In article , lid says...

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...

Yet some geriatric old fart like Herring wants to volunteer. I can see
him blasting away, damn the kids in the crossfire.

In article , says...

On 12/21/2012 10:10 PM, thumper wrote:
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
t 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 just don't know how I can make it more clear. I just can't type any
slower... Please read the next few paragraphs carefully:

I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF ARMED SECURITY GUARDS IN SCHOOLS, I THINK THEY ARE
SITTING DUCKS TO AN AMBUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I WANT TO TAKE A FORMER CAREER AS A POLICE OFFICER *INTO CONSIDERATION*
AND CONSIDER IT A PLUS WHEN HIRING *SOME OF THE* NECESSARY *EXISTING
STAFF POSITIONS* FOR SCHOOLS. THOSE HIRES WOULD BE ARMED, BUT NOBODY BUT
STAFF WOULD KNOW WHO THEY ARE SO A SHOOTER CAN'T MAKE PROVISIONS FOR
THEM LIKE AMBUSHING A UNIFORMED SECURITY GUARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The fact is, there is probably no better pool to choose from than
ex-police. They are qualified in domestic dispute resolution, trained in
deadly force, tactical... they are seasoned and have the tools in some
cases to stop even deadly situations without deadly force, trained in
crossfire situations...

Yeah, I know, you all will go nuts and tell me about the crossfire a
while back but really, who better than ex-cops would you trust as a
group, to watch your kids?

Thanks, anybody who isn't clear from this point on, is a liar, a troll,
or a dumbass.... later...









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


Do you find it funny that NO ONE but yourself sees any merit to your
idiotic proposal?

On 12/22/12 1:14 AM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
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.

That is true,but it may also be because of drug testing makes alcohol the
drug of choice.


I don't believe the high incidence of alcoholism among the military is
due to drug testing. It's always been higher among the military than the
civilian population. As for drug testing, many private sector employers
now do pre-employment and spot drug testing.

Heavy drinking is part of the "macho" military culture.

In article , says...

On 12/22/12 1:14 AM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
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.

That is true,but it may also be because of drug testing makes alcohol the
drug of choice.


I don't believe the high incidence of alcoholism among the military is
due to drug testing. It's always been higher among the military than the
civilian population. As for drug testing, many private sector employers
now do pre-employment and spot drug testing.

Heavy drinking is part of the "macho" military culture.

They don't let them rape, pillage and burn any more so that have to do
something.

In article , says...

On 12/22/12 1:14 AM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
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.

That is true,but it may also be because of drug testing makes alcohol the
drug of choice.


I don't believe the high incidence of alcoholism among the military is
due to drug testing. It's always been higher among the military than the
civilian population. As for drug testing, many private sector employers
now do pre-employment and spot drug testing.

Heavy drinking is part of the "macho" military culture.

And shear boredom.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:59:21 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:51:09 -0500, 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?

Where?

You stupid old fool. Where the hell do you think?

Show me!

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:15:16 -0800, thumper wrote:

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.

Are a lot of us NRA folks? I'm not. So, who is the 'you' to whom you refer?

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.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 09:00:42 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

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...

He's senile too! The conversation was about the military, Fort Hood to
be exact, and when I said there was an alcoholism problem in the
military, he asked "where?"!!!!!

Here was your question: "Are you saying there isn't a bad alcoholism problem in the military?"

Here was my response: "Where?"

In other words, Kevin, where did I say that or anything close to that? Now please tell me, is it
dark up there?

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:10:18 -0800, thumper wrote:

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.

Volunteers. I would gladly go to my local high school for, say, eight hours a week. I know I could
find half a dozen more retired military right in my neighborhood who would do the same thing.

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