Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Could have those deaths/injuries been prevented if firearms were allowed on the base? [View all]Ilsa
(64,377 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
116 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Could have those deaths/injuries been prevented if firearms were allowed on the base? [View all]
darkangel218
Apr 2014
OP
Soldiers, where the phrase "shoot them all and let god sort them out" originated.
A Simple Game
Apr 2014
#70
Could those deaths/injuries have been prevented if nobody had firearms anywhere?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Apr 2014
#4
They will purchase them off the black market, just like they purchase heroin
darkangel218
Apr 2014
#14
Why not? It's not "doable" because the politicians are afraid of the gun lobby.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Apr 2014
#16
Oh, well. I guess letting anyone or anyone play with guns is really a better idea.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Apr 2014
#63
Sure you can, if the perpatrator had not been armed, no deaths, no Trayvon Martins, no Dunn
Hoyt
Apr 2014
#22
Why do nothing for another decade. We'll just end up with 100 million more gunz to deal with.
Hoyt
Apr 2014
#30
Make guns taboo. Women need to tell men they don't date guys into gunz. We need to make
Hoyt
Apr 2014
#34
We need to start by turning off the spigot. You need to quit fearing the boogeyman.
Hoyt
Apr 2014
#37
If there weren't so many gun fanciers, the gun shop the perp bought the gun at would not be
Hoyt
Apr 2014
#43
Nope, I don't think that's true. I think gun fanciers are irrational with respect to what
Hoyt
Apr 2014
#68
with folks like you as the spokeman for such, the effort won't get very far...
dionysus
Apr 2014
#48
I know a number of women who own firearms and even have concealed carry permits. ...
spin
Apr 2014
#55
If you think the average unarmed man can take on a person armed with a handgun and win ...
spin
Apr 2014
#88
Oddly enough when I was typing that post I thought of you as an exception to the rule. ...
spin
Apr 2014
#82
In total, we have more deaths/injuries, cases of intimidation, stolen gunz, accidents, etc.
Hoyt
Apr 2014
#20
You got it, it wasn't an gun free zone and it wasn't some yahoo playing cowboy that stopped it.
Hoyt
Apr 2014
#27
No, it is not a gun free zone. There are guards, MPs, and hundreds of men who can take down a perp.
Hoyt
Apr 2014
#40
Yes. And, thank god, a bunch of gun toting soldiers trained to lay down a barrage didn't open fire.
Hoyt
Apr 2014
#45
A place where only "police" have guns on them, is by definition a gun free zone.
beevul
Apr 2014
#62
Nope, investigators and post commander said it was an argument that escalated. Gun fancier pulled
Hoyt
Apr 2014
#91
Neither did my post. A gun toter pulling his gun (apparently got it out car) to shoot people
Hoyt
Apr 2014
#101
I'd opt for that unarmed status, rather than the universal armed camp you lot are after.
Paladin
Apr 2014
#86
And you're accusing ME of moving the goalposts? Not even a good try on your part. (nt)
Paladin
Apr 2014
#97
Could the attack have been stopped sooner if he didn't sneak an illegal weapon onto the military
Agnosticsherbet
Apr 2014
#81
If criminals obeyed laws there'd be no murder, rape, robbery... The "gun-free zone" failed
Skip Intro
Apr 2014
#85
The police and mps have guns on the base. The security procedures obviously were lax, and he was
lostincalifornia
Apr 2014
#104
All of the places that you mentioned have a way of enforcing their gun-free policies.
Bazinga
Apr 2014
#114
First of all the army police are armed, so the answer is no. He brought the weapons illegally on
lostincalifornia
Apr 2014
#102
There is no waiting period in Texas, and the checks that can be done are limited. Also, the state
lostincalifornia
Apr 2014
#111
I know you didn't. The individual had PSTD. No evidence one way or another if that would raise a
lostincalifornia
Apr 2014
#116
Maybe, maybe not. However, perhaps a more enforced security checkpoint could have caught this
lostincalifornia
Apr 2014
#105
I know you were addressing the OP. I just was adding my comments to your sub thread
lostincalifornia
Apr 2014
#108