Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood massacre

[PlasmaTwa2]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

Lovejoy, I'm pretty sure that, even if those Jews in Germany were armed, they still would have gotten killed.

:2 cents:

 

[JacknCoke]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

The level of gun control doesn't matter.If a criminal wants to create a crime with a fire arm its going to happen no matter what. There will always be a way to get fire arms. I know its an outdated ideal but look at prohibition. I think that is a possibility with fire arms as well.

Laws do not stop criminals only the honest man:2 cents:

 

[marquis2]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

Britain continues to have issues with gun crimes, even after outlawing all handguns.






Britain has also considered banning knives. They raised the age which one could legally purchase a knife from 16 to 18.
They offer amnesty to turn in knives.

Yeah, gun laws help a lot.

Switzerland has one of the highest per capita gun ownership and basically keeps no stats since gun crimes are so low.

In the UK, gun crimes rose around 2002 (it was mostly to do with turf wars and gangs, not the general public) and have since fallen.
But by "issues" we are talking about gun crime levels incredibly low by American standards - including the gang thing there are about 50 gun homicides a YEAR in the whole country. This is the sort of figure which causes issues here.
Since 2002 gun offences have dropped very sharply.

Introducing Switzerland into the issue is misleading.Gun ownership there is tightly controlled.Each family has a weapon and ammunition;these are checked regularly to ensure that they are not used without proper authority.Switzerland does have per capita significanlly more gun deaths than the UK.But also the Swiss ethos regarding firearms is much more level headed than in the US . guns are not regarded in the same way.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

In the UK, gun crimes rose around 2002 (it was mostly to do with turf wars and gangs, not the general public) and have since fallen.
But by "issues" we are talking about gun crime levels incredibly low by American standards - including the gang thing there are about 50 gun homicides a YEAR in the whole country. This is the sort of figure which causes issues here.
Since 2002 gun offences have dropped very sharply.

Introducing Switzerland into the issue is misleading.Gun ownership there is tightly controlled.Each family has a weapon and ammunition;these are checked regularly to ensure that they are not used without proper authority.Switzerland does have per capita significanlly more gun deaths than the UK.But also the Swiss ethos regarding firearms is much more level headed than in the US . guns are not regarded in the same way.

Ok, so 50 gun homicides a year. Superimpose the UK over an area of the United States, of similar population, then compare them. I'm sure it will be higher, but you can't say the whole of England, is the same as the whole of the USA. You also have to take into account how many of the murders are committed by illegals...they have different, and most likely stricter immigration laws, there fore, any illegal immigrants that commit crimes here, need to be taken out of the equation, because technically, they should not have even entered the country.

 

[marquis2]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

Ok, so 50 gun homicides a year. Superimpose the UK over an area of the United States, of similar population, then compare them. I'm sure it will be higher, but you can't say the whole of England, is the same as the whole of the USA. You also have to take into account how many of the murders are committed by illegals...they have different, and most likely stricter immigration laws, there fore, any illegal immigrants that commit crimes here, need to be taken out of the equation, because technically, they should not have even entered the country.

You can't even say that the whole of England is all the same!There are 60 million people shoehorned into a small island and even then they are concentrated into a small proportion of the land mass. But crime is very much related to high density living anyway, take out the inner city areas and gun crime here-what little there is-would be virtually wiped out.As I said before, unless for exceptional circumstances even the police don't find it necessary to be armed and neither do they wish to be.
As for immigration, we have it on a pro rate scale at least as much as you do to the extent that it's a major political issue here.

 

[jasonk282]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

You can't even say that the whole of England is all the same!There are 60 million people shoehorned into a small island and even then they are concentrated into a small proportion of the land mass. But crime is very much related to high density living anyway, take out the inner city areas and gun crime here-what little there is-would be virtually wiped out.As I said before, unless for exceptional circumstances even the police don't find it necessary to be armed and neither do they wish to be.
As for immigration, we have it on a pro rate scale at least as much as you do to the extent that it's a major political issue here.

Good for England, But American is a different country with different problems. Have the british not yet learned what works in Britianna might not work everywhere else.

 

[CunningStunts]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

It's a fact that in the US, counties/cities that have concealed carry permits have lower crimes rates. Most mass murders could have been halted if one or two people at the scene had been carrying...

This particular problem was that most military personnel on bases have to check out weapons, which are tightly controlled, and rightfully so. What is disturbing is that he was able to shoot so many people and an off base police had to take him down... where were the MPs? Why didn't someone go get weapons and take this guy out? It's kind of a head scratcher.:dunno:

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

The premise of the question is wrong. The right already exists in that jurisdiction.

The question is would more guns at the scene at the time the incident started have made a difference for the better?

Possibly....assuming the shooter didn't kill the one or two people carrying or those carrying didn't mistakenly shoot and kill the wrong person or bystanders or they themselves aren't mistakenly shot and killed by police arriving unable to distinguish friend from foe....

There are allot of considerations when you add more civilian firearms to a violent situation.

 

[jasonk282]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

The premise of the question is wrong. The right already exists in that jurisdiction.

The question is would more guns at the scene at the time the incident started have made a difference for the better?

Possibly....assuming the shooter didn't kill the one or two people carrying or those carrying didn't mistakenly shoot and kill the wrong person or bystanders or they themselves aren't mistakenly shot and killed by police arriving unable to distinguish friend from foe....

There are allot of considerations when you add more civilian firearms to a violent situation.

I understand what you are saying but i have to point one thing out. It's kinda hard to miss the guy in Muslim garb when everyone else is wearing digital camo ACU's.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

I understand what you are saying but i have to point one thing out. It's kinda hard to miss the guy in Muslim garb when everyone else is wearing digital camo ACU's.

Has what he was wearing been established? My point was more in general terms...when you introduce more civilians to a scene with firearms...not only does the prospect of innocent bystanders getting hit by stray bullets rise but it could get pretty confusing trying to have civilians separate the bad guys from the good guys.

Consider this, they weren't even certain how many were involved in the assault to begin with....

I know we like to think "what if" and it a tough circumstance to crack with a solution. But there so many more things to consider than the perfect scenario of someone carrying being in the right place at the right time and being able to actually hit the person with the first couple of shots and not have stray bullets flying around hitting everyone but...(actually putting a bullet in the intended (live) target in with the first couple of rounds is much more difficult for the average person than it looks in movies on tv.:2 cents

 

[marquis2]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

Has what he was wearing been established? My point was more in general terms...when you introduce more civilians to a scene with firearms...not only does the prospect of innocent bystanders getting hit by stray bullets rise but it could get pretty confusing trying to have civilians separate the bad guys from the good guys.

Consider this, they weren't even certain how many were involved in the assault to begin with....

I know we like to think "what if" and it a tough circumstance to crack with a solution. But there so many more things to consider than the perfect scenario of someone carrying being in the right place at the right time and being able to actually hit the person with the first couple of shots and not have stray bullets flying around hitting everyone but...(actually putting a bullet in the intended (live) target in with the first couple of rounds is much more difficult for the average person than it looks in movies on tv.:2 cents

Situations like this are sudden and unexpected.It takes a while for it to sink in what's happening.Ok, you work it out. If you have a gun are you going to reach for it knowing that might well make you the next target?Are you going to take the time needed for a steady aim to make sure your bullet doesn't go astray?Are you even sure who all the bad guys are?
The SAS have a theory that an effective bodyguard is no more than two highly trained people. Any more and the scope for things to go wrong increases dramatically.That's trained experts ready for what happens.Lots of other guys with guns are not much use.

 

[jasonk282]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

Has what he was wearing been established? My point was more in general terms...when you introduce more civilians to a scene with firearms...not only does the prospect of innocent bystanders getting hit by stray bullets rise but it could get pretty confusing trying to have civilians separate the bad guys from the good guys.

Consider this, they weren't even certain how many were involved in the assault to begin with....

I know we like to think "what if" and it a tough circumstance to crack with a solution. But there so many more things to consider than the perfect scenario of someone carrying being in the right place at the right time and being able to actually hit the person with the first couple of shots and not have stray bullets flying around hitting everyone but...(actually putting a bullet in the intended (live) target in with the first couple of rounds is much more difficult for the average person than it looks in movies on tv.:2 cents

Unfortunally the majority of the personal at Ft. Hood are TRAINED military that are proficent with a weapon in their hands, not your average person by far.

We are trained to fight and carry out our jobs under stressful conditions.

Also like I stated before the Soldiers main responsbility when shit hits the fan is to make sure everyone else is safe and secure before we counter attack and the Soldiers did they job well that day.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

Unfortunally the majority of the personal at Ft. Hood are TRAINED military that are proficent with a weapon in their hands, not your average person by far.

We are trained to fight and carry out our jobs under stressful conditions.

Also like I stated before the Soldiers main responsbility when shit hits the fan is to make sure everyone else is safe and secure before we counter attack and the Soldiers did they job well that day.

Again Jason, I talking in general terms. I the right to carry in all circumstances existed that could include civilians who work on the base as well....and it might not be limited to the base but to the entire population of the state.

Being trained at shooting some target down range is very different from shooting a live target...with a handgun.

 

[jasonk282]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

Again Jason, I talking in general terms. I the right to carry in all circumstances existed that could include civilians who work on the base as well....and it might not be limited to the base but to the entire population of the state.

Being trained at shooting some target down range is very different from shooting a live target...with a handgun.

Well in general terms, gun are not permitted on Ft. Hood, it's the Commanding General's preferance so even if every American would be permitted to carry a firearm they can't on Ft. Hood. I believe Bill Clinton signed the ban in 1993?

With the second part of your post, comming from experience I beg to differ.

 

[Facial_King]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

I want to have a few rocket launchers.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

Well in general terms, gun are not permitted on Ft. Hood, it's the Commanding General's preferance so even if every American would be permitted to carry a firearm they can't on Ft. Hood. I believe Bill Clinton signed the ban in 1993?

With the second part of your post, comming from experience I beg to differ.

We know this....the premise I suppose of the thread question is that if carry were permitted in this situation, would it have helped?

Jason, from my real life experience, training and training others in CQC/CQB, breech, etc....in a close quarter, dynamic circumstances it doesn't always happen like it looks in the movies....even with trained individuals.

Especially not with individuals who are not very, very well trained.:2 cents:

 

[Legzman]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

keeping Muslims, Arabs, or whatever the fuck you wanna call em, off military bases would help!

 

[jasonk282]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

keeping Muslims, Arabs, or whatever the fuck you wanna call em, off military bases would help!

But it would hurt the "diversity" LOL

 

[Facial_King]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

keeping Muslims, Arabs, or whatever the fuck you wanna call em, off military bases would help!

:lame:

But it would hurt the "diversity" LOL

Oh, my, you two make quite a little dittohead team, don't ya?

jasonk, in light of your and legzman's apparent knowledge regarding "Muslims, Arabs, or whatever the fuck you wanna call em" serving in the US military, you should probably change your little jingoistic (look it up, and please note the spelling!) signature rant to this:

It's the non-Muslim, non-Arab, non-whatever-the-fuck-you-call-em Veteran, not the reporter, who gave us our freedom of the press.

It's the non-Muslim, non-Arab, non-whatever-the-fuck-you-call-em Veteran, not the poet, who gave us our freedom of speech.

It's the non-Muslim, non-Arab, non-whatever-the-fuck-you-call-em Veteran, not the campus organizer, who gave us our freedom to demonstrate.

It's the non-Muslim, non-Arab, non-whatever-the-fuck-you-call-em Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine, who salutes the flag, who serves others with respect for the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the Flag.

===

By the way, what's also interesting about your signature spiel - the likes of which I've heard and read from others many times - is how typically it's offered by those who seem the most bothered by actual USE of the freedoms listed (press, speech, demonstration, burning of the flag to demonstrate against actions of the American govt.). People who want the credit for "giving" us our freedoms, but then they're not so big on actual dissent. And as for the last example - burning the flag (an activity which I've never had the desire to do, for various reasons) - I don't think it's really up to any soldier to "allow" or disallow such activity. Unless you're talking about the utilization of American troops against... Americans.

 

[jasonk282]

Re: Would the Right to bear and keep arms on military bases prevent the Ft. Hood mass

:lame:



Oh, my, you two make quite a little dittohead team, don't ya?

jasonk, in light of your and legzman's apparent knowledge regarding "Muslims, Arabs, or whatever the fuck you wanna call em" serving in the US military, you should probably change your little jingoistic (look it up, and please note the spelling!) signature rant to this:

It's the non-Muslim, non-Arab, non-whatever-the-fuck-you-call-em Veteran, not the reporter, who gave us our freedom of the press.

It's the non-Muslim, non-Arab, non-whatever-the-fuck-you-call-em Veteran, not the poet, who gave us our freedom of speech.

It's the non-Muslim, non-Arab, non-whatever-the-fuck-you-call-em Veteran, not the campus organizer, who gave us our freedom to demonstrate.

It's the non-Muslim, non-Arab, non-whatever-the-fuck-you-call-em Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine, who salutes the flag, who serves others with respect for the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the Flag.

===

By the way, what's also interesting about your signature spiel - the likes of which I've heard and read from others many times - is how typically it's offered by those who seem the most bothered by actual USE of the freedoms listed (press, speech, demonstration, burning of the flag to demonstrate against actions of the American govt.). People who want the credit for "giving" us our freedoms, but then they're not so big on actual dissent. And as for the last example - burning the flag (an activity which I've never had the desire to do, for various reasons) - I don't think it's really up to any soldier to "allow" or disallow such activity. Unless you're talking about the utilization of American troops against... Americans.

I was actually repeating what the General said about Muslims in the military and making light of what legzman posted.

General Casey said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union. “It would be a shame — as great a tragedy as this was — it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/politics/09casey.html

Not my fault that you read it a completly diferented slanted way. I have served with many a different culture/religion over my years(Jewish, Hispanic and Muslim) and I could really careless what religion they are as long as they performed their job.

Am I bothered by how we use of freedoms, your damn right as we all should be. If you wanna giver credit to the people that gave us freedom then I suggest that you thank Jefferson, Washington, Hancock etc... I am mearly doing my job in PROTECTING our freedoms from enemies foreign and domestic as this was the oath that I took.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

So when our freedoms come under attack I feel that it is my duty to speak out about it,but all you see is a right wing nut. I see an American doing his duty to his Country.

I don't expect you to understand this.