On Friday, December 21, 2012 2:52:20 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says...



On 12/21/2012 11:47 AM, thumper wrote:

On 12/21/2012 5:48 AM, GuzzisRule wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:34:59 -0800, thumper wrote:



On 12/18/2012 9:53 PM, Califbill wrote:

ESAD wrote:

Let's not forget that Nadal Hassan shot 43 people, 13 fatally, at Fort

Hood, a facility filled with armed and trained people.

Approximately 214

shots were fired (Hassan had another 177 rounds on him when

captured). He

was attacked by three different soldiers, all of whom he shot. It

was not

until a civilian police officer arrived some time later that Hassan

was

shot and wounded. If the army can't stop a guy like this, how is a

kindergarten teacher supposed to?



It was a gun control area. Nobody was allowed to carry weapons. The

people were trained, but not armed. Most bases in the states have the

weapons in the armory. I was stationed on an airbase, Travis, that

had APs

at the gates and the only other armed people were the guards out on B52

line.



That's interesting. All those trained people. More guns = more

safety... why don't they trust them?



Only Military Police/CID or equivalent carry weapons on a continuous

basis while on duty in military

installations, unless the installation is in a combat zone. The

weapons are kept in unit armories

and issued when necessary for training - or when needed for a

particular problem.



Why aren't they issued all the time? It could have something to do

with trust. The military does not

want a weapon stolen, misplaced, left unattended at home, or any of

the other things that can cause

accidents. There is always a dummy in every crowd, and the military

does have a thief or two in its

population. I look back at 'Project 100,000' and some of the folks we

got then, and I didn't even

want to issue some of those folks weapons for alerts or training.



So, there you have it.



But, like ESAD, if you see a chance to take a swipe at the military,

please go for it.





On the contrary, the military seems to get it regarding weapon safety

and yet some of you want to flood the schools and shopping malls with

gun toting amateur security guards ostensibly in the belief it would

reduce injuries and deaths. Unless it's actually about selling more guns?





You are losing all credibility here, even though I am more or less in

the middle on this one... Nobody at all here said anything about

"flooding schools.... *amateur security guards*". I am the only one here

who suggested armed guards and I specifically suggested seasoned,

trained, police officers in plain clothes, and I was very specific. If

you keep coming here and making up loogieisms as arguments, you are not

going to get anywhere.



You never did answer what are we supposed to do about income receiving
retirees taking jobs from those who need them.

Sometimes you have to make hard choices to insure kids are safe. Maybe you would rather some janitor have their job than keeping 20 kids alive?