On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:52:20 -0500, 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.

Income receiving retirees would probably volunteer to do it.

I would.

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.

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 401073031377723076.686172bmckeenospam-
, says...

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?

We were not in a war zone. I sat in an electronics shop fixing radar
units, or was in an airplane wrenching on a radar unit. Did not need the
tool, a weapon, in my job. Yes, we did go to the range and qualify yearly.
But we were not in a combat situation. The APs on the flight line for the
B52 were guarding nuclear armed planes. Was a retirement then. I guess
you never were in the service, or had other than an assembly line job where
you were not required to think. If I dad been in a war zone, I would have
been issued a weapon and kept with me while wrenching on planes.

But we are talking about a whole, very large military base. Oh, and one
that is home to a brigade of MP's!

So was Travis AFB. All military air traffic to the pacific basically goes
via Travis. In the US and most Likely all other military bases not in a
war zone, very few are armed.

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:51:31 -0500, ESAD wrote:

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.

ESAD (Eatin' **** and Dyin'??) - it was folks me who had the keys to the armory.

It's a shame you ran and hid. You might have learned something.

But, take a swipe at the military any time you get a chance.

You really ought to pay your taxes.

Are you saying there isn't a bad alcoholism problem in the military?

America has an alcoholism problem. Not limited to the military.

Califbill wrote:
iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:51:31 -0500, ESAD wrote:

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.

ESAD (Eatin' **** and Dyin'??) - it was folks me who had the keys to the armory.

It's a shame you ran and hid. You might have learned something.

But, take a swipe at the military any time you get a chance.

You really ought to pay your taxes.

Are you saying there isn't a bad alcoholism problem in the military?

America has an alcoholism problem. Not limited to the military.

The rate in the military is much higher than in the civilian population.

On 12/21/2012 5:23 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:47:49 -0800, 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?

Some of who?

You're sounding much like Scot.


You really are an old prick...

On 12/21/2012 5:24 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:52:20 -0500, 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.

Yes I did, and I was specific... go look.

Income receiving retirees would probably volunteer to do it.

I would.

On 12/21/2012 5:43 PM, Califbill wrote:
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 401073031377723076.686172bmckeenospam-
, says...

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?

We were not in a war zone. I sat in an electronics shop fixing radar
units, or was in an airplane wrenching on a radar unit. Did not need the
tool, a weapon, in my job. Yes, we did go to the range and qualify yearly.
But we were not in a combat situation. The APs on the flight line for the
B52 were guarding nuclear armed planes. Was a retirement then. I guess
you never were in the service, or had other than an assembly line job where
you were not required to think. If I dad been in a war zone, I would have
been issued a weapon and kept with me while wrenching on planes.

But we are talking about a whole, very large military base. Oh, and one
that is home to a brigade of MP's!

So was Travis AFB. All military air traffic to the pacific basically goes
via Travis. In the US and most Likely all other military bases not in a
war zone, very few are armed.



But, but, but... It's a big army base with all little green army men.
Don't they all have bazookas and flack jackets to go to english class!!!

Really, you have explained it to him fourty times, just like I have
explained it to jon fourty times, they don't want to know cause they are
afraid of the answers...

On 12/21/2012 8:55 AM, JustWait wrote:
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're right, I exaggerated to make a point and wasn't specifically
addressing you (this isn't about you or me).

I don't think they'll ever get anywhere near enough *qualified*
ex-police/military retirees to staff the nations schools with security
guards. Can you imagine a more boring and uneventful job? Do you
really think adding janitorial or cafeteria tasks will sweeten the pot?
Who's going to fund this by the way... the NRA?

I'm also not impressed by the tactical skills or marksmanship of the
average police officer. Fire away...

On 12/21/2012 2:23 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:47:49 -0800, 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?

Some of who?

The NRA.