"BAR" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:43:26 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

ESAD wrote:
On 12/21/12 9:09 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/21/2012 8:56 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/21/12 8:48 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.



The real problem is military pukes like Herring either getting
drunk or
****ed off and going on a shooting spree.

We have a problem with pukes like you going off and not paying your
taxes.



I don't recall alcohol being mentioned in "any" of the mass shooting
stories lately. But harry needs to insult folks daily to make himself
feel better for his miserable failures in life...


I know you aren't too bright, little guy, but we were discussing why
most
military personnel on bases cannot carry firearms. One of the reasons
is
the high degree of alcoholism among military personnel, along with
fighting, spousal abuse and other mental and emotional health issues
the
military doesn't address very well, for various reasons.

There are lots cites regarding military alcoholism. Here is an
interesting one:

http://www.examiner.com/article/gene...holic-military

There's also lots of spousal abuse. The military has a modest Family
Advocacy Program to try to deal with it.

There is a lot of pressure on military personnel. The pressure can be
handled in many ways, some productive, and others, like booze and wife
beating, not so much.

That is not a reason. In 3 years of Travis and most of a year at
Keesler,
I never needed a weapon. I was not in a war zone, and I spent my time
either in school at Keesler or fixing airplanes at Travis. Weapons are
needed in most bases except for a few armed guards in areas that should
be
secure. Probably none at Keesler.

Well, that *is* a reason if, like ESAD and Kevin, you want to make the
military look bad. But, in
almost 30 in the Army, I never heard or gave any thought to the 'booze
and wife-beating' problems
with regard to issuing weapons.

My biggest fear when issuing weapons, in a peacetime situation, was that
one would get lost.

Because you would have to pay for it.



More likely the mound of paperwork required.