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...