnais, hitting him in the forearm. At this point church member Jeanne Assam, a former Minneapolis police officer, opened fire on Murray with her personally owned concealed weapon. Police say that after suffering multiple hits from Assam's gun, Murray fatally shot himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings

When there is an active shooter on the loose, society sends people with guns to deal with it.

Every single time.

To deny that an armed individual could have killed the attacker sooner, is to ignore what society has decided on as the default response to an active shooter.

[Bazinga]

15. The alternative is what happened.

And what happens in the majority of these instances in gun-free zones. Namely, the shooter gets to keep on shooting until the authorities show up with their guns.

I'm not saying it would prevent or even mediate situations like this. But you'd be hard pressed to find an example where an armed citizen made a mass-shooting worse.

[darkangel218]

19. I tend to agree with that. nt

[Hoyt]

22. Sure you can, if the perpatrator had not been armed, no deaths, no Trayvon Martins, no Dunn

shooting into a car full of kids, no Lanza, Holmes, Loughner, Stawicki, etc.

And, I doubt you kind find a case where someone with a gun stopped the perp in these cases. Heck in most cases -- like Gabby Giffords -- it's some elderly lady who puts her life on the line and grabs the shooter.

Gun fanciers dream about stopping one of these tragedies, but fact is that their gun fancying is a big contributor to these tragedies, directly or indirectly.

[darkangel218]

26. How are you/we going to stop the criminals from obtaining firearms??

[Hoyt]

30. Why do nothing for another decade. We'll just end up with 100 million more gunz to deal with.

In 1996, Australians -- who are probably a lot tougher than most of the "man card" gun fanciers here -- bit the bullet and passed comprehensive/restrictive gun laws. Why can't we, other than the whining of people who care only about themselves and their access to gunz.

[darkangel218]

32. I dont have the answer to that.

I don't want our officials to "do nothing". I want things to change. I want murders and mass shootings to stop.

How can we achive that? I have no idea.

[Hoyt]

34. Make guns taboo. Women need to tell men they don't date guys into gunz. We need to make

society view guns as despicable, anti-social behavior . . . . . . much like incest.

[darkangel218]

36. Hoyt, how are you gping to remove the millions of illegal guns

Who are in criminal hands at the moment?

We cant ask law abiding citizens to give up their when the criminals have them.

[Hoyt]

37. We need to start by turning off the spigot. You need to quit fearing the boogeyman.

[darkangel218]

38. The boogeyman is real.

Hence what happened yesterday.

[Hoyt]

43. If there weren't so many gun fanciers, the gun shop the perp bought the gun at would not be

in business.

If we had waiting periods, it might have made a difference. Unfortunately, gun fanciers can't wait to stroke their next gun, so no waiting periods.

If you and millions more would do what is good for society, it might not have happened.

[spin]

56. Some states do have waiting periods. ...

Florida, where I live, has a three day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun. (I can bypass this requirement as I have a Florida concealed weapons permit.)

Many other states also have waiting periods:

States Imposing Waiting Periods for Purchases of All Firearms
State (Waiting Period)

California (10 days)14
District of Columbia (10 days)15
Hawaii (14 days)16
Illinois (24 hours) (long guns); 72 hours (handguns)17
Rhode Island (7 days)18

States Imposing Waiting Periods for Purchases of Handguns and Assault Weapons
State (Waiting Period)

Minnesota (7 days)19

States Imposing Waiting Periods for Handguns Only
State (Waiting Period)20

Florida (3 days)21
Iowa (3 days)22
Maryland (7 days)23
New Jersey (7 days)24
Wisconsin (48 hours)25
http://smartgunlaws.org/waiting-periods-policy-summary/

[NYC_SKP]

67. By creating a new boogeymen?

You have to admit, that's the gun confiscation strategy, scare people to death, stigmatize all things related to guns, create new boogeymen.

I don't think it will work.

[Hoyt]

68. Nope, I don't think that's true. I think gun fanciers are irrational with respect to what

Last edited Fri Apr 4, 2014, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)

attracts them to guns, toting, self-defense, etc.

[dionysus]

48. with folks like you as the spokeman for such, the effort won't get very far...

[spin]

55. I know a number of women who own firearms and even have concealed carry permits. ...

I even know some women who can out shoot me with a handgun even though I have over 40 years experience target shooting.

I've helped a number of women learn how to shoot handguns. All enjoyed the experience and most proudly took their targets home to show their friends. In my experience a woman is easier to train on firearms as she doesn't have a lot of misconceptions formed by watching far too many unrealistic movies.

Several woman have told me that they found learning how to shoot a firearm oddly liberating and a real confidence builder. These women often went on to get a concealed weapons permit.

More and more women are showing up at firearm ranges. They often bring their female friends.

For the gun industry, women are the next big thing
By Aaron Smith @AaronSmithCNN February 7, 2014: 7:27 AM ET

Guns with slim profiles, pink stocks and glittery grips are aimed at one of the industry's fastest-growing clientele: women.

***snip***

Nearly 80% of gun retailers reported an increase in female customers in 2012, the most recent figures from the NSSF. In Florida, 22% of the concealed carry permits are held by women. In Texas, women hold 28% of concealed carry permits, up sevenfold in the last 10 years.

Tiffany Lakosky, a former flight attendant who hunts professionally on the Outdoor Channel show "Crush with Lee & Tiffany," said she's noticed a big increase in gun-related products for women. She doesn't care about pink guns, but she does appreciate pistols with smaller frames, like her .380-caliber semiautomatic.

***snip***

Butler, who is married to a Marine veteran of Afghanistan and who has a son that is also serving there, said that shooting is a relaxing sport for women who are stressed from balancing the pressures of career and family.

"When you are aiming at your target and you're executing a safe shot, you're not thinking about what's for dinner," she said. "You're not thinking about the problems of the day. You're thinking about what you have to do to hit the target. When you do that, it's just a sense of relaxation, followed by a sense of gratification. I think that every woman should experience that feeling."
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/07/news/companies/guns-women/

Firearms are no longer just "boy toys."

[Hoyt]

65. Very few women demonstrate the same level of affection/obsession with gunz.

Plus, women probably have a lot more reason to tote than men. They seldom use gunz for intimidation or to compensate.

[spin]

88. If you think the average unarmed man can take on a person armed with a handgun and win ...

than I fear you don't understand reality.

It is true that with good training you can disarm a person with a gun if he is dumb enough to get within arm's reach. If he is at ten to fifteen feet away your chances of success drop significantly. If so, the best tactic is to do a judo roll out toward your attacker and come up close enough to him to use the same "tricks" you would at arms length.

My jujitsu instructor was an eight-degree black belt in judo (a red and white belt). He once told our class that a man with a .45 auto is a ninth-degree black belt.

Most individuals who attack others with a knife have little or no training in the art of knife fighting. There is an excellent chance that if you have some good martial arts training you can disarm him but you probably will get cut. If your attacker is an experienced knife fighter you are most likely shit out of luck.

Sorry but reality is a bitch. It is also unfortunate but true that most street criminals who approach you will be armed with a gun or a knife.

That's why the best self defense tactic for anyone to learn is "situational awareness" as the best way to avoid getting hurt or perhaps killed in a fight is to avoid being in one. A simple description of "situational awareness" is that you don't walk down dark streets at night with a cell phone glued to your ear. You are simply alert to your surroundings and observe those around you. With practice you find situational awareness is a lot like a fun game. People are fascinating animals and if you actually pay some attention, you will notice a lot of interesting things that most people will totally miss.

One reason that situational awareness works is that most street criminals are looking for weak members of the herd. The fact that a person practicing situational awareness is alert is often enough to cause a street criminal to wait a few minutes for a less observant target to surprise and overwhelm. Add to that the fact that many people who are legally carrying concealed also practice situational awareness. The last thing a predator wishes to attack is a sheep with fangs. A person doesn't have to be "packing heat" in order to look like he might be.

Admittedly the chances of being attacked on the street are slim. Violent crime in our nation has dropped to levels last seen in the late 1960s which was a fairly safe period in our nation's history. Still bad things can happen to good people and do.

So if your situational awareness fails you or you end up encountering a really stupid street criminal what should you do?

If you are armed and trained you can whip out your legal handgun and shoot him. It that wise?

If all the armed individual wants is your wallet, I personally feel it's best to simply give it to him. Your prime objective should be to survive the incident without being seriously injured or killed. A dead hero is worth far less to his family than a living survivor who some may feel is a coward.

However if you have good reason to suspect that your attacker intends to seriously injure or kill you or if he attacks you after you have given him your wallet, you have little to lose by resisting. You will have a better chance of surviving if you are armed and skilled with your weapon. When your attacker realizes that you have a handgun, he may just decide to run. All's well that ends well.

Of course you will argue that I am afraid to leave my home without a couple of guns strapped to my body as you constantly post here on DU.

If that was true why do I carry a five shot snub nosed revolver? Surely if I was as afraid as you suggest, I would carry a 9mm or .45 ACP pistol that holds far more rounds and I would have a couple of magazines on my belt for quick reloads.

The fact is that I realize that the chances of ever having a legitimate reason to use my handgun in self defense are extremely small. Still I have the training and skill to use my handgun and I prefer to be prepared as possible for whatever shit life may throw at me.

My mother lived to the ripe old age of 89. Once in the 1920 time frame a man who had been hiding behind some bushes rushed her as she was walking home from work one night. She drew the tiny revolver she had in her purse and fired two shots over his head. He ran. She was an excellent shot but and could have hit her attacker but realistically the .22 caliber rounds in her M-frame S&W LadySmith revolver might not have stopped her attacker but simply pissed him off.

My mother was smart enough to realize that carrying a handgun was a good idea and perhaps I can thank that revolver for the fact that I am here today.

In passing I will mention that my mother kept the revolver and a few rounds as a memento hidden in a drawer in my parent's bedroom. Of course I found it. I used to load it and play with it when my parents had left the house. Fortunately my father anticipated this and had removed the firing pin making the revolver harmless.

[HockeyMom]

78. Not this woman

married to a life NRA member 40 years with multiple guns. Learn how to shoot and you will like it? Actually, I did until I realized that I HATED IT and was only doing it to please HIM, not me. Over the years, my feelings on this issue have only increased.

He can certainly have HIS 2nd Amendment rights, but he has to keep his rights to himself and away from me. Guns are in a 700 lb. combination safe, bolted to the floor. I do not want to know the combination to it. I will not go anywhere with him if he is carrying.

Compromise. He goes his way with his guns, and I go my way without them.

[spin]

82. Oddly enough when I was typing that post I thought of you as an exception to the rule. ...

Actually I am quite surprised that you admitted you enjoyed shooting until you realized you didn't.

Learn how to shoot and you will like it? Actually, I did until I realized that I HATED IT and was only doing it to please HIM, not me. Over the years, my feelings on this issue have only increased.

[HockeyMom]

92. Never said I enjoyed it

Said it DID it, but was not happy about it. I finally realized I was only doing it please him. That was 40 years as a Newlywed. You cannot do something that you don't like doing just to please another person. I don't enjoy Golf either, so I don't play it. You don't become a clone of somebody else with a wedding ring. Each person in a marriage still needs their own identity apart from their spouse. As I said, compromise.

Thanks, though, for thinking of me.

[spin]

93. I agree that you never said you enjoyed it but you did say you liked it. ...

Once again from your post:

Learn how to shoot and you will like it? Actually, I did until I realized that I HATED IT and was only doing it to please HIM, not me. Over the years, my feelings on this issue have only increased.

We can quibble over the difference between "like" and "enjoy" but I do understand that you changed your opinion once you realized that you were liking the shooting experience to please your husband.

Obviously you are a very independent person. I do wish to congratulate you for the fact that your marriage has lasted so long. Few marriages today last 20 or 30 years. Obviously since you are so independent, you must find some redeeming virtues in your husband and he must find some in you.

I truly admire your dedication to each other despite your differences. Perhaps the differences helped to keep your marriage interesting and worthwhile.

[yeoman6987]

53. The situation is that we have it in our Constitution

Does Australia have it in their constitution? I am not sure. The Right to Bear Arms is old as the hills and not going anywhere soon.

[Hoyt]

54. And even the most right wing Justice said restrictions are fine.

Keep a gun in your house, maybe two. But Jeez, how many do people need and why should they walk around in public with them?

In most states, people can't legally carry a sword or big knife. Yet, just about any yahoo can carry a gun, even a member of the KKK. That ain't right, and no reasonable interpretation of the militia clause prohibits tough restrictions. Justice Stevens got it right in Heller. Need one more reasonable judge on the Court.

[Ilsa]

35. So where would a potential victim be keeping their firearm?

Glove box? Purse? Not every one can carry a weapon on their person at work. How long to retrieve the weapon? What is the likelihood of getting shot while trying to get to a weapon?

I ask this because I'm a former gun owner who could not access her weapon in time to protect herself. Owning a weapon doesn't necessarily mean shit. And it doesn't mean that you won't be mistaken as the shooter when the police show up, or accidentally shoot the wrong person.

Maybe arming everyone would help. But for some reason, decades ago, we started asking people not to carry firearms everywhere. There must have been a good reason why.

[Bazinga]

58. You're exactly right

As the saying goes, when seconds count...

A gun in the glove box of the car in the parking lot is probably about as much help as the SWAT team 10 minutes away. Plus, if you were able to get out and get to your car, why would you go back in?!!

It seems pretty apparent that the faster armed resistance arrives, the faster active shooter situations end. It also seems apparent that victims are mostly at the mercy of the shooter until that happens. Again, I'm not saying armed citizens would stop an attack, but why shouldn't they be able to fight back as effectively as possible? Especially if they can't make the situation any worse.

You said owning a weapon doesn't necessity mean anything, or as one of my favorite sayings goes, owning a gun makes you armed about as much as owning a guitar makes you a musician.

[Hoyt]

20. In total, we have more deaths/injuries, cases of intimidation, stolen gunz, accidents, etc.

The military leadership is smart enough to restrict gunz on base. They know it ain't safe to have a bunch of folks into guns and such walking around armed when not in a war zone.

[darkangel218]

21. I dont know, Hoyt.

I know your heart is in a good place, but the fact of the matter is that it was an armed MP who finally stopped this asshole from killing and injuring even more.

[Hoyt]

27. You got it, it wasn't an gun free zone and it wasn't some yahoo playing cowboy that stopped it.

It was an MP.

Last thing I would want in a situation like this is a bunch of cowboys living out their dream of pulling their gun and saving the day. Worse would probably be a bunch of armed soldiers trained to lay down a barrage in a war zone where collateral damage is not usually the main concern.

[northoftheborder]

29. I heard there can be no concealed carry on the base.

[darkangel218]

33. You are corect.

It's a gun free zone.

[Hoyt]

40. No, it is not a gun free zone. There are guards, MPs, and hundreds of men who can take down a perp.

Last edited Thu Apr 3, 2014, 10:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Heck, an unarmed elderly lady stopped Loughner.

[darkangel218]

41. It was an MP who stopped the perpetrator yesterday.

[Hoyt]

45. Yes. And, thank god, a bunch of gun toting soldiers trained to lay down a barrage didn't open fire.

An MP handled the situation. A bunch of cowboys would likely have made it worse. In fact, people would not have known who the bad guy with a gun was. They'd be shooting each other, thinking they were heroes. You gun guys really have a distorted view of these things.

You guys really believe, you'd assess the situation correctly, coolly pull your weapon before the first innocent person was killed, squeeze off a shot while not endangering others, and smoke a cigarette afterwards as you bask in the country's gratitude, awaiting Obama's congratulatory call to say express our thanks.

[beevul]

62. A place where only "police" have guns on them, is by definition a gun free zone.

Just like a school or a theater with a sign saying no guns.

You didn't really think this through did you.

[Hoyt]

64. Probably more guns per square mile than most places, don't you think?

[beevul]

74. Only in the armory. One single isolated building, under guard.

Outside that building, no guns unless you are "police".

Yep.

Gun free zone.

[Paladin]

75. More guns is always the answer from you Gun Enthusiasts, isn't it?

Some of you get huffy when that accusation is made, but it's the truth.

[beevul]

76. Take it up with society.

The one we live in.

The one which has decided, as the default response to an active shooter, to send people with guns to intervene.




On edit: Paladin, you're entirely free to show the courage of your convictions, by stating absolutely and unequivocally that if you had been at FT. Hood when this shooting was going on, that you'd prefer to be unarmed.

[Hoyt]

84. Ha. Ft Hood shooting appears to have been created by a gun toter who got mad.

Another fine gun toter right up until he used his gun for the reason it was manufactured, to shoot people.

[beevul]

90. Asserted without any evidence what so ever.

For all you know, he could have been a card carrying member of the brady bunch or any of the other anti-gun groups.


And in turn, properly dismissed without any evidence what so ever.

[Hoyt]

91. Nope, investigators and post commander said it was an argument that escalated. Gun fancier pulled

his gun, and innocent folks died.

[beevul]

98. They said nothing about the shooters politics.

Nice try.

And not a word about the fact that society has decided that the default response to an active shooter is to send people with guns.

Theres no way around the fact that doing such a thing introduces more guns to the situation.

[Hoyt]

101. Neither did my post. A gun toter pulling his gun (apparently got it out car) to shoot people

is not necessarily political.

Point being, even Democrats can use gunz for intimidation. Of course, the vast majority of gun fanciers today are clearly right wingers.

[Paladin]

86. I'd opt for that unarmed status, rather than the universal armed camp you lot are after.

The cultivation, support and appreciation of "gun free zones" is a hallmark of an advanced, enlightened society. The pro-gun movement seeks to take us backward into savagery, as if that's a good thing. You can be a gun owner and still be on the proper side of this divide; I offer myself as proof of that.....

[beevul]

89. Of course you would.

"I'd opt for that unarmed status, rather than the universal armed camp you lot are after."

I'm not after anything, except an admission from you that you yourself, would prefer to be unarmed as opposed to armed when facing an active shooter.

Moving the goalposts to "as opposed to <insert scary strawman here>, just doesn't cut it.

And there you have it:


Being unarmed in the face of an active shooter is "the proper side of this divide", while being armed in the face of an active shooter is "backward savagery".

Proof of something, alright...

[Paladin]

97. And you're accusing ME of moving the goalposts? Not even a good try on your part. (nt)

[beevul]

99. Those goalposts you refer to...restated for your benefit.

"show the courage of your convictions, by stating absolutely and unequivocally that if you had been at FT. Hood when this shooting was going on, that you'd prefer to be unarmed."

I said that.

You haven't done that.


What do "absolutely" and "unequivocally" mean in your dictionary, eh?

[Paladin]

100. You got one thing right: YOU said that, not me.

Tell you what: I believe we've lived down to one another's expectations enough for one day. Feel free to proclaim yourself the winner in this one---if there's one thing I've absolutely, unequivocally gotten used to here at DU, it's Gun Enthusiasts claiming empty victories.....

[sarisataka]

39. Hypothetically yes, but...

I assume you are speaking of allowing personal firearms on base.
IME private firearms ownership runs higher than the U.S. average- maybe 60% or so. Not all of those own handguns, which would be the only practical carry. Also CCW is not more common than in the civilian world, possibly even lower rates. Than may be because since military cannot carry on base fewer choose to get CCW licenses and if base carry were allowed the number would be higher.

As for stopping a mass shooting, on the plus side is a high level of training can be expected among military members, though most do not train routinely on pistols. The psychological preparation for engaging a shooter is definitely higher than among civilians.
On the negative side is that would a carrier be in the location to counter the shooter? Also I would expect most would not immediately go to deadly force if facing a person they know and work with on a daily basis. The first thought would be to talk the shooter down.

In the end, it is impossible to conclusively state the situation would have been better or worse. All we know is what the result was and to try and learn from it.

[darkangel218]

42. So true.

+1

[rppper]

49. The reason bases are a weapon free zone...

Was explained to me by a navy gunners mate/guns chief range master in boot camp...
A) all privately owned guns and ammo will be turned over to the base armory upon arrival to the base and picked back up only upon departure. You are allowed to shoot private weapons on a firing range under a range asters supervision as far as I know.

No weapons on base prevents some pissed off hot headed private/seaman/airman from killing his sgt/chief/LPO/division officer when said victim made him do something he didn't want to do....or maybe the kids wife left him and the supervisor rubbed him the wrong way....or any reason....everyone who is or ever served knows this....they don't want their officers and senior enlisted getting killed by a hot head/PTSD victim/drunk/depressed/etc/etc....servicembers. That's why shootings like this and the Norfolk base shooting last week make huge news. Navy bases have armed gate guards, shore patrol(Navy MPs) and topside watches on each sub and ship...all armed...and it still happened. If a human being has an overwhelming desire to kill, there is little you can do to stop it once it's set into motion.

[elleng]

51. No

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. No....

there is a reason the Brass do not want everyone walking around "strapped" on bases...sheesh!

[KamaAina]

59. Probably not.

An armed MP responded within four minutes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024776524

[Skip Intro]

66. Yes. n/t

[AverageJoe90]

69. TBH, it's not a sure thing.

I suppose it's possible, yes. But it's not for sure, either: what if a soldier couldn't react in time, or missed and accidentally hit someone else? Just something to consider, TBH.

[Blue_Tires]

73. There's always an exception to the rule

In Norfolk a half-crazed civilian contractor drove up on the base (he had a legal pass), snatched a gun from the MP and started shooting...

[liberal N proud]

79. It was a military base

[obnoxiousdrunk]

80. No.

[Agnosticsherbet]

81. Could the attack have been stopped sooner if he didn't sneak an illegal weapon onto the military

base?

[Skip Intro]

85. If criminals obeyed laws there'd be no murder, rape, robbery... The "gun-free zone" failed

because criminals don't give a **** about laws.

[lostincalifornia]

104. The police and mps have guns on the base. The security procedures obviously were lax, and he was

Allowed in with a weapon, which should not have happened.

There is a reason they do not allow all people on a base with weapons, except for the selected police. They also do not allow the public to bring weapons into congress or the White House, or other places such as stadiums, or airports, because it increases the odds of a far worse disaster.

Just look at the hate infestation from the tea party, and hate radio. I think it is pretty obvious one does not want just anyone to have a lethal weapon everywhere

[Bazinga]

114. All of the places that you mentioned have a way of enforcing their gun-free policies.

Namely, metal detectors and checkpoints. This makes them much different than, say, a university. I agree with you that if the policy is to deny access to arms, it must be enforced meticulously for everyone. I have always felt, however, that the safety of each individual under that policy then becomes the responsibility of the person/people who instated the policy. Thus, in some manner Ft Hood should be held liable for failure to protect those killed and injured.

Also, the idea that an armed responder increases the odds of a worse disaster is presented as common sense. Yet there is no evidence of that actually occurring. I may be wrong, but I don't know of any mass shootings where an innocent bystander was shot by an armed victim. In fact, citizens tend to do better in this department than police.

[closeupready]

94. Trashing thread.

[darkangel218]

96. Have a nice day!

[lostincalifornia]

102. First of all the army police are armed, so the answer is no. He brought the weapons illegally on

The base. Maybe if they searched people more carefully it might have been prevented.

There is a reason that only a few people are allowed to have weapons on an Army base.

This was Texas and the weapons were obtained from a state that does not have background checks or waiting periods

[oneshooter]

110. Texas does have background checks.

ANYONE who purchases a firearm from a FFL dealer in ALL FIFTY STATES is REQUIRED by FEDERAL LAW to be background checked.

[lostincalifornia]

111. There is no waiting period in Texas, and the checks that can be done are limited. Also, the state

has no law for background checks, the federal government does. Federal law provides states with the option of serving as a state “point of contact” and conducting their own background checks using state, as well as federal, records and databases.

[oneshooter]

115. I never said that there was a waiting period in Texas.

And the Federal checks are all that is required. I have a Texas CHL, and as such My background has been checked by both Fed abd state. With my Texas CHL there is no call in to NICS. Just the license number noted on the form.
There is NO sign that the fellow could not pass both a fed and state background check.

[lostincalifornia]

116. I know you didn't. The individual had PSTD. No evidence one way or another if that would raise a

Flag, so you are correct about background checks, and original response to some of my misinformation

[watchingoveryou]

103. Well yeah

"Could have an armed civilian or military person stopped the attacker sooner, before he killed and injured so many people?"


Well of course

What kind of question is this?



I don't mean to laugh but if a few people had guns on them of course they could have stopped him sooner.

Even if it was just to disable his vehicle or make him take cover in a volley of fire.

[lostincalifornia]

105. Maybe, maybe not. However, perhaps a more enforced security checkpoint could have caught this

Before it happened.

If we are going to talk hypotheticals perhaps more people would have been injured or killed if others had a weapon in the confusion or possible panic

[watchingoveryou]

106. I answered the question of the OP

I think giving the circumstances and the time line of the mass shooting I answered correctly.

Having a bunch of people armed in all cases during mass shootings I can agree with your assessment . In this case
it could have stopped more people being shot or at least it could have pin him down behind his vehicle until back up arrived.

[lostincalifornia]

108. I know you were addressing the OP. I just was adding my comments to your sub thread

[watchingoveryou]

109. I didn't mean to come off as it sounded

It was not my intention as I reread my post .

[lostincalifornia]

112. you dent. welcome to DU

[U4ikLefty]

107. just wondering...indeed

[darkangel218]

113. What is that supposed to mean?