General Discussion

sarisataka

(22,700 posts)

39. Hypothetically yes, but...

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 04:43 PM

Apr 2014

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.

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:

Could have those deaths/injuries been prevented if firearms were allowed on the base? [View all] darkangel218 Apr 2014 OP

Hmmm, maybe if he was on open ground with lots of armed people walking around. louis-t Apr 2014 #1

or. . . . jehop61 Apr 2014 #2

Entirely possible. darkangel218 Apr 2014 #8

You think soldiers would just shoot randomly? oldhippie Apr 2014 #50

panic does strange things jehop61 Apr 2014 #57

Projection oldhippie Apr 2014 #61

Soldiers, where the phrase "shoot them all and let god sort them out" originated. A Simple Game Apr 2014 #70

I also have LOTS of years in the military - I would not consider myself DrDan Apr 2014 #71

derp Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #83

Really? lunatica Apr 2014 #3

Really? darkangel218 Apr 2014 #5

It's flame bait. lunatica Apr 2014 #7

No, your accusations are. darkangel218 Apr 2014 #9

Calling another poster a liar is a personal insult. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2014 #31

Actually I said he was posting flame bait lunatica Apr 2014 #72

And he directly stated that this is not the case. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2014 #77

I see your point lunatica Apr 2014 #87

Could those deaths/injuries have been prevented if nobody had firearms anywhere? Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2014 #4

Absolutely. darkangel218 Apr 2014 #6

Remove the guns from all. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2014 #10

Im all for registration. darkangel218 Apr 2014 #11

Take them off the market and make it a felony to have one. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2014 #13

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

You mean like in Mexico? wall_dish Apr 2014 #17

Or, Japan, Germany, the UK? Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2014 #23

In Mexico, ordinary folk do not have guns, thankfully. Starboard Tack Apr 2014 #60

Perheps. darkangel218 Apr 2014 #18

I don't see it happening for a very long time. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2014 #24

It's not "doable" regardless of politicians OR the gun lobby. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2014 #25

Tsk. Tsk. Common Sense Party Apr 2014 #44

Wow, damn!! darkangel218 Apr 2014 #46

You're upsetting people. Common Sense Party Apr 2014 #47

Yes, Alcohol and Drug Prohibtion have worked so well... MicaelS Apr 2014 #28

Oh, well. I guess letting anyone or anyone play with guns is really a better idea. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2014 #63

Of course. beevul Apr 2014 #12

The alternative is what happened. Bazinga Apr 2014 #15

I tend to agree with that. nt darkangel218 Apr 2014 #19

Sure you can, if the perpatrator had not been armed, no deaths, no Trayvon Martins, no Dunn Hoyt Apr 2014 #22

How are you/we going to stop the criminals from obtaining firearms?? darkangel218 Apr 2014 #26

Why do nothing for another decade. We'll just end up with 100 million more gunz to deal with. Hoyt Apr 2014 #30

I dont have the answer to that. darkangel218 Apr 2014 #32

Make guns taboo. Women need to tell men they don't date guys into gunz. We need to make Hoyt Apr 2014 #34

Hoyt, how are you gping to remove the millions of illegal guns darkangel218 Apr 2014 #36

We need to start by turning off the spigot. You need to quit fearing the boogeyman. Hoyt Apr 2014 #37

The boogeyman is real. darkangel218 Apr 2014 #38

If there weren't so many gun fanciers, the gun shop the perp bought the gun at would not be Hoyt Apr 2014 #43

Some states do have waiting periods. ... spin Apr 2014 #56

By creating a new boogeymen? NYC_SKP Apr 2014 #67

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

Very few women demonstrate the same level of affection/obsession with gunz. Hoyt Apr 2014 #65

If you think the average unarmed man can take on a person armed with a handgun and win ... spin Apr 2014 #88

Not this woman HockeyMom Apr 2014 #78

Oddly enough when I was typing that post I thought of you as an exception to the rule. ... spin Apr 2014 #82

Never said I enjoyed it HockeyMom Apr 2014 #92

I agree that you never said you enjoyed it but you did say you liked it. ... spin Apr 2014 #93

The situation is that we have it in our Constitution yeoman6987 Apr 2014 #53

And even the most right wing Justice said restrictions are fine. Hoyt Apr 2014 #54

So where would a potential victim be keeping their firearm? Ilsa Apr 2014 #35

You're exactly right Bazinga Apr 2014 #58

In total, we have more deaths/injuries, cases of intimidation, stolen gunz, accidents, etc. Hoyt Apr 2014 #20

I dont know, Hoyt. darkangel218 Apr 2014 #21

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

I heard there can be no concealed carry on the base. northoftheborder Apr 2014 #29

You are corect. darkangel218 Apr 2014 #33

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

It was an MP who stopped the perpetrator yesterday. darkangel218 Apr 2014 #41

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

Probably more guns per square mile than most places, don't you think? Hoyt Apr 2014 #64

Only in the armory. One single isolated building, under guard. beevul Apr 2014 #74

More guns is always the answer from you Gun Enthusiasts, isn't it? Paladin Apr 2014 #75

Take it up with society. beevul Apr 2014 #76

Ha. Ft Hood shooting appears to have been created by a gun toter who got mad. Hoyt Apr 2014 #84

Asserted without any evidence what so ever. beevul Apr 2014 #90

Nope, investigators and post commander said it was an argument that escalated. Gun fancier pulled Hoyt Apr 2014 #91

They said nothing about the shooters politics. beevul Apr 2014 #98

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

Of course you would. beevul Apr 2014 #89

And you're accusing ME of moving the goalposts? Not even a good try on your part. (nt) Paladin Apr 2014 #97

Those goalposts you refer to...restated for your benefit. beevul Apr 2014 #99

You got one thing right: YOU said that, not me. Paladin Apr 2014 #100

Hypothetically yes, but... sarisataka Apr 2014 #39

So true. darkangel218 Apr 2014 #42

The reason bases are a weapon free zone... rppper Apr 2014 #49

No elleng Apr 2014 #51

No.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #52

Probably not. KamaAina Apr 2014 #59

Yes. n/t Skip Intro Apr 2014 #66

TBH, it's not a sure thing. AverageJoe90 Apr 2014 #69

There's always an exception to the rule Blue_Tires Apr 2014 #73

It was a military base liberal N proud Apr 2014 #79

No. obnoxiousdrunk Apr 2014 #80

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

Trashing thread. closeupready Apr 2014 #94

This message was self-deleted by its author darkangel218 Apr 2014 #95

Have a nice day! darkangel218 Apr 2014 #96

First of all the army police are armed, so the answer is no. He brought the weapons illegally on lostincalifornia Apr 2014 #102

Texas does have background checks. oneshooter Apr 2014 #110

There is no waiting period in Texas, and the checks that can be done are limited. Also, the state lostincalifornia Apr 2014 #111

I never said that there was a waiting period in Texas. oneshooter Apr 2014 #115

I know you didn't. The individual had PSTD. No evidence one way or another if that would raise a lostincalifornia Apr 2014 #116

Well yeah watchingoveryou Apr 2014 #103

Maybe, maybe not. However, perhaps a more enforced security checkpoint could have caught this lostincalifornia Apr 2014 #105

I answered the question of the OP watchingoveryou Apr 2014 #106

I know you were addressing the OP. I just was adding my comments to your sub thread lostincalifornia Apr 2014 #108

I didn't mean to come off as it sounded watchingoveryou Apr 2014 #109

you dent. welcome to DU lostincalifornia Apr 2014 #112

just wondering...indeed U4ikLefty Apr 2014 #107

What is that supposed to mean? darkangel218 Apr 2014 #113