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...

On 12/21/2012 11:07 PM, JustWait wrote:
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...

Oh, and no, I am not saying you have to agree with me. I am saying
anybody who misrepresents my position from here on in is...









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

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.

On 12/21/12 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
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...


I'm afraid you are correct. I see "average" police officers at the
shooting range several times a month. A very few have extraordinary
handgun skills, but most are mediocre shots, even at the "typical"
defensive range of seven yards. Not enough paid time to practice?

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?

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?"!!!!!

In article ,
says...

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.

For the love of killing? Great Christian. Besides that, at the first
sign of trouble you'd **** your Depends.

In article , says...

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...

Fort Hood is home to a full BRIGADE of MP's. Also there are MP's
everywhere on base, armed, just like cops in civilian life. Didn't seem
to help, did it?

In article 1762256265377824169.271241bmckeenospam-
, says...

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 average is MUCH higher in the military.

In article 1953400547377848936.926560bmckeenospam-
, says...

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.

There's drug testing in most facets of civilian life anymore as well.