• NRA: Rule prohibiting military men from carrying guns on military installations is "outrageous"; urg
    70 replies, posted
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;48261918]Do they not have full-time armed guards to watch over the bases for these situations? If not, it's terribly short sighted to have a military this well-funded, and not have anyone actively guarding them on their own base.[/QUOTE] Yah they do. Recruiting centers aren't considered base though.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48261645]We have 1.3 million active duty soldiers. All of whom are already being paid. If we can't find gate guards, then our military is worthless. As for the recruitment centers, just issue them an M9 and call it a day. If they can't be trusted with a pistol, then fire them. How fucking hard does this need to be?[/QUOTE] To be fair, this is for home soil. Americans attacking an American base in America was (and still is to a point) a crazy idea. [editline]21st July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;48261425]Perhaps the people with problems should be specifically banned from having weapons. Are these people being deployed? [/QUOTE] I feel as if that'll just open up a whole other can of worms "Hey, where's your firearm?" "Not allowed to have one, apparently I'm a tad messed up in the head" "Oh well...I hope I'm not with you on deployment"
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48262520]To be fair, this is for home soil. Americans attacking an American base in America was (and still is to a point) a crazy idea. [editline]21st July 2015[/editline] I feel as if that'll just open up a whole other can of worms "Hey, where's your firearm?" "Not allowed to have one, apparently I'm a tad messed up in the head" "Oh well...I hope I'm not with you on deployment"[/QUOTE] These things already happen. Mental Health providers can make recommendations for sailors , marines etc. to not be allowed access to firearms. Usually line commanders have no problems following these recommendations and if someone is not allowed access to firearms they probably won't deploy with their unit.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48263247]These things already happen. Mental Health providers can make recommendations for sailors , marines etc. to not be allowed access to firearms. Usually line commanders have no problems following these recommendations and if someone is not allowed access to firearms they probably won't deploy with their unit.[/QUOTE] Ouch, the whole unit won't get deployed due to just one person?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48261746]I don't think you realize how many people it takes to maintain the United States Military. It might be easy to see looking from the outside in but I'll tell you there is so much more to it than just 'giving someone an M9 or assigning active duty to permanent gate duty' there's so many logistical arrangements such as healthcare, billet creation, funding, purchasing, housing, training, CONSTANTLY rotating people every few years and starting all over again. Shit will make your head spin. The bottom line is that we don't have the people to cover 100% of 'shit that needs to get done' that's why we hire contractors and civilian employees to support the force (saves money too).[/QUOTE] There's a saying out there where for every active military member, there's at least 2 behind a desk.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48263892]Ouch, the whole unit won't get deployed due to just one person?[/QUOTE] No the individual won't deploy with their unit, mental health issues where you can't use your weapon are operationally disqualifying until treated.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48261350]No, the military is plenty armed, he's arguing that the NRA solution of throwing more guns to the mix is stupid. Allow the military to post MPs at recruitment centers instead, they're actually trained to deal with this stuff and it doesn't involve massive policy shifts in the military[/QUOTE] The military is plenty armed, which is why recruiters can not carry, and must hide to save their life in the event of a shooting.. They are not plenty armed, service members can't just carry on base or at recruiting stations etc. They don't have the option to conceal carry. They need to have that option.
Recruiters aren't armed because shooting recruiters is an extremely unlikely event to happen. Just because it did happen this one time does not mean hindsight was 20/20 and they should have been armed all the time before.
They should be allowed the option however, it's not a bad idea. All I am saying.
I don't mind gun rights. It's on the document, and that's all that matters to me.
Someone already touched on it, but the risk of suicide is a lot higher than an active shooter, so it might be detrimental either way. [QUOTE=DohEntertainmen;48264940]I don't mind gun rights. It's on the document, and that's all that matters to me.[/QUOTE] Are you just trying to get your postcount up for the new gold member requirements. I've seen a lot of posts from you today that don't really make too much sense.
[QUOTE=plunger435;48265141]Someone already touched on it, but the risk of suicide is a lot higher than an active shooter, so it might be detrimental either way. Are you just trying to get your postcount up for the new gold member requirements. I've seen a lot of posts from you today that don't really make too much sense.[/QUOTE] No, I've just come back after some business in life. Also, Gold is earn-able, again? Neat.
If people keep shooting up military persons or anyone affiliated with them, they'll just start carrying the guns regardless. A couple friends of mine that currently serve are already doing it, and supposedly so are an increasing number of other people at their location.
[QUOTE=Axznma;48269839]If people keep shooting up military persons or anyone affiliated with them, they'll just start carrying the guns regardless. A couple friends of mine that currently serve are already doing it, and supposedly so are an increasing number of other people at their location.[/QUOTE] Good for them but they'll be arrested if they're caught on base without registering the weapons at the armory or in base facilities.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;48260671]I think it's dangerous to assume all humans are rational actors and adding more guns might cause more deaths.[/QUOTE] That doesn't answer the question of why you think that the military of all things shouldn't have weapons?
[QUOTE=Jordax;48270340]That doesn't answer the question of why you think that the military of all things shouldn't have weapons?[/QUOTE] Because it'll increase the risk they kill themselves.
[QUOTE=Flameon;48270374]Because it'll increase the risk they kill themselves.[/QUOTE] Couldn't that be better helped with getting better psychological care available for them?
I do think it's important to realize that not all death is equal. While suicide is always a tragedy, I don't think it's really comparable to murder. On one hand you have someone ending their own life, an act that some people might argue should be in their power anyway, and on the other hand you have life forcefully taken from someone against their will. I don't know if it's justifiable to take away a person's ability to defend themselves because of the risk of other people taking their own life.
If someone is mentally sound, it is wrong to take away their right to defend themselves. Our own Sheriff once said that in our citizens academy class. He said to buy a gun, train with it, and get a concealed carry permit. Even offered free training classes. Truth is, guns and other weapons are used defensively, not all of these are recorded either. I personally know people who are alive because of guns.
[QUOTE=Jordax;48270402]Couldn't that be better helped with getting better psychological care available for them?[/QUOTE] While that's a good goal, taking away their means of committing suicide cannot possibly be seen as a negative move. [editline]22nd July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;48270767]I do think it's important to realize that not all death is equal. While suicide is always a tragedy, I don't think it's really comparable to murder. On one hand you have someone ending their own life, an act that some people might argue should be in their power anyway, and on the other hand you have life forcefully taken from someone against their will. I don't know if it's justifiable to take away a person's ability to defend themselves because of the risk of other people taking their own life.[/QUOTE] Statistically, suicide is more common for American soldiers than being attacked by a gunmen on American soil. So no, not all death is equal. Suicide is more common and so that should be treated first.
[QUOTE=Jordax;48270402]Couldn't that be better helped with getting better psychological care available for them?[/QUOTE] Lol believe it or not the #1 way to prevent suicide is removing someone's access to lethal means. also FYI active duty service members have access to great mental health care already.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48271036]Lol believe it or not the #1 way to prevent suicide is removing someone's access to lethal means. also FYI active duty service members have access to great mental health care already.[/QUOTE] Which isn't practical by any means on a base where you have to do a job. Have you seen someone on real suicide watch? They have access to almost nothing.
this [I]is[/I] outrageous. it's a fucking military installation. even vehemently anti-gun people think that military personnel should have guns. a military base is always a potential target, and considering these are the people that [I]the government trains and trusts with weapons more powerful than what individuals can own[/I], how is letting them carry a handgun on base a problem? also, on a more specific note, rape of female military personnel is disgustingly common. considering that military women (and men, surprisingly often) are subject to that potential danger, it's pretty fucked up to not let them defend themselves in the only way that makes sense in modern times. [editline]22nd July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48271036]Lol believe it or not the #1 way to prevent suicide is removing someone's access to lethal means. also FYI active duty service members have access to great mental health care already.[/QUOTE] treating the symptom is not a cure. they will still be suicidal, they will still not get the help they need and continue to be suicidal until they attempt suicide by different means. when people see a suicidal person and only want to make sure they can't hurt themselves, they really don't give a fuck about the individual. if they did, they'd try and think of a way to actually help them.
[QUOTE=Neat!;48271605]this [I]is[/I] outrageous. it's a fucking military installation. even vehemently anti-gun people think that military personnel should have guns. a military base is always a potential target, and considering these are the people that [I]the government trains and trusts with weapons more powerful than what individuals can own[/I], how is letting them carry a handgun on base a problem? also, on a more specific note, rape of female military personnel is disgustingly common. considering that military women (and men, surprisingly often) are subject to that potential danger, it's pretty fucked up to not let them defend themselves in the only way that makes sense in modern times. [/QUOTE] What a sad fucking day and a terrible position for the US to be in when it has to arm and alert its American military bases on home soil from possible attack.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48271686]What a sad fucking day and a terrible position for the US to be in when it has to arm and alert its American military bases on home soil from possible attack.[/QUOTE] it's not like the uru khai are storming their fences 24/7. history has shown that it is [I]a possibility.[/I] not only would arming the military personnel make it less of a possibility through making it seem like more of a risk to attack a military base, but if/when it does happen again, the damage is likely to be far less than if nobody was armed but the shooter(s). as with the vast majority of civilians that carry open or concealed, the guns will likely never be drawn with intent to kill in defense. but if they have to draw it with lethal intent to save the life of themselves or others, it's better to draw a gun on someone with a gun than draw a knife, your fists, or just run.
[QUOTE=Neat!;48271759]it's not like the uru khai are storming their fences 24/7. history has shown that it is [I]a possibility.[/I] not only would arming the military personnel make it less of a possibility through making it seem like more of a risk to attack a military base, but if/when it does happen again, the damage is likely to be far less than if nobody was armed but the shooter(s). as with the vast majority of civilians that carry open or concealed, the guns will likely never be drawn with intent to kill in defense. but if they have to draw it with lethal intent to save the life of themselves or others, it's better to draw a gun on someone with a gun than draw a knife, your fists, or just run.[/QUOTE] You're dumb for assuming possibility = probability. It is extremely statistically unlikely for a US base to be attacked in the US. Don't let this one man that beat the odds drive you to fear it's an every day occurrence. Not to mention issuing weapons to every personnel on a base is a logistical nightmare to keep track of, one of which I'm sure the US military does not need to have.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48271823]You're dumb for assuming possibility = probability. It is extremely statistically unlikely for a US base to be attacked in the US. Don't let this one man that beat the odds drive you to fear it's an every day occurrence. Not to mention issuing weapons to every personnel on a base is a logistical nightmare to keep track of, one of which I'm sure the US military does not need to have.[/QUOTE] Can we not devolve into insults, please? That's not how you make people agree with you. Considering that the possibility includes potential loss of life, we shouldn't ignore it because if it happens and we ignore it [I]people are going to die.[/I] Also, I never said that the base would issue everyone a US property sidearm. Here's an actual proposal: If the person who wishes to carry on the base has a concealed carry permit, they can carry [I]their own weapon[/I] that they purchased themselves either open or concealed in accordance to state laws on CC/OC. The main problem with open carry is startling bystanders, but if you're in full ACU you're not going to have that problem because people expect military personnel to have guns.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48271823]You're dumb for assuming possibility = probability. It is extremely statistically unlikely for a US base to be attacked in the US. Don't let this one man that beat the odds drive you to fear it's an every day occurrence. Not to mention issuing weapons to every personnel on a base is a logistical nightmare to keep track of, one of which I'm sure the US military does not need to have.[/QUOTE] What about just giving them the option to conceal carry weapons they themselves brought around base?
[QUOTE=Neat!;48271891]Can we not devolve into insults, please? That's not how you make people agree with you. Considering that the possibility includes potential loss of life, we shouldn't ignore it because if it happens and we ignore it [I]people are going to die.[/I] Also, I never said that the base would issue everyone a US property sidearm. Here's an actual proposal: If the person who wishes to carry on the base has a concealed carry permit, they can carry [I]their own weapon[/I] that they purchased themselves either open or concealed in accordance to state laws on CC/OC. The main problem with open carry is startling bystanders, but if you're in full ACU you're not going to have that problem because people expect military personnel to have guns.[/QUOTE] IIRC as long as you had your pistol qualification for the year you don't need a CCW as active duty.
[QUOTE=Neat!;48271605]this [I]is[/I] outrageous. it's a fucking military installation. even vehemently anti-gun people think that military personnel should have guns. a military base is always a potential target, and considering these are the people that [I]the government trains and trusts with weapons more powerful than what individuals can own[/I], how is letting them carry a handgun on base a problem? also, on a more specific note, rape of female military personnel is disgustingly common. considering that military women (and men, surprisingly often) are subject to that potential danger, it's pretty fucked up to not let them defend themselves in the only way that makes sense in modern times. [editline]22nd July 2015[/editline] treating the symptom is not a cure. they will still be suicidal, they will still not get the help they need and continue to be suicidal until they attempt suicide by different means. when people see a suicidal person and only want to make sure they can't hurt themselves, they really don't give a fuck about the individual. if they did, they'd try and think of a way to actually help them.[/QUOTE] Jesus dude, you realize you can limit someone's means to lethal weapons AND offer them treatment at the same time which surprise surpriiiise!!!! Is what we have always done! You kids with no clue love to spout about how we don't give a fuck about our mentally ill service members when anyone who's spent 5 minutes working at a military treatment facility or even been in the vicinity of one knows that's not the case!!! Guess what? We go even a step further and treat their family members as well. [editline]23rd July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Levelog;48271526]Which isn't practical by any means on a base where you have to do a job. Have you seen someone on real suicide watch? They have access to almost nothing.[/QUOTE] Yes, removing someone's access to weapons when they are a potential threat to themselves or others is practical. You know that 95% of service members don't need a firearm to do their daily duties? Also removing someone's means to a weapon isn't a 24/7 suicide watch thing, it's as simple as taking all of their knives from their room and pulling their armory card. Easy day.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.