In the other thread I posted that I disagreed that they should be able to carry on base. I essentially argued that in a crowd of 100 armed soldiers if one of them opens fire you will immediately have 100 armed soldiers looking for the "guy who fired the shot" and it will be bad. It's much safer to have a "healthy sprinkling" of people carrying than to have every single one carry, particularly in crowds. Anyways, I keep going back and forth about it. I suppose at the end of the day, I would rather have more people with guns than less.
No, the guy next to the nutjob will take him down pretty fast. Otherwise, how is it superior to have one man killing 100 defenseless people than one man killing or almost killing one person, and 99 armed people drawing down on him?
I went to the famous Jim Pruetts Guns and Ammo this weekend, they said strangely since the Fort Hood shooting they have sold six or so FN FiveSevens suddenly, based on the infamous coverage of the incident
No, the guy next to the nutjob will take him down pretty fast. Otherwise, how is it superior to have one man killing 100 defenseless people than one man killing or almost killing one person, and 99 armed people drawing down on him?
I think you're missing the point. In a large crowd with 100 people drawing their weapon it will be nearly impossible to tell which is the "bad guy" If you just turned around, how do you know which is the original shooter and which is trying to take the original shooter down? All you see is someone shooting someone else. This will cause a situation with a lot of friendly/cross fire. Shootings like these are very confusing, even for the well trained like our military. If you recall, they originally thought there were 3 shooters in Texas. If everyone was carrying I bet there would have been more than 3 shooters.
The main deciding point I guess is population density. If people are really close together in a huge crowd (like at a concert) then a lot of guns is bad. If they're fairly spread out, like in an office setting, then it's probably the more the merrier.
Edited to say: Anyways probably allowing CC for the military personnel on base isn't bad. Requiring carry is probably bad (for the reason stated above) and that was suggested quite a bit in the other thread.
I feel that the US military should adapt what Israels Military. All soldiers are issued a firearm and you take it ever place you go.
__________________
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
-Albert Einstein
I think you're missing the point. In a large crowd with 100 people drawing their weapon it will be nearly impossible to tell which is the "bad guy" If you just turned around, how do you know which is the original shooter and which is trying to take the original shooter down? All you see is someone shooting someone else. This will cause a situation with a lot of friendly/cross fire. Shootings like these are very confusing, even for the well trained like our military. If you recall, they originally thought there were 3 shooters in Texas. If everyone was carrying I bet there would have been more than 3 shooters.
The main deciding point I guess is population density. If people are really close together in a huge crowd (like at a concert) then a lot of guns is bad. If they're fairly spread out, like in an office setting, then it's probably the more the merrier.
Edited to say: Anyways probably allowing CC for the military personnel on base isn't bad. Requiring carry is probably bad (for the reason stated above) and that was suggested quite a bit in the other thread.
You're making the assumption that every single person in a formation will be carrying and that we're all blood thirsty idiots who will draw and open fire at the first shot heard. That is exactly the same argument that I have heard and argued against with many anti-carry and anti-gun personnel. Just my view on what you're saying. In the case of the military, training should be, and would be required. First of all would be the pistol qualification course, to ensure that you can hit what you're aiming at. Secondly something about the use of deadly force and ethical decision making. Lastly, explanation of the fact that the weapon is for self defense and there are military policemen and women for a reason: the weapon is not so all members of the military can play Rambo, assault the building and save the day. It's so the military member can defend his or herself and get out of or contain the situation so it does not spill any further.
I think you're missing the point. In a large crowd with 100 people drawing their weapon it will be nearly impossible to tell which is the "bad guy" If you just turned around, how do you know which is the original shooter and which is trying to take the original shooter down? All you see is someone shooting someone else. This will cause a situation with a lot of friendly/cross fire. Shootings like these are very confusing, even for the well trained like our military. If you recall, they originally thought there were 3 shooters in Texas. If everyone was carrying I bet there would have been more than 3 shooters.
The main deciding point I guess is population density. If people are really close together in a huge crowd (like at a concert) then a lot of guns is bad. If they're fairly spread out, like in an office setting, then it's probably the more the merrier.
Edited to say: Anyways probably allowing CC for the military personnel on base isn't bad. Requiring carry is probably bad (for the reason stated above) and that was suggested quite a bit in the other thread.
Every situation is dynamic. Gunshots make a lot of noise. Even a suppressed self-cycling weapon will be quite audible closeby. You're assuming that everyone will stay in position neatly, and just look around calmly, sort of like a crowd who is confused.
Even in the military, there's going to be a mass exodus and at least a quasi-panic. Someone is shooting at you, anyone is going to go into immediate adrenaline mode. Even if not, what happens when someone pops a balloon in a room full of people? Everyone immediately looks at them, do they not?
At the very least, people are going to leave who can, the rest will immediately drop to the ground. If you're a Hasan type person, you're going to be one of the few people left standing. Otherwise, what was the point? You might as well have set a remote-detonated bomb if you're the shooter and just drop along with everyone else.
You're making an incorrect assumption that mass shooters want to get away. They don't. They're not doing it because of that. They're doing it for the "glory." Hasan did it to honor his god or whatever bullshit reason he has. He probably expected to die at some point... he wouldn't have given away all his possessions otherwise. You don't become a martyr by being arrested and executed by the law; nor do you become a martyr by escaping and becoming a fugitive. The only way to become a "martyr" in Hasan's belief system is to die like a suicide bomber dies. It was his "bad" luck that he was shot, but did not die.
Otherwise, if he wasn't looking for martyrdom, he'd do what just about every other mass killer does, he'd have killed himself upon the first sign of resistance.
Rodriguez down here in Orlando is probably the exception, but he was just messed up in general. He was looking for some sort of revenge more than some weird notion of glory and power (like Cho at Virginia Tech, or Dylan/Kiebold @ Columbine).
I just have to continue to challenge your notion that somehow it is superior for dozens of defenseless people to be cut down than it is for one or two people to be attacked before the attacker is quickly eliminated.
Or let's put it this way. Would you walk into a police station and start shooting? Why not? Why don't Palestinian terrorists go into Israel with a AK-47 and just start firing? Why do they always use suicide bombers?
I was in the military (1981 - 90) before Clinton was elected and we were not allowed to carry firearms on base. So I don't think it was Clinton that initiated the bad policy. He may have been part of some extension or formalizing of the policy, but it didn't start with his administration.
Why More Guns Wouldn’t Have Prevented Fort Hood
Basically he attempts to make the case that if the soldiers Hasan killed were armed, Hasan would have picked someone else to kill. I think what he makes the case for is more concealed carry. If a good portion of people carried, the "killers amongst us" won't know where to find "softer targets".
A valid point. If someone is on a mission to take lives, they certainly will stick to places that are target-rich and where they will not come up against much resistance. This is why I am torn about open carry. If they see resistance, they will go somewhere else to do it, and yes, they will do it. I love the concealed carry platform much better.
__________________
These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.
Time after time, public murder sprees occur in "gun-free zones" -- public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The list is long, including massacres at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School along with many less deadly attacks. Last week's slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different -- except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and... [Washington Times, Editorial, via gunpolicy.org ]
Linear Mode
