221
Post by: Frazzled
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/16/shooting-reported-at-chattanooga-army-recruiting-center-college-on-lockdown/
BREAKING NEWS: Four Marines were killed Thursday at a Chattanooga, Tenn., Navy training center, in what authorities called a possible "act of domestic terrorism" that consisted of two attacks carried out by a lone gunman at military facilities just seven miles apart, officials said.
The unidentified gunman shot up a recruiting center before driving to the Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center and killing four Marines before he was shot, authorities said. Sources told Fox News police chased the gunman from the recruiting center to the Center, where the killings took place. The FBI and military police were investigating the attack, but authorities could not rule out the possibility of terrorism.
“We are treating this as an act of domestic terrorism,” said Bill Killian, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
The names of the Marines who were reportedly shot were not immediately released pending notification of their families. The Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center lies along a bend in the Tennessee River, northeast of downtown Chattanooga.
Despite Killian's statement, an FBI Special Agent Ed Reinhold told reporters that it may have been a criminal act. The gunman was killed, but authorities did not comment on his identity, motivation or the circumstances of his death. Authorities said the gunman did not work at either military facility.
Reinhold said all the dead were killed at the Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center Chattanooga. It sits between Amnicola Highway and a pathway that runs through Tennessee RiverPark, a popular park at a bend in the Tennessee River northeast of downtown Chattanooga. It's in a light industrial area that includes a Coca-Cola bottling plant and Binswanger Glass.
The two entrances to the fenced facility have unmanned gates and concrete barriers that require approaching cars to slow down to drive around them.
Marilyn Hutcheson, who works at Binswanger Glass just across the street from the center on Amnicola Highway, said she heard a barrage of gunfire around 11 a.m.
"It was rapid fire, like pow pow pow pow pow, so quickly"
- Marilyn Hutcheson, a witness
"I couldn't even begin to tell you how many," she said. "It was rapid fire, like pow pow pow pow pow, so quickly. The next thing I knew, there were police cars coming from every direction."
President Obama was briefed by his national security team on the shooting involving two military sites, according to White House spokesman Eric Schultz.
In the first incident, the gunman, in a silver Mustang, drove up to the Armed Forces Career Center in a strip mall on Lee's Highway and sprayed the facade with gunfire before driving off, officials said. An unidentified police officer was shot in the ankle, but not seriously injured, according to reports.
Related Image
chattshooting.jpgExpand / Contract
July 16: Authorities work an active shooting scene on Amincola highway near the Naval Reserve Center, in Chattanooga, Tenn. (WRCB-TV via AP)
A federal law enforcement official told Fox News that officers from FBI's Knoxville field office responded to the scene.
The Knoxville News Sentinel reported that there is a heavy police presence at the scene, along with five ambulances.
The Federal Aviation Administration said it was holding departing flights at their gates in Chattanooga, with delays projected to last 15 minutes or less.
1464
Post by: Breotan
Two law enforcement sources told CBS News that the shooting suspect was identified as Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-police-officer-shot-near-tennessee-army-recruiting-center/
18698
Post by: kronk
My condolences to their families.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Oh look another america has another mass shooting, what a shock, what a tragedy. Still nothing will be done to fix the problems, see you at the next one.
1464
Post by: Breotan
I guess it's time to spam the yellow triangle of friendship.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
sirlynchmob wrote:Oh look another america has another mass shooting, what a shock, what a tragedy. Still nothing will be done to fix the problems, see you at the next one.
Is that the criminals committing criminal acts?
It's a good thing no one gets shot in Canada.
Troll more.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
Yeah... pretty sure this is a terrorist attack on a military installation.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 Soladrin wrote:Yeah... pretty sure this is a terrorist attack on a military installation.
Recruiting stations are not on a military installation, they are generally in a strip mall downtown... They make nice soft targets as a result, no security, recruiters are not armed, no anti-vehucular barriers in most cases.
EDIT:
See what I mean?
1464
Post by: Breotan
Two recruiting centers, if I read that right. Basically the things you find set up in a strip mall.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Almost at the end of Ramadan to.
Edit
Military Recruiting Center to.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
Oh, don't think we even have those here. Still I would qualify that as somewhat of a military target.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Yep, definitely a military target in that the crap bag specifically targeted the military. But a VERY soft target.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Silver convertible Mustang to
With the top down
Also a recruit for the Navy was tag in the leg
1464
Post by: Breotan
What is wrong with literacy in America? Don't Sheriffs in Tennessee know how to spell things right side up?
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Terrible news.
Thoughts are with those affected.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Think the marking off the kill site was a priority over ensuring the letters are right side up
Edit
They're saying a automatic weapon was used.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
 Breotan wrote:
What is wrong with literacy in America? Don't Sheriffs in Tennessee know how to spell things right side up?
People just died.
You really think it's a great time to make jokes?
4402
Post by: CptJake
Breotan wrote:
What is wrong with literacy in America? Don't Sheriffs in Tennessee know how to spell things right side up?
Naw, they just set up so folks trying to back crawl under it can read it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:  Jihadin wrote:Think the marking off the kill site was a priority over ensuring the letters are right side up
Edit
They're saying a automatic weapon was used.
We'll hear a lot over the next couple of days. When it comes to details like that I'll wait for confirmation over the initial report. Full auto weapons are pretty hard to get hold of and are rarely used in crimes. For the crap bag to get a hold of one would be difficult. Not impossible, but I'm guessing semi-auto was used.
1464
Post by: Breotan
Oh, feth. Right winger sites are already playing up the "gun free zone" crap. As though that had anything to do with anything since the terrorist shot from a car outside the building.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Does one have to have completed "basic" before qualifying for a Purple Heart? Or does just the paperwork need to be done (as in, he's signed all the forms and is just waiting on a ship date)?
Also... The gunman is a fething coward. I would say more, but I think it would just get me a vacation from these forums.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
Breotan wrote:Oh, feth. Right winger sites are already playing up the "gun free zone" crap. As though that had anything to do with anything since the terrorist shot from a car outside the building.
So, business as usual then?
4402
Post by: CptJake
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Does one have to have completed "basic" before qualifying for a Purple Heart? Or does just the paperwork need to be done (as in, he's signed all the forms and is just waiting on a ship date)?
Also... The gunman is a fething coward. I would say more, but I think it would just get me a vacation from these forums.
It literally took an act of congress to get gak bag Hassan's victims at Ft Hood the purple heart. I don't think a recruit, even if contracted, is gonna get one from this.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Sec of Defense pressed for full benefits that comes with the Purple Heart for the Ft Hood wounded.
Think after the first recruit station got nailed LEO's headed for the closest recruiting office being they nailed him right in front of the 2nd recruiting station.
Thinking he used a 9mm.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
We hear that almost every mass shooting. Most people just never have heard enough gunfire, let alone automatic gunfire, to be able to tell the difference between semi and full.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Why I said he might have used a 9mm.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Does one have to have completed "basic" before qualifying for a Purple Heart? Or does just the paperwork need to be done (as in, he's signed all the forms and is just waiting on a ship date)?
Also... The gunman is a fething coward. I would say more, but I think it would just get me a vacation from these forums.
Probably not. Here's the qualifications for a PH:
http://www.usmcvta.org/pheart/phcriteria.htm wrote:
Eligibility criteria for the Purple Heart Medal is as follows:
a. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded
(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States.
(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged.
(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.
(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces.
(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force.
(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed Services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.
(7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.
b. While clearly an individual decoration, the Purple Heart differs from all other decorations in that an individual is not "recommended" for the decoration; rather he or she is entitled to it upon meeting specific criteria.
(1) A Purple Heart is authorized for the first wound suffered under conditions indicated above, but for each subsequent award an Oak Leaf Cluster will be awarded to be worn on the medal or ribbon. Not more than one award will be made for more than one wound or injury received at the same instant or from the same missile, force, explosion, or agent.
(2) A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above. A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.
(3) When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury. The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award.
(4) Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows:
(a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action.
(b) Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap.
(c) Injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological or nuclear agent.
(d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.
(e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions.
(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:
(a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries.
(b) Heat stroke.
(c) Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents.
(d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy.
(e) Battle fatigue.
(f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents.
(g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.
(h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.
(i) Post traumatic stress disorders.
(j) Jump injuries not caused by enemy action.
(6) It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to deserving personnel. Commanders must also take into consideration, the circumstances surrounding an injury, even if it appears to meet the criteria. Note the following examples:
(a) In case such as an individual injured while making a parachute landing from an aircraft that had been brought down enemy fire; or, an individual injured as a result of a vehicle accident caused by enemy fire, the decision will be made in favor of the individual and the award will be made.
(b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.
(c) Individuals injured as a result of their own negligence; for example, driving or walking through an unauthorized area known to have been mined or placed off limits or searching for or picking up unexploded munitions as war souvenirs, will not be awarded the Purple Heart as they clearly were not injured as a result of enemy action, but rather by their own negligence.
c. A Purple Heart will be issued to the next of kin of each person entitled to a posthumous award. Issue will be made automatically by the Commanding General, PERSCOM, upon receiving a report of death indicating entitlement.
d. Upon written application to Commander, ARPERCEN, ATIN.- DAR-P-VSEA, 9700 Page Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63132-5200, award may be made to any member of the Army, who during World War 1, was awarded a Meritorious Service Citation Certificate signed by the Commander in Chief, American Expeditionary Forces, or who was authorized to wear wound chevrons. Posthumous awards to personnel who were killed or died of wounds after 5 April 1917 will be made to the appropriate next of kin upon application to the Commanding General, PERSCOM.
e. Any member of the Army who was awarded the Purple Heart for meritorious achievement or service, as opposed to wounds received in action, between 7 December 1941 and 22 September 1943, may apply for award of an appropriate decoration instead of the Purple Heart.
f. For those who became Prisoners of War after 25 April 1962, the Purple Heart will be awarded to individuals wounded while prisoners of foreign forces, upon submission by the individual to the Department of the U.S. Army of an affidavit that is supported by a statement from a witness, if this is possible. Documentation and inquiries Should be directed to Commander, PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPCPDA, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471.
g. Any member of the U.S. Army who believes that he or she is eligible for the Purple Heart, but through unusual circumstances no award was made, may submit an application through military channels, to Commander, PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPC-PDA, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471. Application will include complete documentation, to include evidence of medical treatment, pertaining to the wound.
91
Post by: Hordini
At least one witness said he used a "high-powered rifle."
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 Hordini wrote:
At least one witness said he used a "high-powered rifle."
So he brought his .22 as well probably 
91
Post by: Hordini
That's what I was thinking. I was wondering what the media would consider a low-powered rifle. A BB gun or a pellet gun?
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
I'm going to go ahead an say that uniform service members off post on official military business should be required to have a side arm for personal defense at this point.
Sad to see some battles go down that way unable to fight back.
91
Post by: Hordini
I agree with the automatic thing as well. It seems incredibly unlikely that a fully-automatic weapon was used, but the media and average civilian doesn't know the difference between the two, and the media plays up the capabilities of semi-automatic weapons to make them sound nearly indistinguishable from fully automatic weapons. Automatically Appended Next Post:  BrotherGecko wrote:I'm going to go ahead an say that uniform service members off post on official military business should be required to have a side arm for personal defense.
In most cases, they are actually prohibited from carrying a weapon.
37231
Post by: d-usa
How is this terrorism and shooting up a black church isnt?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
BrotherGecko wrote:I'm going to go ahead an say that uniform service members off post on official military business should be required to have a side arm for personal defense.
Negative
That damn near saying ISIS and Friends are conducting war on our soil
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
 d-usa wrote:How is this terrorism and shooting up a black church isnt?
It depends, terrorism is a specific action carried out for specific reaons. Mass shootings out of racism isn't one of them.
That being said if this guy wasn't actually affiliated with a terrorist group then it really wasn't terrorism either.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
BrotherGecko wrote: d-usa wrote:How is this terrorism and shooting up a black church isnt?
It depends, terrorism is a specific action carried out for specific reaons. Mass shootings out of racism isn't one of them.
That being said if this guy wasn't actually affiliated with a terrorist group then it really wasn't terrorism either.
That white boy in SC wanted to start a race war, he even wrote a damn book about it. That was terrorism, plain and simple... but we will not call white folks terrorists.
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
Jihadin wrote: BrotherGecko wrote:I'm going to go ahead an say that uniform service members off post on official military business should be required to have a side arm for personal defense.
Negative
That damn near saying ISIS and Friends are conducting war on our soil
I appreciate the Constitutional conundrum with the idea. However, if civilains can carry then so should service members. Difference is military are political targets of murder where as civilians on the general are not.
91
Post by: Hordini
d-usa wrote:How is this terrorism and shooting up a black church isnt?
Who ever said shooting up a black church wasn't terrorism?
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
 Psienesis wrote: BrotherGecko wrote: d-usa wrote:How is this terrorism and shooting up a black church isnt?
It depends, terrorism is a specific action carried out for specific reaons. Mass shootings out of racism isn't one of them.
That being said if this guy wasn't actually affiliated with a terrorist group then it really wasn't terrorism either.
That white boy in SC wanted to start a race war, he even wrote a damn book about it. That was terrorism, plain and simple... but we will not call white folks terrorists.
He wasn't a non-state/interstate organization attacking civilians of a state in order to inact a political agenda. He was an individual acting on his own racist delusions.
Terrorism isn't an act of terror. Otherwise anyone commiting violence would be a terrorist.
I know it would be a feel good story in American politics to call what he did terrorism but it wasn't and shouldn't be called terrorism.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
Psienesis wrote: BrotherGecko wrote: d-usa wrote:How is this terrorism and shooting up a black church isnt?
It depends, terrorism is a specific action carried out for specific reaons. Mass shootings out of racism isn't one of them.
That being said if this guy wasn't actually affiliated with a terrorist group then it really wasn't terrorism either.
That white boy in SC wanted to start a race war, he even wrote a damn book about it. That was terrorism, plain and simple... but we will not call white folks terrorists.
Ireland would like a word.
34390
Post by: whembly
d-usa wrote:How is this terrorism and shooting up a black church isnt?
Who said it wasn't?
I'd definitely call that domestic terrorism.
91
Post by: Hordini
You're right. With the exception of the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Rudolph, the Tsarnaev brothers, groups like the Real IRA, Basque paramilitary groups like the ETA, extreme right-wing groups like Combat 18, Posse Comitatus, and The Order among others, we will not call white folks terrorists.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Soladrin wrote: Psienesis wrote: BrotherGecko wrote: d-usa wrote:How is this terrorism and shooting up a black church isnt?
It depends, terrorism is a specific action carried out for specific reaons. Mass shootings out of racism isn't one of them. That being said if this guy wasn't actually affiliated with a terrorist group then it really wasn't terrorism either.
That white boy in SC wanted to start a race war, he even wrote a damn book about it. That was terrorism, plain and simple... but we will not call white folks terrorists.
Ireland would like a word.
Hell, the son of a white Boston cop just got busted for terrorism. Daddy:  Kid:  Daddy turned in his son.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
His son looks like he was dropped as a child. A lot.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Psienesis wrote: BrotherGecko wrote: d-usa wrote:How is this terrorism and shooting up a black church isnt?
It depends, terrorism is a specific action carried out for specific reaons. Mass shootings out of racism isn't one of them.
That being said if this guy wasn't actually affiliated with a terrorist group then it really wasn't terrorism either.
That white boy in SC wanted to start a race war, he even wrote a damn book about it. That was terrorism, plain and simple... but we will not call white folks terrorists.
Well that's just ignorant.
http://m.fox19.com/fox19/db_347713/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=bcX9zXcj
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Shooter's name was Mohammed...never saw that coming... 
91
Post by: Hordini
The statement "We will not call white folks terrorists" has about as much validity as the statement "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."
That is to say, absolutely none.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Why are we injecting a race issue in this?
4402
Post by: CptJake
Because some folks feel the need to show how we are all racist scum, even if we are not.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Because Muslims are a race don'tcha know
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Two very different dynamics Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit
Stop broad brushing 
Even though he was born in Kuwait in 1990
Anyone else catching the Twitter tweets before and after the shooting. As in "possible" sleeper
Thinking it was a Lone Wolf
91
Post by: Hordini
Jihadin wrote:Two very different dynamics Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit Stop broad brushing Even though he was born in Kuwait in 1990 Anyone else catching the Twitter tweets before and after the shooting. As in "possible" sleeper Thinking it was a Lone Wolf
Who's broad brushing? I'm pretty sure Grey Templar is being sarcastic and is well aware that "Muslim" isn't a race. End of story. Him being born in Kuwait doesn't make Muslim a race either.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Hordini wrote: Jihadin wrote:Two very different dynamics
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit
Stop broad brushing
Even though he was born in Kuwait in 1990
Anyone else catching the Twitter tweets before and after the shooting. As in "possible" sleeper
Thinking it was a Lone Wolf
Who's broad brushing? I'm pretty sure Grey Templar is being sarcastic and is well aware that "Muslim" isn't a race. End of story. Him being born in Kuwait doesn't make Muslim a race either.
Think we need a sarcastic ork face 
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
My condolences to the families.
It's a shame that we have some among the community who are in an unseemly haste to make hay over these terrible attacks.
91
Post by: Hordini
 Dreadclaw69 wrote:My condolences to the families.
It's a shame that we have some among the community who are in an unseemly haste to make hay over these terrible attacks.
It happens every time, unfortunately.
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
Politics is a dirty world, and everybody wants to stamp their claim first So they can claim the other side doesn't care as much as they do.
4402
Post by: CptJake
I'm glad they capped him. Not doing so to Hassan was a mistake.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
 CptJake wrote:I'm glad they capped him. Not doing so to Hassan was a mistake.
Yep, saves a lot of time and money and leaves one less donkey cave in the world.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I was being sarcastic. I hoped the orkmoticon would have communicated that.
91
Post by: Hordini
I thought your message was pretty clear. 
67097
Post by: angelofvengeance
Oh for feth's sake. Another shooting?!
34390
Post by: whembly
Happens every day in places like Chicago...
So...wassup?
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Soladrin wrote: Psienesis wrote: BrotherGecko wrote: d-usa wrote:How is this terrorism and shooting up a black church isnt?
It depends, terrorism is a specific action carried out for specific reaons. Mass shootings out of racism isn't one of them.
That being said if this guy wasn't actually affiliated with a terrorist group then it really wasn't terrorism either.
That white boy in SC wanted to start a race war, he even wrote a damn book about it. That was terrorism, plain and simple... but we will not call white folks terrorists.
Ireland would like a word.
The IRA was never branded "terrorists" by American media. It was always "Irish separatists", "members of the IRA", or "Irish rebels". That's my point. I'm not saying that white people don't commit acts of terrorism (we invented them), but I am pointing out that our media is *extremely* hesitant to refer to a white person as a terrorist, to the point of being comically reluctant, even in cases of mass civil uprisings or similar events, our media bends over backwards to avoid portraying whites in a negative way.
I remember scenes in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, where black residents trapped in flooded districts of the city were reportedly "looting stores" while the white couple carrying the cooler wading through the floodwaters had "found food".
34390
Post by: whembly
^^
That's not accurate. The militant IRA was always branded as terrorist.... especially during the times of trouble (when they were blowing gak up or assassinating folks).
At least in print.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Military targeted
Other then that I'm having a bit of an off day
Back to War Thunder 
42144
Post by: cincydooley
And the rest of us are saying you're categorically wrong and have provided numerous recent examples of white people that are labeled as terrorists.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
sirlynchmob wrote:Oh look another america has another mass shooting, what a shock, what a tragedy. Still nothing will be done to fix the problems, see you at the next one.
Couldn't be more correct. Nothing to further prevent these crimes will ever happen because Amerika!
I agree with anyone saying that soldiers should have a side arm at least. It is ridiculous if they don't have them.
94482
Post by: Lord Corellia
Breotan wrote:Oh, feth. Right winger sites are already playing up the "gun free zone" crap. As though that had anything to do with anything since the terrorist shot from a car outside the building.
Well, if everyone had all the guns then they could just shoot anyone who approached anywhere at any time. Especially if they didn't like the look of them! What could go wrong?!
34390
Post by: whembly
 Asherian Command wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:Oh look another america has another mass shooting, what a shock, what a tragedy. Still nothing will be done to fix the problems, see you at the next one.
Couldn't be more correct. Nothing to further prevent these crimes will ever happen because Amerika!
How do you 'prevent' crime?
What makes you think criminals will obey the law (or new laws in reaction to this)???
I agree with anyone saying that soldiers should have a side arm at least. It is ridiculous if they don't have them.
My gut feeling is to agree with this... but, I think in the military, they've got good reasons to not do this.
91
Post by: Hordini
 Lord Corellia wrote: Breotan wrote:Oh, feth. Right winger sites are already playing up the "gun free zone" crap. As though that had anything to do with anything since the terrorist shot from a car outside the building.
Well, if everyone had all the guns then they could just shoot anyone who approached anywhere at any time. Especially if they didn't like the look of them! What could go wrong?!
Why don't you tell us? You seem to be very experienced and well-educated on the subject.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Lord Corellia wrote: Breotan wrote:Oh, feth. Right winger sites are already playing up the "gun free zone" crap. As though that had anything to do with anything since the terrorist shot from a car outside the building.
Well, if everyone had all the guns then they could just shoot anyone who approached anywhere at any time. Especially if they didn't like the look of them! What could go wrong?!
No gak. The country could look like Chicago on a hot weekend.
91
Post by: Hordini
 whembly wrote:
I agree with anyone saying that soldiers should have a side arm at least. It is ridiculous if they don't have them.
My gut feeling is to agree with this... but, I think in the military, they've got good reasons to not do this.
Recruiters particularly want to be approachable. Being armed might send a conflicting message to potential recruits and their families. That said, it might be time to reexamine the potential vulnerabilities of recruiting stations.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Can you imagine the outcry on how the US of A is one step closer to becoming a Military State if soldiers/marines go around armed
4402
Post by: CptJake
Hordini wrote: whembly wrote:
I agree with anyone saying that soldiers should have a side arm at least. It is ridiculous if they don't have them.
My gut feeling is to agree with this... but, I think in the military, they've got good reasons to not do this.
Recruiters particularly want to be approachable. Being armed might send a conflicting message to potential recruits and their families. That said, it might be time to reexamine the potential vulnerabilities of recruiting stations.
Or let recruiters (and ALL troops) get a permit and conceal carry if they want.
You can re-examine vulnerabilities all you want. You'll find out, Yep, They Be Vulnerable.
And to make them 'secure' you spend a TON of money and make them less approachable. And the recruiter is still a soft target when he goes to the local high school or mall.
91
Post by: Hordini
CptJake wrote: Hordini wrote: whembly wrote:
I agree with anyone saying that soldiers should have a side arm at least. It is ridiculous if they don't have them.
My gut feeling is to agree with this... but, I think in the military, they've got good reasons to not do this.
Recruiters particularly want to be approachable. Being armed might send a conflicting message to potential recruits and their families. That said, it might be time to reexamine the potential vulnerabilities of recruiting stations.
Or let recruiters (and ALL troops) get a permit and conceal carry if they want.
You can re-examine vulnerabilities all you want. You'll find out, Yep, They Be Vulnerable.
And to make them 'secure' you spend a TON of money and make them less approachable. And the recruiter is still a soft target when he goes to the local high school or mall.
Well, of course they're vulnerable. We've seen that. And of course we won't be able to completely secure a recruiting station, that would be ridiculous. But we could take steps to mitigate some of those vulnerabilities, like you've suggested with allowing concealed carry.
I think allowing troops to concealed carry would be reasonable, even if they had to do training above and beyond the civilian-required course.
42013
Post by: Sinful Hero
whembly wrote:
Happens every day in places like Chicago...
So...wassup?
Memphis, TN as well, or near enough.
Sad day. Condolences.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Jihadin wrote:Can you imagine the outcry on how the US of A is one step closer to becoming a Military State if soldiers/marines go around armed
The funny part is, you probably would be seeing an outcry from a different section of activist if that were to be the case.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Its one of those "Damn if you do Damn if you don't" situation
Either move all outside military facility (recruiting offices an example) to Federal building or Military Armories (National Guards/Reserve Centers) to have a active "QRF"
or
Post armed sentries in Full Battle Rattle with M4 and M9.......maybe a Uparmor Frag 7 with a B240 out front of a recruiting stations..............be one secure foot print 
Edit
All that free coffee, food, eye candy, and tactical cool Oakly's
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Jihadin wrote:Its one of those "Damn if you do Damn if you don't" situation
Either move all outside military facility (recruiting offices an example) to Federal building or Military Armories (National Guards/Reserve Centers) to have a active "QRF"
or
Post armed sentries in Full Battle Rattle with M4 and M9.......maybe a Uparmor Frag 7 with a B240 out front of a recruiting stations..............be one secure foot print
I dunno about all that.... I think that something that stays in the office would suffice, even if it's just an M9. I know the recruiting station that I came through, the army side had a standing policy of there being at least one recruiter physically IN the office at all times during normal business operations. But then, that station was in a place where there were higher than average walk-ins (as compared to a station the subsists primarily on schools or other out of office means)
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Psienesis wrote:The IRA was never branded "terrorists" by American media. It was always "Irish separatists", "members of the IRA", or "Irish rebels". That's my point. I'm not saying that white people don't commit acts of terrorism (we invented them), but I am pointing out that our media is *extremely* hesitant to refer to a white person as a terrorist, to the point of being comically reluctant, even in cases of mass civil uprisings or similar events, our media bends over backwards to avoid portraying whites in a negative way.
The American media also did not classify Loyalist groups as "terrorists" either. The UK media made up for that; the IRA were always "terrorists", and the Loyalists were always "paramilitaries". Since the Good Friday Agreement classifying the Provisional IRA as a terrorist group is pretty pointless. However active Republican (in the Northern Irish sense) terror groups
like the Continuity IRA and Real IRA are on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list of the State Department; http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Why aren't recruiters and soldiers off base armed all the time? simply put? because they aren't trusted enough with fire arms. My last year in the Corps we lost a Marine from my company who was assigned to guarding the main gate of Camp Lejeune. His guard buddy was playing around with his M16A4 and negligent discharged a round right into the kids face. He had been with our unit for all of 2 months and was killed. Im not saying all service members are bad with weapons im just saying do you really want a Plethora of 18-22 year olds running around with semi automatic assault rifles and M9 pistols? Furthermore, VERY FEW units have any where near enough M9 pistols to arm even a small percentage of their Marines. I deployed with an aging M16A4 that by the end of my deployment had a cracked barrel and a rather disturbing tendency to stove pipe.
As far as arming recruit stations? I think all services should move to the coast guard setup. 1 way windows with the door locked on a buzzer so the person has to wait to enter. Furthermore, I think every recruiting office should have an arms locker or at the very least 1-2 M9s for defense that are locked up inside the Gunny (or equivalent for Army/Navy/Airforce) office.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
This is going to be a hot topic for the Presidential candidates on both sides
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 Ghazkuul wrote:Why aren't recruiters and soldiers off base armed all the time? simply put? because they aren't trusted enough with fire arms.
So what do they train it, and what are they deployed with?
Ghazkuul wrote:do you really want a Plethora of 18-22 year olds running around with semi automatic assault rifles and M9 pistols?
I wasn't aware that the M16A4 was semi-automatic. Is it no longer select fire?
1464
Post by: Breotan
Jihadin wrote:This is going to be a hot topic for the Presidential candidates on both sides
As a "war on terror" issue, it should be. As a guns right issue it shouldn't be.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Breotan wrote: Jihadin wrote:This is going to be a hot topic for the Presidential candidates on both sides
As a "war on terror" issue, it should be. As a guns right issue it shouldn't be.
Agreed. Should have clarified that a bit more. Thanks Breotan.
M4/M16 family no longer used as a automatic in a regular line unit. Select organizations and individuals assigned to certain organizations are assigned M4 automatic's.
M16 automatic rifle replaced by the M249 SAW
91
Post by: Hordini
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:do you really want a Plethora of 18-22 year olds running around with semi automatic assault rifles and M9 pistols?
I wasn't aware that the M16A4 was semi-automatic. Is it no longer select fire?
The M16A4 is select fire, with safe, semi-automatic, and three-round burst.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Like a Baretta M9? Why are they hard to get a hold of for members of the military?
Why would it even have to be an M9? Why not a P226? Or a USP. Or hell, whatever they want to carry on their own person.
I don't quite understand why they're "gun free zones" in the first place....
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
 Alex C wrote: CptJake wrote:I'm glad they capped him. Not doing so to Hassan was a mistake.
Yep, saves a lot of time and money and leaves one less donkey cave in the world.
Lol the irony of Dakka's autocorrect...
4402
Post by: CptJake
Arming recruiting stations is a bad idea. They would have to have an arms room which means $$$$, and in many of their current locations that means modifications to the building/office they lease which may not be permitted by the owners. Then you obviously need to supply them with weapons and ammo. Oh wait, they can't store ammo in the arms rooms without even more mods and waivers.
And, the recruiters are still soft targets when they go to the local school and mall and so on. So a lot of dollars spent and the security of the recruiters and potential recruits/actual recruits is not really made any better.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Ghazkuul wrote:Why aren't recruiters and soldiers off base armed all the time? simply put? because they aren't trusted enough with fire arms. My last year in the Corps we lost a Marine from my company who was assigned to guarding the main gate of Camp Lejeune. His guard buddy was playing around with his M16A4 and negligent discharged a round right into the kids face. He had been with our unit for all of 2 months and was killed. Im not saying all service members are bad with weapons im just saying do you really want a Plethora of 18-22 year olds running around with semi automatic assault rifles and M9 pistols? Furthermore, VERY FEW units have any where near enough M9 pistols to arm even a small percentage of their Marines. I deployed with an aging M16A4 that by the end of my deployment had a cracked barrel and a rather disturbing tendency to stove pipe.
As far as arming recruit stations? I think all services should move to the coast guard setup. 1 way windows with the door locked on a buzzer so the person has to wait to enter. Furthermore, I think every recruiting office should have an arms locker or at the very least 1-2 M9s for defense that are locked up inside the Gunny (or equivalent for Army/Navy/Airforce) office.
The Israelis manage to do it with conscripts. I'd like to think that a professional volunteer military like ours could manage at least the same.
Implement Israeli carry protocols (full mag empty chamber) on post/base/in uniform stateside and your number of accidents will be low and entirely based on stupidity.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 NuggzTheNinja wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:Why aren't recruiters and soldiers off base armed all the time? simply put? because they aren't trusted enough with fire arms. My last year in the Corps we lost a Marine from my company who was assigned to guarding the main gate of Camp Lejeune. His guard buddy was playing around with his M16A4 and negligent discharged a round right into the kids face. He had been with our unit for all of 2 months and was killed. Im not saying all service members are bad with weapons im just saying do you really want a Plethora of 18-22 year olds running around with semi automatic assault rifles and M9 pistols? Furthermore, VERY FEW units have any where near enough M9 pistols to arm even a small percentage of their Marines. I deployed with an aging M16A4 that by the end of my deployment had a cracked barrel and a rather disturbing tendency to stove pipe.
As far as arming recruit stations? I think all services should move to the coast guard setup. 1 way windows with the door locked on a buzzer so the person has to wait to enter. Furthermore, I think every recruiting office should have an arms locker or at the very least 1-2 M9s for defense that are locked up inside the Gunny (or equivalent for Army/Navy/Airforce) office.
The Israelis manage to do it with conscripts. I'd like to think that a professional volunteer military like ours could manage at least the same.
Implement Israeli carry protocols (full mag empty chamber) on post/base/in uniform stateside and your number of accidents will be low and entirely based on stupidity.
Not to mention, we send them all over God's Creation armed to the teeth. It is just at home we seemingly don't trust them. Sounds more like a leadership issue than even a training issue in my opinion.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Imagine if he nailed a Chinese Buffet at lunch time M-F 1130 to 1300 like around Bragg
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:Why aren't recruiters and soldiers off base armed all the time? simply put? because they aren't trusted enough with fire arms.
So what do they train it, and what are they deployed with?
Ghazkuul wrote:do you really want a Plethora of 18-22 year olds running around with semi automatic assault rifles and M9 pistols?
I wasn't aware that the M16A4 was semi-automatic. Is it no longer select fire?
An M16A4 is a SEMI automatic weapon, it has 3 settings, Safe, Single and 3 round Burst, No fully automatic mode.
Also your first comment, they are trained in combat operations and even then their are incidents. Guns are dangerous and when you have them loaded and held all day long accidents happen. As far as the trust part, well let me put it this way, when you come back to most bases you have to clear your weapon and keep it either at condition 3 or condition 4.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
What makes me super mad is I learned about this from my "der gunna take er GUNS!" Facebook post. I'm like table flipping mad that the first thing people need to do is spread political nonsense.
I'm sorry for those who lost a loved one. That's also super upsetting.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 TheKbob wrote:What makes me super mad is I learned about this from my "der gunna take er GUNS!" Facebook post. I'm like table flipping mad that the first thing people need to do is spread political nonsense.
Cool story, brah.
One of the first posts in this very thread was a "Americans need more gun control" post.
Thanks for chiming in.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Ghazkuul wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote:I wasn't aware that the M16A4 was semi-automatic. Is it no longer select fire?
An M16A4 is a SEMI automatic weapon, it has 3 settings, Safe, Single and 3 round Burst, No fully automatic mode.
So it is select fire, and not semi automatic.
Ghazkuul wrote:Also your first comment, they are trained in combat operations and even then their are incidents. Guns are dangerous and when you have them loaded and held all day long accidents happen. As far as the trust part, well let me put it this way, when you come back to most bases you have to clear your weapon and keep it either at condition 3 or condition 4.
But you still have your weapon. And guns are not usually dangerous in of themselves. They are dangerous when incorrectly maintained or operated.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ghazkuul wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:Why aren't recruiters and soldiers off base armed all the time? simply put? because they aren't trusted enough with fire arms.
So what do they train it, and what are they deployed with?
Ghazkuul wrote:do you really want a Plethora of 18-22 year olds running around with semi automatic assault rifles and M9 pistols?
I wasn't aware that the M16A4 was semi-automatic. Is it no longer select fire?
An M16A4 is a SEMI automatic weapon, it has 3 settings, Safe, Single and 3 round Burst, No fully automatic mode.
Also your first comment, they are trained in combat operations and even then their are incidents. Guns are dangerous and when you have them loaded and held all day long accidents happen. As far as the trust part, well let me put it this way, when you come back to most bases you have to clear your weapon and keep it either at condition 3 or condition 4.
WTH..................
“The M16A4 is a 5.56 millimeter, magazine-fed, gas-operated, air-cooled, hand-held, shoulder-fired weapon capable of firing in semiautomatic or three-round burst modes.”
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Ghazkuul wrote:Why aren't recruiters and soldiers off base armed all the time? im just saying do you really want a Plethora of 18-22 year olds running around with semi automatic assault rifles and M9 pistols?
How many recruiters, specifically fall into that 18-22 category though? the vast majority of recruiters that I know go into recruiting at around 8-12 years TIS, which would put them at a minimum, age 25.
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
Yah I thought recruiters needed to at least be an NCO of outstanding moral character.
Even then official military business off post rarely involves unattended lower enlisted.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:Why aren't recruiters and soldiers off base armed all the time? im just saying do you really want a Plethora of 18-22 year olds running around with semi automatic assault rifles and M9 pistols?
How many recruiters, specifically fall into that 18-22 category though? the vast majority of recruiters that I know go into recruiting at around 8-12 years TIS, which would put them at a minimum, age 25.
Note the bold part, most recruiters I knew were E-5s and E-6s so around 6-8 years into service so yeah that part is right they would be 24-26ish though I did know a Marine to pickup E-6 in just over 4 years. SSgt Tenn, helluva marine.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
BrotherGecko wrote:Yah I thought recruiters needed to at least be an NCO of outstanding moral character.
Even then official military business off post rarely involves unattended lower enlisted.
Around the E6 level one has to make a career choice
Recruiter, Instructor at a MOS school, or Drill Instructor/Sargeant
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Ghazkuul wrote:
An M16A4 is a SEMI automatic weapon, it has 3 settings, Safe, Single and 3 round Burst, No fully automatic mode.
To be fair, at least in the US, a 3 round burst is still considered an automatic weapon by law. In more traditional terms, 3 round burst isn't exactly semi-automatic either.
It's really just mechanically enforcing what good training should do with fully automatic capabilities
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
Jihadin wrote: BrotherGecko wrote:Yah I thought recruiters needed to at least be an NCO of outstanding moral character.
Even then official military business off post rarely involves unattended lower enlisted.
Around the E6 level one has to make a career choice
Recruiter, Instructor at a MOS school, or Drill Instructor/Sargeant
The majority I've met were E6 but I had a Sgt that went recruiter at E5. That being said he was of outstanding moral character and a had a solid record.
35976
Post by: Freakazoitt
Did he used legally obtained weapon?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
By pure numbers almost certainly it was illegally acquired just by the probability alone.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I was afraid we wouldn't instantly politicize this. Silly me.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
 Grey Templar wrote:
By pure numbers almost certainly it was illegally acquired just by the probability alone.
Guns being rare here so not knowing much...
But who in their right mind would kill using their legally obtained gun? Instantly you are easier to find etc. I know I would steal a gun or use someone else's gun to commit crime over my own (if I had a gun and or wanted to commit crimes).
I too would be shocked if many people used their own guns in a crime.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
 Swastakowey wrote:
But who in their right mind would kill using their legally obtained gun?
Possibly those who don't expect to survive the act they plan on committing, those not of sound mind or those who don't care if they are caught.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
BrotherGecko wrote:
The majority I've met were E6 but I had a Sgt that went recruiter at E5. That being said he was of outstanding moral character and a had a solid record.
When I was in, that's generally how it worked... You may see the "rare" E-5(P) fresh into recruiting, instructing or DS/ DI duties... But they are there because their ratings show that they really are that outstanding and should've been made E-6 already.
Most typically, those duties are almost exclusive to E-6 and E-7 types. Though it is possible to escape doing any of those duties, if you are an NCO in a "smaller" MOS (such as my old MOS), you were basically guaranteed a spot in the schoolhouse instructing the newbies.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
He was a (shooter) Naturalized US Citizen.
I've a feeling the weapons he had were legally brought or grandfathered fire arms that did not have to be registered
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
Honestly there isn't much to do about it at that point if true. Seems like any action is going to involve an equal loss to the gain.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Alex C wrote: Swastakowey wrote:
But who in their right mind would kill using their legally obtained gun?
Possibly those who don't expect to survive the act they plan on committing, those not of sound mind or those who don't care if they are caught.
Indeed, although this type of criminal would make a very small portion of the gun crime rate. The vast majority of gun crimes will be committed by people who will actively attempt to cover their tracks by not using a legally purchased weapon.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Soladrin wrote:Oh, don't think we even have those here. Still I would qualify that as somewhat of a military target.
It is a military target - it's set up to be inviting so people will want to sign up. Armed guards might discourage some people.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
This is not a "gun" matter. As with the attack on the church guns are not the issue here, but many people will try and make a grab for political points on both sides. This is a terrorist attack. There are issues with the gun culture in the US, but if guns were not available these people would make home made bombs, or attack with knives or do other things. This is not a gun culture issue, but as long as people frame it as one for their own gain the real issues of why people become radicalized will not be addressed.
I hope that the injured are recovering well and that we do not see another attack any time soon.
CptJake wrote:Arming recruiting stations is a bad idea. They would have to have an arms room which means $$$$, and in many of their current locations that means modifications to the building/office they lease which may not be permitted by the owners. Then you obviously need to supply them with weapons and ammo. Oh wait, they can't store ammo in the arms rooms without even more mods and waivers.
And, the recruiters are still soft targets when they go to the local school and mall and so on. So a lot of dollars spent and the security of the recruiters and potential recruits/actual recruits is not really made any better.
This, and I suspect it would cause many more legal issues. What rules would govern what they could do? Would they be able to use them just for self deference, or would there be an expectation that they would defend others. What would happen if there was a mugging in the mall? Would they feel obliged to intervene? At that point, would they be acting as police (which would legally be a big no no). And to what good. These are not fire fights, they are terrorists firing unexpectedly from a car and driving off. Better off trying to ensure that the recruiting posts are in sensible places, such as pedestrianized areas or indoor malls than arming anyone.
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
I think it might be more than just an issue of terrorism. I'm wondering at this point on why did he go from his normal life to the one that lead to him murdering 4 people and getting himself killed. Or rather what is so appealing to 20 somethings in the middle class about violent fundamentalism.
The killer seemed to have a pretty good life from what has been gathered. So why did he gravitate to the life that he choose.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Steve steveson wrote:This is not a "gun" matter. As with the attack on the church guns are not the issue here, but many people will try and make a grab for political points on both sides. This is a terrorist attack. There are issues with the gun culture in the US, but if guns were not available these people would make home made bombs, or attack with knives or do other things. This is not a gun culture issue, but as long as people frame it as one for their own gain the real issues of why people become radicalized will not be addressed.
I hope that the injured are recovering well and that we do not see another attack any time soon.
CptJake wrote:Arming recruiting stations is a bad idea. They would have to have an arms room which means $$$$, and in many of their current locations that means modifications to the building/office they lease which may not be permitted by the owners. Then you obviously need to supply them with weapons and ammo. Oh wait, they can't store ammo in the arms rooms without even more mods and waivers.
And, the recruiters are still soft targets when they go to the local school and mall and so on. So a lot of dollars spent and the security of the recruiters and potential recruits/actual recruits is not really made any better.
This, and I suspect it would cause many more legal issues. What rules would govern what they could do? Would they be able to use them just for self deference, or would there be an expectation that they would defend others. What would happen if there was a mugging in the mall? Would they feel obliged to intervene? At that point, would they be acting as police (which would legally be a big no no). And to what good. These are not fire fights, they are terrorists firing unexpectedly from a car and driving off. Better off trying to ensure that the recruiting posts are in sensible places, such as pedestrianized areas or indoor malls than arming anyone.
It could also run into the simple problem of many locations being inside "gun free" zones. We have recruiters inside the nearest mall, which doesn't allow guns. The office isn't exactly a military installation, it's just office space rented from the mall. So I would think that no special federal laws governing the recruiters office there and legally that space is no different than Hot Topic in the mall (I could be wrong about that).
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
BrotherGecko wrote:I think it might be more than just an issue of terrorism. I'm wondering at this point on why did he go from his normal life to the one that lead to him murdering 4 people and getting himself killed. Or rather what is so appealing to 20 somethings in the middle class about violent fundamentalism.
The killer seemed to have a pretty good life from what has been gathered. So why did he gravitate to the life that he choose.
Honest question - is this intended to be rhetorical?
I ask, because when we look at motivation, we can acknowledge that the Charleston shooter's motivation was that he was a racist who wanted to kill blacks, and that other racists who want to kill blacks deserve scrutiny. But, for some reason, we have trouble acknowledging that this shooter's motivation was that he was a Muslim who wanted to kill non-Muslims, and we are slow to apply equal scrutiny. The fact that the Ft. Hood shooting was labeled workplace violence is really perfect evidence of this dichotomy.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
NuggzTheNinja wrote:[
I ask, because when we look at motivation, we can acknowledge that the Charleston shooter's motivation was that he was a racist who wanted to kill blacks, and that other racists who want to kill blacks deserve scrutiny, but we have trouble acknowledging that this shooter's motivation was that he was a Muslim who wanted to kill non-Muslims, and therefore is a member of a protected class.
(Godwin)
4402
Post by: CptJake
d-usa wrote:
It could also run into the simple problem of many locations being inside "gun free" zones. We have recruiters inside the nearest mall, which doesn't allow guns. The office isn't exactly a military installation, it's just office space rented from the mall. So I would think that no special federal laws governing the recruiters office there and legally that space is no different than Hot Topic in the mall (I could be wrong about that).
Yes, you are wrong. Any space leased/rented by the feds to include the DoD (and that means recruiting offices) are 'gun free' due to being considered a 'federal facility' according to the regs they have to follow. In fact, you can see the 'No Guns' sign on the door of the recruiting station hit yesterday (surrounded by bullet holes).
So, regardless of if it is in a larger 'gun free' zone or not, current regs make any recruiting station/center/office a 'gun free' zone.
The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
In title 18. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
NuggzTheNinja wrote: BrotherGecko wrote:I think it might be more than just an issue of terrorism. I'm wondering at this point on why did he go from his normal life to the one that lead to him murdering 4 people and getting himself killed. Or rather what is so appealing to 20 somethings in the middle class about violent fundamentalism.
The killer seemed to have a pretty good life from what has been gathered. So why did he gravitate to the life that he choose.
Honest question - is this intended to be rhetorical?
I ask, because when we look at motivation, we can acknowledge that the Charleston shooter's motivation was that he was a racist who wanted to kill blacks, and that other racists who want to kill blacks deserve scrutiny. But, for some reason, we have trouble acknowledging that this shooter's motivation was that he was a Muslim who wanted to kill non-Muslims, and we are slow to apply equal scrutiny. The fact that the Ft. Hood shooting was labeled workplace violence is really perfect evidence of this dichotomy.
Nither of them are the underling reasons. Yes, both seem to be driven by hatred for another group (at least as far as we can see), but we need to address why that hatred has arisen, and what means that it gets to the point that they feel this kind of violence is the right answer. What drives them to this level of hatred, and what drives that hatred to action? Until we address this and as long as we keep saying "racists be racist" then we will continue to have these problems. We need to address the root cause. We will always see some people that just want to see the world burn, but most of these attacks have much more that drives these people away from most of society and in to violence. People are not born racist, they are normally not raised violent (even if they are raised racist).
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
So what do you think is the root cause?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
http://www.radicalisationresearch.org/guides/francis-2012-causes-2/
The above link is a nice primer of the subject of 'Radicalization' and includes links to the various ideas on why and how it happens.
The frank answer is "No one really knows and it could be a bunch of things" that lead to radicalization. One of the most direct methods of curtailing radicalization is to target non-radical groups for support while isolating radical groups as one of the most direct routes to radicalization is interactions with members of radical groups who actively seek to turn others to their cause using a lot of the same methods you might associate with a cult (isolation from friends and family, overt/badgering exposure to their ideas, etc).
This is very difficult in a modern age, with global economics and its made worse by many foreign policy decisions which inadvertently see Western Governments backing governments and powers which are themselves enabling radical groups (the case book example being the Saudi government). I feel recent events in the Middle East also show how attempts to directly isolate and combat radical groups can directly lead to more radical groups rising to power (Israel's attempts to defeat the PLO in the late 90's politically directly led to Hamas' rise to power, and the US' killing of Osama Bin Laden helped lead to the rise of ISIS).
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
 LordofHats wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:[
I ask, because when we look at motivation, we can acknowledge that the Charleston shooter's motivation was that he was a racist who wanted to kill blacks, and that other racists who want to kill blacks deserve scrutiny, but we have trouble acknowledging that this shooter's motivation was that he was a Muslim who wanted to kill non-Muslims, and therefore is a member of a protected class.
(Godwin)
Snarky internet memes don't really do anything for anybody, especially when you incorrectly reference Godwin in response to a post devoid of Nazi analogies.
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
NuggzTheNinja wrote: LordofHats wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:[
I ask, because when we look at motivation, we can acknowledge that the Charleston shooter's motivation was that he was a racist who wanted to kill blacks, and that other racists who want to kill blacks deserve scrutiny, but we have trouble acknowledging that this shooter's motivation was that he was a Muslim who wanted to kill non-Muslims, and therefore is a member of a protected class.
(Godwin)
Snarky internet memes don't really do anything for anybody, especially when you incorrectly reference Godwin in response to a post devoid of Nazi analogies.
Yet what you said implies Muslims kill non Muslims because they are Muslims, which is absolutely wrong. The killer was Muslim long before he decided to murder in its name.
Either way I think there is some disconnect going on in society. I have heard there is a growing trend towards fundamentalism all over the world in all religions, though I have not personally done the research. Why is that after having gone through a sharp decline.
37231
Post by: d-usa
CptJake wrote: d-usa wrote:
It could also run into the simple problem of many locations being inside "gun free" zones. We have recruiters inside the nearest mall, which doesn't allow guns. The office isn't exactly a military installation, it's just office space rented from the mall. So I would think that no special federal laws governing the recruiters office there and legally that space is no different than Hot Topic in the mall (I could be wrong about that).
Yes, you are wrong. Any space leased/rented by the feds to include the DoD (and that means recruiting offices) are 'gun free' due to being considered a 'federal facility' according to the regs they have to follow. In fact, you can see the 'No Guns' sign on the door of the recruiting station hit yesterday (surrounded by bullet holes).
So, regardless of if it is in a larger 'gun free' zone or not, current regs make any recruiting station/center/office a 'gun free' zone.
The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
In title 18. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930
Thanks for clearing that up. But can't fededal workers still be allowed to be armed? My hospital is a federal gun free zone, yet we still have armed police present, and military installations still have armed people present as well. But I wouldn't be surprised if that mainly just covers law enforcement.
But if recruiters were allowed to be armed, do you think that there would be places that would reevaluate leasing to the military?
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
BrotherGecko wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote: LordofHats wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:[
I ask, because when we look at motivation, we can acknowledge that the Charleston shooter's motivation was that he was a racist who wanted to kill blacks, and that other racists who want to kill blacks deserve scrutiny, but we have trouble acknowledging that this shooter's motivation was that he was a Muslim who wanted to kill non-Muslims, and therefore is a member of a protected class.
(Godwin)
Snarky internet memes don't really do anything for anybody, especially when you incorrectly reference Godwin in response to a post devoid of Nazi analogies.
Yet what you said implies Muslims kill non Muslims because they are Muslims, which is absolutely wrong. The killer was Muslim long before he decided to murder in its name.
Either way I think there is some disconnect going on in society. I have heard there is a growing trend towards fundamentalism all over the world in all religions, though I have not personally done the research. Why is that after having gone through a sharp decline.
It is absolutely wrong? The killer's motivation was not religious? I can't wait to hear the mental gymnastics that allow you to arrive at that conclusion.
Your point about the timeline is invalid...when was he supposed to carry out the murder, as an infant? 24 years old is fighting age. Jihad isn't only about physically fighting - plenty of Muslims provide ideological and materiel support for terrorists as well. He just reached the appropriate fighting age and decided to fulfill his duty as a Muslim. This should be terrifying to you...the fact that it is not terrifying to the majority of Americans is terrifying to me. Burying your head in the sand doesn't make it any harder for them to cut it off, you know.
4402
Post by: CptJake
d-usa wrote: Thanks for clearing that up. But can't fededal workers still be allowed to be armed? My hospital is a federal gun free zone, yet we still have armed police present, and military installations still have armed people present as well. But I wouldn't be surprised if that mainly just covers law enforcement. But if recruiters were allowed to be armed, do you think that there would be places that would reevaluate leasing to the military?
MPs (or their other DoD/civilian equivalents) can be armed due to their LE function/duty. Similarly, a guard for a SCIF or Ammo Holding Area can be armed due to their duty position. As for allowing recruiters to be armed, if you mean with military weapons, it won't ever happen for the reasons I've listed in this topic as well as a few others. I doubt even if you could/would overcome the obstacles to doing so many venues would object. I doubt those venues make cops disarm before they enter/come onto the property....
42144
Post by: cincydooley
CptJake wrote:
As for allowing recruiters to be armed, if you mean with military weapons, it won't ever happen for the reasons I've listed in this topic as well as a few others. I doubt even if you could/would overcome the obstacles to doing so many venues would object. I doubt those venues make cops disarm before they enter/come onto the property....
Would it need to be a military weapon, though?
I mean, why not a simple Glock 37, or whatever else that particular individual chooses to carry...
50512
Post by: Jihadin
We're going to have to move the recruiting stations to military facilities. Actual armories have recruiting stations in them and they are not armed but can change
Someone from the unit will have to go on orders just to man the arms room to issue weapon(s). Then move to another secure location in a building just to issue live rounds. Automatically Appended Next Post:  cincydooley wrote: CptJake wrote:
As for allowing recruiters to be armed, if you mean with military weapons, it won't ever happen for the reasons I've listed in this topic as well as a few others. I doubt even if you could/would overcome the obstacles to doing so many venues would object. I doubt those venues make cops disarm before they enter/come onto the property....
Would it need to be a military weapon, though?
I mean, why not a simple Glock 37, or whatever else that particular individual chooses to carry...
You don't go to work with what you want.
You go to work with what we give you
4402
Post by: CptJake
cincydooley wrote: CptJake wrote:
As for allowing recruiters to be armed, if you mean with military weapons, it won't ever happen for the reasons I've listed in this topic as well as a few others. I doubt even if you could/would overcome the obstacles to doing so many venues would object. I doubt those venues make cops disarm before they enter/come onto the property....
Would it need to be a military weapon, though?
I mean, why not a simple Glock 37, or whatever else that particular individual chooses to carry...
Because troops cannot currently carry any non-issue weapons while in uniform or while performing official duties. Doing so on a 'federal facility' will get them is a world of trouble.
I would LOVE if the feds changed the rules on concealed carry. I HATE the fact that my wife may be the last one in her building at 22:00 at night (when she left her office last night) and has to go across dark parking lots and cannot legally even carry a stun gun or pepper spray.
But laws is laws...
37231
Post by: d-usa
CptJake wrote: d-usa wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up. But can't fededal workers still be allowed to be armed? My hospital is a federal gun free zone, yet we still have armed police present, and military installations still have armed people present as well. But I wouldn't be surprised if that mainly just covers law enforcement.
But if recruiters were allowed to be armed, do you think that there would be places that would reevaluate leasing to the military?
MPs (or their other DoD/civilian equivalents) can be armed due to their LE function/duty. Similarly, a guard for a SCIF or Ammo Holding Area can be armed due to their duty position.
As for allowing recruiters to be armed, if you mean with military weapons, it won't ever happen for the reasons I've listed in this topic as well as a few others. I doubt even if you could/would overcome the obstacles to doing so many venues would object. I doubt those venues make cops disarm before they enter/come onto the property....
After I typed that I remembered that I did my finger printing for my concealed carry license at the sheriff substation that is leased from the mall and which is located right across from the recruiters, so that should have answered my question about leasing space to officials with weapons at that particular mall.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
CptJake wrote:
Because troops cannot currently carry any non-issue weapons while in uniform or while performing official duties. Doing so on a 'federal facility' will get them is a world of trouble.
I would LOVE if the feds changed the rules on concealed carry. I HATE the fact that my wife may be the last one in her building at 22:00 at night (when she left her office last night) and has to go across dark parking lots and cannot legally even carry a stun gun or pepper spray.
But laws is laws...
Ahh,okay. Makes sense.
What's the standard issue sidearm in the military these days? Is it the M9?
For some reason I was under the impression that when it came to sidearms, you were allowed to choose which you carry. Sounds like that's totally off base.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
CptJake wrote:
Because troops cannot currently carry any non-issue weapons while in uniform or while performing official duties. Doing so on a 'federal facility' will get them is a world of trouble.
I would LOVE if the feds changed the rules on concealed carry. I HATE the fact that my wife may be the last one in her building at 22:00 at night (when she left her office last night) and has to go across dark parking lots and cannot legally even carry a stun gun or pepper spray.
But laws is laws...
Similar situation here...other guys back here work with explosives, so I guess our best defense is hoping that if anything happens, one of them can kluge something together to Wylie Coyote the terrorist.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
cincydooley wrote: CptJake wrote:
Because troops cannot currently carry any non-issue weapons while in uniform or while performing official duties. Doing so on a 'federal facility' will get them is a world of trouble.
I would LOVE if the feds changed the rules on concealed carry. I HATE the fact that my wife may be the last one in her building at 22:00 at night (when she left her office last night) and has to go across dark parking lots and cannot legally even carry a stun gun or pepper spray.
But laws is laws...
Ahh,okay. Makes sense.
What's the standard issue sidearm in the military these days? Is it the M9?
For some reason I was under the impression that when it came to sidearms, you were allowed to choose which you carry. Sounds like that's totally off base.
9mm Beretta
USMC are being issued the new version of a .45
4402
Post by: CptJake
Army is preparing a Request For Proposal (RFP) for a new sidearm. They are considering allowing use of hollow points when it comes to meeting the requirements stated in the RFP.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Good
I hated that P.O.S. 9mm which I only used once in a situation
5-2 Stryker 1st Sgt carried a SAW instead of his 9mm because he hated that weapon himself
Edit
5-2 Stryker have disbanded
27151
Post by: streamdragon
CptJake wrote:I would LOVE if the feds changed the rules on concealed carry. I HATE the fact that my wife may be the last one in her building at 22:00 at night (when she left her office last night) and has to go across dark parking lots and cannot legally even carry a stun gun or pepper spray.
Can she at least ask a security guard for an escort or something? I'm lucky my current building sits right on top of a metro station. My last building, OTOH, was a little uncomfortable getting to metro.
CptJake wrote:Army is preparing a Request For Proposal (RFP) for a new sidearm. They are considering allowing use of hollow points when it comes to meeting the requirements stated in the RFP.
Hope it goes through. Not that I think attacks like these will become an every day thing, but if there's a group I can handle being armed all the time, it's the military.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I'm pretty sure this was an episode of NCIS.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Jihadin wrote:Good
I hated that P.O.S. 9mm which I only used once in a situation
5-2 Stryker 1st Sgt carried a SAW instead of his 9mm because he hated that weapon himself
Edit
5-2 Stryker have disbanded
When my assigned weapon was a M9, I carried an M203.
feth a pistol. 
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Close, that was a kid that wanted to be a sniper but was ruled unfit for duty because of his mental state.
So he started murdering people to prove how good a shot he was, because obviously once you have a few civilian kills under your belt the marines will suddenly want to take you.
241
Post by: Ahtman
 streamdragon wrote:
Close, that was a kid that wanted to be a sniper but was ruled unfit for duty because of his mental state.
So he started murdering people to prove how good a shot he was, because obviously once you have a few civilian kills under your belt the marines will suddenly want to take you.
Ah that is right. When we were waiting for the new place we stayed at my father-in-laws and he was fanatical about watching NCIS. I remembered an episode where someone targeted recruiters.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Well he had a automatic AK-47.
4402
Post by: CptJake
I've seen references to AK style weapon, but nothing confirming full auto. Where are you seeing that?
EDIT: I have also seen references to 30 round magazines or at least a 30 round magazine.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Fox News
Seems he had quite a bit of Arsenal
News Briefing mention a AK..........rapid trigger squeeze more likely
Plus some assorted shotguns
Local officials there are basically calling it Terrorism Investigation
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Jihadin wrote:Fox News
Seems he had quite a bit of Arsenal
News Briefing mention a AK..........rapid trigger squeeze more likely
Plus some assorted shotguns
Local officials there are basically calling it Terrorism Investigation
My buddy purchased a Czech copy of an AK-47. It was Semi and had a tendency to jam believe it or not. Also the recoil from the weapon caused his After market red dot site to constantly break and misalign. So having a semi-automatic AK-47 is completely believable. I wonder where you could get a fully automatic one.
As far as 30 round magazines. They are incredibly easy to come by or to manufacture yourself if you know how.
4402
Post by: CptJake
30 round magazines are the STANDARD size for many military styled weapons, including the AR and AK series. So of course they are easy to come by.
And there is nothing wrong with that.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
FBI saying two long guns and a side arm was carried by the shooter
Plus a LBV that he was wearing, no body armor
Edit
Multiple news source saying a AK
4402
Post by: CptJake
Yeah, I keep seeing AK, but that does not mean full auto. All the ones you can buy here legally are semi-auto or require all the class III stamps and taxes, and cost a fortune even if you can find one.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
CptJake wrote:30 round magazines are the STANDARD size for many military styled weapons, including the AR and AK series. So of course they are easy to come by.
And there is nothing wrong with that.
I thought High Capacity magazines had been banned recently. I could be wrong
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ghazkuul wrote: CptJake wrote:30 round magazines are the STANDARD size for many military styled weapons, including the AR and AK series. So of course they are easy to come by.
And there is nothing wrong with that.
I thought High Capacity magazines had been banned recently. I could be wrong
Only in a few short sightd states with gullible legislators.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Ghazkuul wrote: CptJake wrote:30 round magazines are the STANDARD size for many military styled weapons, including the AR and AK series. So of course they are easy to come by.
And there is nothing wrong with that.
I thought High Capacity magazines had been banned recently. I could be wrong
Only in some states:
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Makes sense then. Granted I still have a bunch of Magpul magazines from my deployment sitting in a box in my garage somewhere.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
CptJake wrote: Ghazkuul wrote: CptJake wrote:30 round magazines are the STANDARD size for many military styled weapons, including the AR and AK series. So of course they are easy to come by.
And there is nothing wrong with that.
I thought High Capacity magazines had been banned recently. I could be wrong
Only in some states:
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
I thought Colorado didn't pass theirs due to Magpul threatening to pull out?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
No it got passed, then there was the big recall of the legislators. Iirc anyway.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Grey Templar wrote:No it got passed, then there was the big recall of the legislators. Iirc anyway.
The state Rs tried to get the bill repealed, the Ds blocked it so the law still stands. Many of the county sheriffs are suing over the law (they don't like it) but I am not sure of the status of those lawsuits.
As far as I know, MAGPUL did start their move.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
CptJake wrote: Grey Templar wrote:No it got passed, then there was the big recall of the legislators. Iirc anyway.
The state Rs tried to get the bill repealed, the Ds blocked it so the law still stands. Many of the county sheriffs are suing over the law (they don't like it) but I am not sure of the status of those lawsuits.
As far as I know, MAGPUL did start their move.
Magpul moved their manufacturing to Cheyenne Wyoming and that facility is already up and running now. They relocated their corporate headquarters to Austin Texas and I believe they completed that move too. Their Colorado facility was closed about a year ago IIRC.
91
Post by: Hordini
Jihadin wrote: cincydooley wrote: CptJake wrote:
Because troops cannot currently carry any non-issue weapons while in uniform or while performing official duties. Doing so on a 'federal facility' will get them is a world of trouble.
I would LOVE if the feds changed the rules on concealed carry. I HATE the fact that my wife may be the last one in her building at 22:00 at night (when she left her office last night) and has to go across dark parking lots and cannot legally even carry a stun gun or pepper spray.
But laws is laws...
Ahh,okay. Makes sense.
What's the standard issue sidearm in the military these days? Is it the M9?
For some reason I was under the impression that when it came to sidearms, you were allowed to choose which you carry. Sounds like that's totally off base.
9mm Beretta
USMC are being issued the new version of a .45
The .45 is only being issued in small numbers to high speed units like recon and MARSOC. The M9 is still by far the most common sidearm and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. That said, the "problems" with the M9 are primarily due to being restricted to the use of FMJ ball ammo only. If, like CptJake mentioned, they begin allowing modern defensive ammo (like JHP or ballistic-tipped JHP) the vast majority of the M9's issues would be resolved.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Hordini wrote: If, like CptJake mentioned, they begin allowing modern defensive ammo (like JHP or ballistic-tipped JHP) the vast majority of the M9's issues would be resolved.
Here is one of many articles discussing the Modular Handgun System (MHS) and the use of hollowpoints: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/17/us-army-wants-hollow-point-ammo-for-new-pistol-not-for-the-m9.html
37231
Post by: d-usa
CptJake wrote: Grey Templar wrote:No it got passed, then there was the big recall of the legislators. Iirc anyway.
The state Rs tried to get the bill repealed, the Ds blocked it so the law still stands. Many of the county sheriffs are suing over the law (they don't like it) but I am not sure of the status of those lawsuits.
As far as I know, MAGPUL did start their move.
Didn't some of the counties say they would secede and join another state or sometjing like that?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I recommend the 9mm as the appropiate weapon to use against Camelspiders
96095
Post by: Abanshee
I live in Athens, TN and go to the mall up there to get minis.
Can't believe it happened in my backyard.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Jihadin wrote:I recommend the 9mm as the appropiate weapon to use against Camelspiders
I thought nothing short of a Grenade was acceptable for those.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Grey Templar wrote: Jihadin wrote:I recommend the 9mm as the appropiate weapon to use against Camelspiders
I thought nothing short of a Grenade was acceptable for those.
Ive heard rumors... unsubstantiated of course, that we may or may not have used a main gun round on a nest of camel spiders
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Jihadin wrote:I recommend the 9mm as the appropiate weapon to use against Camelspiders
I thought nothing short of a Grenade was acceptable for those.
Ive heard rumors... unsubstantiated of course, that we may or may not have used a main gun round on a nest of camel spiders
That would be that SPIDER in the ceiling Corner from Australia saying "My Precious My Precious" looking at you with hungry eye's
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Ghazkuul wrote: Jihadin wrote:Fox News
Seems he had quite a bit of Arsenal
News Briefing mention a AK..........rapid trigger squeeze more likely
Plus some assorted shotguns
Local officials there are basically calling it Terrorism Investigation
My buddy purchased a Czech copy of an AK-47. It was Semi and had a tendency to jam believe it or not. Also the recoil from the weapon caused his After market red dot site to constantly break and misalign. So having a semi-automatic AK-47 is completely believable. I wonder where you could get a fully automatic one.
If it was a Czech rifle it would not have been an AK, but a Vz.58, which looks *really* similar externally, but internally functions very differently and shares no parts commonality at all with an AK, not even magazines.
Automatic AK's are obtainable in the US, but for a legally obtained one they're federally registered machine guns, and as such supply is limited to whatever was on the civilian market before May 1986, and are typically $15-30k purchases along with months of paperwork. It's possible to convert semi-auto to automatic with a machine shop and some parts, but that's also rewarded with a dime or two in a federal quest house if uncovered.
As far as 30 round magazines. They are incredibly easy to come by or to manufacture yourself if you know how.
Hell, the Cabella's down the freeway from me has them in great big bargain bins for $10/each on AR mags 
68355
Post by: easysauce
so another lone wolf attack is the general consensus on what this was then right?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 easysauce wrote:so another lone wolf attack is the general consensus on what this was then right?
AFAIK, it is a lone wolf type thing, but, if the claims by ISIS are correct, he was acting on their behalf
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I'm going to say inspire to act for ISIS
I'm not going to say action taken by guidance from ISIS yet
Let those who are investigating his social media and trip overseas (last year I think to Jordan and possible to Yemen to) to connect the dot
4402
Post by: CptJake
The overseas travel is an indicator, but without more it is just that.
Having said that, 'inspired by' DaIsh at a minimum would be my bet. The reality is we see DaIsh and similar groups putting out calls for action and there is a loose network of online entities that help push radicalization and connect possible recruits with enablers (even if the enablers are just more personalized radicalizing elements). They don't necessarily need nor want to infiltrate actual fighters from Syria or Iraq or wherever. That is costly and requires a more intense support structure. They are very happy making contact with gak bags like this kid and adept at pushing the right buttons to move the kid towards action.
There is also a set of kids who will just inhabit the fringes of the movement and absorb the info and self radicalize without the personal attention. This is the group we'll commonly call 'lone wolves' (even when they build small cells) because the ties to actual DaIsh or similar elements will be much less concrete though the ideology will have been accepted. Self starters who often turn some other grievance into a motivator that they then assign radical Islam as the solution.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Wonder if the wounded will receive Purple Hearts if so then we're on the doorstep of something new
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Not to interrupt this wonderful discussion of magazines, but has anybody heard of a motive yet? I was listening to the radio earlier, and they were saying that the fbi had no evidence that it was Islamist terrorism, and was actually quite different from the other known cases (no grievances on social media against the US, nothing claiming responsibility ).
Edit wow, I'm blind apparently
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Jihadin wrote:I'm going to say inspire to act for ISIS
I'm not going to say action taken by guidance from ISIS yet
Let those who are investigating his social media and trip overseas (last year I think to Jordan and possible to Yemen to) to connect the dot
As I said earlier, it's been reported that ISIS has claimed that he was one of theirs. Ultimately, like you I'm going to be waiting to see how true or not that claim is.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Jihadin wrote: 1st Sgt carried a SAW instead of his 9mm because he hated that weapon himself
Because SAWs are pure sex. Unless you try to use the magazine well, then SAWs are pure suck.
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
 Bromsy wrote: Jihadin wrote: 1st Sgt carried a SAW instead of his 9mm because he hated that weapon himself
Because SAWs are pure sex. Unless you try to use the magazine well, then SAWs are pure suck.
The officers in my old company used to ask me why they were issued a 9mm. I always answered with a serious face, "so you can shoot yourself after the rest of us are killed," they usually believed me lol.
20373
Post by: Inquisitor Lord Bane
 Vaktathi wrote: Ghazkuul wrote: Jihadin wrote:Fox News
Seems he had quite a bit of Arsenal
News Briefing mention a AK..........rapid trigger squeeze more likely
Plus some assorted shotguns
Local officials there are basically calling it Terrorism Investigation
My buddy purchased a Czech copy of an AK-47. It was Semi and had a tendency to jam believe it or not. Also the recoil from the weapon caused his After market red dot site to constantly break and misalign. So having a semi-automatic AK-47 is completely believable. I wonder where you could get a fully automatic one.
If it was a Czech rifle it would not have been an AK, but a Vz.58, which looks *really* similar externally, but internally functions very differently and shares no parts commonality at all with an AK, not even magazines.
Automatic AK's are obtainable in the US, but for a legally obtained one they're federally registered machine guns, and as such supply is limited to whatever was on the civilian market before May 1986, and are typically $15-30k purchases along with months of paperwork. It's possible to convert semi-auto to automatic with a machine shop and some parts, but that's also rewarded with a dime or two in a federal quest house if uncovered.
As far as 30 round magazines. They are incredibly easy to come by or to manufacture yourself if you know how.
Hell, the Cabella's down the freeway from me has them in great big bargain bins for $10/each on AR mags
You can buy AK parts kits that include everything, including the full auto trigger group, and the receiver with the 3 axis holes for safe, semi, and auto fire (I got one by accident, amazing how the internet works). This is in itself illegal to own without the class 3 paperwork, but there's no way to trace it to you unless you are caught with it or you live in a state that registers long arms. They also cost about $400.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Another Marine passed away from his injuries. Total dead service members now stands at 5.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Another Marine passed away from his injuries. Total dead service members now stands at 5.
I thought the 5th guy was Navy?
Also the SAW M249 is a POS. I would take a 240 any day of the week over that thing. I think i maybe got 100 maybe 120 rounds out of that before it would jam and it would only get worse after the first jam. And dont say PME because it was in perfect condition.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
It appears you are correct, the source I got the news from reported it as a Marine initially
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Every time I've ever encountered marines, he has been.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Bromsy wrote: Jihadin wrote: 1st Sgt carried a SAW instead of his 9mm because he hated that weapon himself
Because SAWs are pure sex. Unless you try to use the magazine well, then SAWs are pure suck.
As a former SAW gunner, I can attest to that. It's better to switch to your side arm (if you have one) than to use mags in the SAW.
But Military personnel should be allowed to be armed at all times.
Edit: And civilians too!
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
http://www.kltv.com/story/29578746/governor-abbott-to-order-national-guard-to-carry-guns-on-base
Governor Greg Abbott announced Saturday he will authorize the Adjutant General John Nichols of the Texas National Guard to arm National Guard personnel at military facilities across Texas.
This order comes following the recent shooting on two military facilities in Chattanooga, Tennessee that resulted in the deaths of four United States Marines and one Navy Sailor.
“It is with a heavy heart that I issue this order,” said Governor Abbott. “After the recent shooting in Chattanooga, it has become clear that our military personnel must have the ability to defend themselves against these type of attacks on our own soil. Arming the National Guard at these bases will not only serve as a deterrent to anyone wishing to do harm to our service men and women, but will enable them to protect those living and working on the base.”
Texas looks like the first state to change things up a bit.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Frazz, congrats, your state got it's head out of it's ass first. PA will follow, but the governor is out hunting, and will likely only hear about this when he gets back to his shack.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Along with;
- Indiana
- Arkansas
- Oklahoma
- Florida
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Wait, national guard don't carry weapons on base? That's weird...
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33581753
The night before a gunman killed five US service personnel in Tennessee, he sent a text message linking to a religious verse about "declaring war", a report says.
Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez also spoke out against conflicts in the Middle East, according to the Reuters agency.
Police have said his motives are still being investigated.
Four US Marines were killed in the shooting. A sailor who was seriously injured died in hospital on Saturday.
Logistics specialist Randall Smith had been fighting for his life since the attack.
Abdulazeez was himself later killed in a shootout with police.
Reuters says it has seen a text sent the night before to a friend linking to a passage of Islamic text - Hadith 38 - containing the verse: "Whosoever shows enmity to a friend of Mine, I will indeed declare war against him."
The friend, who requested anonymity, said he thought nothing of the text at the time, but now wonders if it was a hint at the attack to come.
Full text of Hadith 38
Allah the Almighty has said: "Whosoever acts with enmity towards a friend [wali] of Mine, I will indeed declare war against him. Nothing endears My servant to Me than doing of what I have made obligatory upon him to do. And My servant continues to draw nearer to Me with supererogatory [nawafil] prayers so that I shall love him. When I love him, I shall be his hearing with which he shall hear, his sight with which he shall see, his hands with which he shall hold, and his feet with which he shall walk. And if he asks [something] of Me, I shall surely give it to him, and if he takes refuge in Me, I shall certainly grant him it."
Other friends also told Reuters that Abdulazeez spoke of his anger about conflicts in the Middle East, including Israeli bombing campaigns in Gaza and the civil war in Syria, after returning from a trip to Jordan last year.
"He had always talked about it, but I'd say his level of understanding and awareness really rose after he came back," said one of the friends interviewed.
They said he had purchased three guns online following the visit, and used them for target practice.
"It would be premature to speculate on exactly why the shooter did what he did," FBI agent Ed Reinhold said. "However, we are conducting a thorough investigation to determine whether this person acted alone or was inspired or directed."
Abdulazeez began Thursday's attack with a shooting spree at a recruitment centre in Chattanooga.
He then drove about six miles (10km) to a Navy and Marine reserve centre, where he shot and killed the marines, and wounded Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Smith.
Navy logistics specialist Randall Smith became the latest victim of Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez when he died of his wounds on Saturday
Four marines died at the scene of Thursday's shooting
"A male Navy Petty Officer succumbed to wounds received in the July 16 shooting at the Navy Operational Support Center (NOSC) in Chattanooga, Tennessee" on Saturday at 02:17 local time (06:17 GMT), the US Navy said in a statement.
It did not name the sailor, but family members confirmed it was Randall Smith.
A relative told the US military newspaper Stars and Stripes that Smith was married with three young daughters.
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Frazz, congrats, your state got it's head out of it's ass first. PA will follow, but the governor is out hunting, and will likely only hear about this when he gets back to his shack.
Well, we all knew that Texas was just waiting for "Give people more guns" to be the right thing to do.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Governor Greg Abbott announced Saturday he will authorize the Adjutant General John Nichols of the Texas National Guard to arm National Guard personnel at military facilities across Texas.
This order comes following the recent shooting on two military facilities in Chattanooga, Tennessee that resulted in the deaths of four United States Marines and one Navy Sailor.
“It is with a heavy heart that I issue this order,” said Governor Abbott. “After the recent shooting in Chattanooga, it has become clear that our military personnel must have the ability to defend themselves against these type of attacks on our own soil. Arming the National Guard at these bases will not only serve as a deterrent to anyone wishing to do harm to our service men and women, but will enable them to protect those living and working on the base.”
National Guard armories and training grounds belonging to the Texas National Guard.
1464
Post by: Breotan
 Crazy_Carnifex wrote: BaronIveagh wrote:
Frazz, congrats, your state got it's head out of it's ass first. PA will follow, but the governor is out hunting, and will likely only hear about this when he gets back to his shack.
Well, we all knew that Texas was just waiting for "Give people more guns" to be the right thing to do.
Then why didn't they do it years sooner? Hell, the new Open Carry law doesn't go into effect until Jan 1, 2016.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Just remember Baron, Marines are a Department of the Navy....The Mens Department
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: BaronIveagh wrote:
Frazz, congrats, your state got it's head out of it's ass first. PA will follow, but the governor is out hunting, and will likely only hear about this when he gets back to his shack.
Well, we all knew that Texas was just waiting for "Give people more guns" to be the right thing to do.
Always.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Indeed. I always found that to be a bit odd.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Ghazkuul wrote:[
Just remember Baron, Marines are a Department of the Navy....The Mens Department
When you opened that can to get that joke out, was there a pack of Lucky Strikes and a chocolate bar in there with it?
1464
Post by: Breotan
Wow. Just had a "too soon" moment. I decided to start binge watching NCIS on Netflix and episode 13 opens with a Marine recruiter getting shot through the window of his office while talking to two prospects.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
 MWHistorian wrote: Bromsy wrote: Jihadin wrote: 1st Sgt carried a SAW instead of his 9mm because he hated that weapon himself
Because SAWs are pure sex. Unless you try to use the magazine well, then SAWs are pure suck.
As a former SAW gunner, I can attest to that. It's better to switch to your side arm (if you have one) than to use mags in the SAW.
But Military personnel should be allowed to be armed at all times.
Edit: And civilians too!
And a +1 for civilians who work on military installations. Many are prior service and the way that these installations are set up, you can't always expect active duty to be present.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ghazkuul wrote:
Just remember Baron, Marines are a Department of the Navy....The Mens Department
Why do I suddenly have Village People's In the Navy running through my head now?
4402
Post by: CptJake
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/07/18/marine-recruiters-told-not--wear-uniforms-offices-closed/30353587/
The military services have taken swift action to increase security after Thursday's shootings in Tennessee, even closing some facilities and telling Marine recruiters not to wear uniforms in public.
One of the steps Carter approved was Marine Corps Recruiting Command's decision to have recruiters not wear their military uniforms for now, a defense official said. The recruiting command also closed down all offices within 40 miles of the facilities in Chattanooga and increased the force protection condition level from "Bravo" to "Charlie."
I bet the marines in civvies are darned proud of this decision.
221
Post by: Frazzled
So whats the issue with not allowing them to wear sidearms?
Already congresspeople have $ signs in their eyes for their favored contributors, talking about "hardening the targets." Seriously?
4402
Post by: CptJake
And right on cue:
The new policy, discussed in MARADMIN 365/15, not only prohibits all Marines, including recruiters, from wearing their uniforms off-base, but also instructs them to cover their heads with a large bag which prevents personal identification. All commands are initially instructed to disseminate money valuable bags, sandbags (preferably empty), or paper bags to all personnel to ensure immediate compliance.
Col. Elizabeth Thompson, a spokesperson for Headquarters Marine Corps, said the move is necessary to ensure that Marines remain safe and vigilant, whether they are being shot at on the battlefield or just shot at in their own office.
“While we know many active-duty Marines were hoping for relaxed policies on open- and concealed-carry, we really feel that the ‘bag-over-the-head’ is more practical given the limitations of our budgets and operating forces.”
http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/07/marine-force-protection/
12313
Post by: Ouze
CptJake wrote:http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/07/18/marine-recruiters-told-not--wear-uniforms-offices-closed/30353587/
The military services have taken swift action to increase security after Thursday's shootings in Tennessee, even closing some facilities and telling Marine recruiters not to wear uniforms in public.
You want to argue about the drawbacks of having substantially more personnel with sidearms around, so far as ND's and such, fine. It's not a great argument but at least I can see the argument even if if I wouldn't make it.
This, on the other hand.... utterly shameful. Maybe instead of the uniform you can give them white flags to wave or something. The idea you've have to essentially hide the uniform of our armed forces, in the US, out of fear.... there aren't even words really.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Ouze wrote: CptJake wrote:http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/07/18/marine-recruiters-told-not--wear-uniforms-offices-closed/30353587/
The military services have taken swift action to increase security after Thursday's shootings in Tennessee, even closing some facilities and telling Marine recruiters not to wear uniforms in public.
You want to argue about the drawbacks of having substantially more personnel with sidearms around, so far as ND's and such, fine. It's not a great argument but at least I can see the argument even if if I wouldn't make it.
This, on the other hand.... utterly shameful. Maybe instead of the uniform you can give them white flags to wave or something. The idea you've have to essentially hide the uniform of our armed forces, in the US, out of fear.... there aren't even words really.
I was under the impression that the whole "not wearing your uniform in public" thing was already a rule anyway. Not denying that it feels like blaming the victim a bit there, but just curious.
18698
Post by: kronk
CptJake wrote:And right on cue:
The new policy, discussed in MARADMIN 365/15, not only prohibits all Marines, including recruiters, from wearing their uniforms off-base, but also instructs them to cover their heads with a large bag which prevents personal identification. All commands are initially instructed to disseminate money valuable bags, sandbags (preferably empty), or paper bags to all personnel to ensure immediate compliance.
Col. Elizabeth Thompson, a spokesperson for Headquarters Marine Corps, said the move is necessary to ensure that Marines remain safe and vigilant, whether they are being shot at on the battlefield or just shot at in their own office.
“While we know many active-duty Marines were hoping for relaxed policies on open- and concealed-carry, we really feel that the ‘bag-over-the-head’ is more practical given the limitations of our budgets and operating forces.”
http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/07/marine-force-protection/
Thanks for that!
Prohibiting recruiting Marines and other servicemen from wearing a Uniform whilst within the US of A is dumb. Really dumb and sad.
91
Post by: Hordini
d-usa wrote:Ouze wrote: CptJake wrote:http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/07/18/marine-recruiters-told-not--wear-uniforms-offices-closed/30353587/
The military services have taken swift action to increase security after Thursday's shootings in Tennessee, even closing some facilities and telling Marine recruiters not to wear uniforms in public.
You want to argue about the drawbacks of having substantially more personnel with sidearms around, so far as ND's and such, fine. It's not a great argument but at least I can see the argument even if if I wouldn't make it.
This, on the other hand.... utterly shameful. Maybe instead of the uniform you can give them white flags to wave or something. The idea you've have to essentially hide the uniform of our armed forces, in the US, out of fear.... there aren't even words really.
I was under the impression that the whole "not wearing your uniform in public" thing was already a rule anyway. Not denying that it feels like blaming the victim a bit there, but just curious.
No, it wasn't already a rule. There are certain restrictions on certain uniforms in some services (for example, Marines aren't supposed to wear their camouflage uniform in public when off-duty, but several other uniforms are allowed), but there's no blanket restriction on wearing uniforms in public.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
d-usa wrote:
I was under the impression that the whole "not wearing your uniform in public" thing was already a rule anyway. Not denying that it feels like blaming the victim a bit there, but just curious.
Yes, that is a rule that basically all branches have. Some are softer than others on "enforcing" it. But in this instance, the USMC is telling it's marines to not wear uniforms in public, even if it is part of their official duties (ie, recruiters).
I think it's a particularly tough conundrum here: do we arm recruiters on duty, do we allow military personnel (to include civilian contractors working on base) to carry POWs if they have proper permits? Do we eliminate uniforms off base entirely, forever?
On that last point, I think it's not a best idea to take recruiters out of duty uniforms, because it's what helps folks identify them (which I suppose, in an instance where a person means to do harm, that's a bad thing). I know that I've seen recruiters in khakis and a service logo'd polo shirt, but it doesn't really have the same effect as a duty uniform.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
CptJake wrote:http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/07/18/marine-recruiters-told-not--wear-uniforms-offices-closed/30353587/
The military services have taken swift action to increase security after Thursday's shootings in Tennessee, even closing some facilities and telling Marine recruiters not to wear uniforms in public.
One of the steps Carter approved was Marine Corps Recruiting Command's decision to have recruiters not wear their military uniforms for now, a defense official said. The recruiting command also closed down all offices within 40 miles of the facilities in Chattanooga and increased the force protection condition level from "Bravo" to "Charlie."
I bet the marines in civvies are darned proud of this decision.
A marine in civvies just looks like a marine in civvies.
4402
Post by: CptJake
d-usa wrote:Ouze wrote: CptJake wrote:http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/07/18/marine-recruiters-told-not--wear-uniforms-offices-closed/30353587/
The military services have taken swift action to increase security after Thursday's shootings in Tennessee, even closing some facilities and telling Marine recruiters not to wear uniforms in public.
You want to argue about the drawbacks of having substantially more personnel with sidearms around, so far as ND's and such, fine. It's not a great argument but at least I can see the argument even if if I wouldn't make it.
This, on the other hand.... utterly shameful. Maybe instead of the uniform you can give them white flags to wave or something. The idea you've have to essentially hide the uniform of our armed forces, in the US, out of fear.... there aren't even words really.
I was under the impression that the whole "not wearing your uniform in public" thing was already a rule anyway. Not denying that it feels like blaming the victim a bit there, but just curious.
These are recruiters. They wear their uniform while on duty out in public daily. They go to school, malls, community events, local gyms, where ever they need to go to contact likely recruits/keep contact with kids they are actively recruiting. They do this in uniform, as that IS their duty. Or at least they DID until now.
60720
Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured
So next time will the be banned from revealing the are marines even if asked?
it does seem very foolish
37231
Post by: d-usa
CptJake wrote: d-usa wrote:Ouze wrote: CptJake wrote:http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/07/18/marine-recruiters-told-not--wear-uniforms-offices-closed/30353587/
The military services have taken swift action to increase security after Thursday's shootings in Tennessee, even closing some facilities and telling Marine recruiters not to wear uniforms in public.
You want to argue about the drawbacks of having substantially more personnel with sidearms around, so far as ND's and such, fine. It's not a great argument but at least I can see the argument even if if I wouldn't make it.
This, on the other hand.... utterly shameful. Maybe instead of the uniform you can give them white flags to wave or something. The idea you've have to essentially hide the uniform of our armed forces, in the US, out of fear.... there aren't even words really.
I was under the impression that the whole "not wearing your uniform in public" thing was already a rule anyway. Not denying that it feels like blaming the victim a bit there, but just curious.
These are recruiters. They wear their uniform while on duty out in public daily. They go to school, malls, community events, local gyms, where ever they need to go to contact likely recruits/keep contact with kids they are actively recruiting. They do this in uniform, as that IS their duty. Or at least they DID until now.
I was thinking about "in public when not of official duty".
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I believe it is indeed a rule not to wear your uniform while not on duty.
Of course I think the rule is either poorly enforced or the definition of "on duty" is quite flexible and extends to lunch breaks at In-n-out.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Grey Templar wrote:I believe it is indeed a rule not to wear your uniform while not on duty.
Of course I think the rule is either poorly enforced or the definition of "on duty" is quite flexible and extends to lunch breaks at In-n-out.
Sort of correct. Depends on where you are stationed and the orders of the Post Commander.
As to arming soldiers stationed CONUS 24/7? That's fething terribly stupid. We'd lose twenty people a day to accidents and altercations at the PX.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Will we end up arming all the spouses who have rank by marriage as well?
4402
Post by: CptJake
d-usa wrote:Will we end up arming all the spouses who have rank by marriage as well?
Do they have proper conceal carry permits?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I do not think arming troops off the bat is a great idea.
Training the living crap out of them and hammering in them a strict set of ROE then I agree
Also there needs to be a clear defining line between where the Armed S/M responsibilities ends and where the LEO responsibilities begin
I'm going to use D-USA location on where he got his CCL(?) permit
Recruiting station across from the Sheriff office in a mall.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
ROE are going to vary too much by environment to matter... and given the amount (and levels) of alcohol and drug consumption in the Armed Forces, having everyone walking around with a '16 and ten magazines is trouble just waiting to happen.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Psienesis wrote: having everyone walking around with a '16 and ten magazines is trouble just waiting to happen.
Has anyone proposed this yet?
Also are there any UCMJ rules against the handling of firearms while under the influence?
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Psienesis wrote: Grey Templar wrote:I believe it is indeed a rule not to wear your uniform while not on duty.
Of course I think the rule is either poorly enforced or the definition of "on duty" is quite flexible and extends to lunch breaks at In-n-out.
Sort of correct. Depends on where you are stationed and the orders of the Post Commander.
As to arming soldiers stationed CONUS 24/7? That's fething terribly stupid. We'd lose twenty people a day to accidents and altercations at the PX.
Again - the Israelis do it with conscripts and don't have that problem. This seems very similar to the "blood running in the streets!" tale perpetuated by anti-gun supremacists every time gun-rights legislation is passed, and it never turns out to be true.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Psienesis wrote: having everyone walking around with a '16 and ten magazines is trouble just waiting to happen.
Has anyone proposed this yet?
Also are there any UCMJ rules against the handling of firearms while under the influence?
Rule 1 of being an NCO
"You will always have that one idiot that will do it"
Rule 2 of being an NCO
"Nothing is Idiot Proof"
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Psienesis wrote: having everyone walking around with a '16 and ten magazines is trouble just waiting to happen.
Has anyone proposed this yet?
Also are there any UCMJ rules against the handling of firearms while under the influence?
Totally legal under PA's carry laws, fwiw.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: Psienesis wrote: having everyone walking around with a '16 and ten magazines is trouble just waiting to happen.
Has anyone proposed this yet?
Also are there any UCMJ rules against the handling of firearms while under the influence?
Totally legal under PA's carry laws, fwiw.
As an aside if I recall Indiana is the same. But I'm curious ad to what the UCMJ says on the matter
4402
Post by: CptJake
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Psienesis wrote: having everyone walking around with a '16 and ten magazines is trouble just waiting to happen.
Has anyone proposed this yet? Also are there any UCMJ rules against the handling of firearms while under the influence?
Folks like me wanting troops to be allowed to carry concealed IF they have the permit would tell you there are laws against carrying while under the influence (or drinking while carrying). I would fully expect an active duty trooper to abide by the law as do civilians, or get punished according to the law (if off post) or by the UCMJ (article 134 at a minimum) if on post. Here in NC: (c2) It shall be unlawful for a person, with or without a permit, to carry a concealed handgun while consuming alcohol or at any time while the person has remaining in the person's body any alcohol or in the person's blood a controlled substance previously consumed, but a person does not violate this condition if a controlled substance in the person's blood was lawfully obtained and taken in therapeutically appropriate amounts or if the person is on the person's own property.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
So here's a question - CptJake, how do you feel about active duty personnel carrying if they don't have a carry permit, in states where open carry without a permit is legal?
For example, it is perfectly legal to open carry in PA outside of Philadelphia and perhaps Pittsburgh. I've never seen anybody do it, and it would probably result in a call to the cops, but it is legal. Since civilians can do it, should AD military in open carry states be able to OC in uniform on post / base?
39550
Post by: Psienesis
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Psienesis wrote: Grey Templar wrote:I believe it is indeed a rule not to wear your uniform while not on duty.
Of course I think the rule is either poorly enforced or the definition of "on duty" is quite flexible and extends to lunch breaks at In-n-out.
Sort of correct. Depends on where you are stationed and the orders of the Post Commander.
As to arming soldiers stationed CONUS 24/7? That's fething terribly stupid. We'd lose twenty people a day to accidents and altercations at the PX.
Again - the Israelis do it with conscripts and don't have that problem. This seems very similar to the "blood running in the streets!" tale perpetuated by anti-gun supremacists every time gun-rights legislation is passed, and it never turns out to be true.
I'm not an "anti-gun supremacist", whatever-the-feth that is supposed to be.
I am, however, an Army veteran, and can tell you that a lot of these yahoos need help putting their boots on the right damn feet in the morning.
Folks like me wanting troops to be allowed to carry concealed IF they have the permit would tell you there are laws against carrying while under the influence (or drinking while carrying). I would fully expect an active duty trooper to abide by the law as do civilians, or get punished according to the law (if off post) or by the UCMJ (article 134 at a minimum) if on post.
The issue weapon for an active duty soldier is an assault rifle, not a sidearm. The majority of enlisted soldiers are never issued sidearms in the first place, it's not part of their kit or function. Given that it will be done in the most cost-effective method (assuming, for sake of argument, that it does happen), what you will have is not a bunch of soldiers going around with hidden 9mm pistols but, rather, loaded M-16s over their shoulders. This is a weapon lethal out to several hundred yards. In the event that something happens, you will be turning wherever this is going on into a free-fire zone... and, making things perhaps more complicated, in the moment, it may be impossible to tell if Person A who is firing is the bad guy, a bystander, or one of the good guys, especially if there's a mix of attire present (people in civvies, people in uniform, people in Class As, people in Class Bs, people in BDUs, etc.).
Given that the scenario has just gone from "another day at the PX" to "active shooter(s)" with potentially-scores of people involved, you've got such a cross-fire going on that while, yes, it is likely the actual perpetrator of the crime is going to be killed, there is an extremely-elevated risk of friendly fire incidents, since those involved and shooting are not going to be certain that the people they're shooting at are also not trying to shoot back at them. Add to that a number of people running to and fro for cover, or attempting inexpert E&E maneuvers, or attempting to line up a shot at a perceived target (potentially erroneous), with 99% of the people involved not at all knowing what the hell is going on, this is simply a recipe for disaster.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Psienesis wrote:
I'm not an "anti-gun supremacist", whatever-the-feth that is supposed to be.
I am, however, an Army veteran, and can tell you that a lot of these yahoos need help putting their boots on the right damn feet in the morning.
Excellent, and I'm an IDF veteran. And in the IDF, thousands of 18-21 year old male and female conscripts manage to carry automatic weapons and ammunition on base, through public transportation systems, to the beach, and into their homes, all without incident.
If they can do it, why can't our professional, volunteer military pull it off?
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Because, here, "professional" means "gets paid" and "voluntary" usually means "had no other options after high school".
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Psienesis wrote:Because, here, "professional" means "gets paid" and "voluntary" usually means "had no other options after high school".
Which still shouldn't preclude running a tight ship. Thats kinda the point of training isn't it?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Its a "trust" thing
Also if we have armed troops going around their daily lives on and off duty packing heat its pretty much saying we're in a combat zone. People will get the idea that the US Military is viewing them as a "threat"
Israel and US of A is two different animal.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Psienesis wrote:Because, here, "professional" means "gets paid" and "voluntary" usually means "had no other options after high school".
Fair enough.
My only response to that is that conscript, everywhere, means "parents didn't have enough money to pay off a doctor to medically disqualify you."
I'm not saying that professional, volunteer military organizations are entirely devoid of scumbags. My point is that other nations' militaries, that are working with far less average quality in terms of bodies-left-after-selection, manage to arm soldiers on and off duty without the apocalypse that you say is an inevitability of arming people who are armed for a living.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Indeed. But I mean, in most areas the civilians have a right to be armed. Why can't the service men and women also have that right if they so desire?
And military installations of all kinds should have some weaponry available, that's just a logical idea.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Jihadin wrote:Its a "trust" thing
Also if we have armed troops going around their daily lives on and off duty packing heat its pretty much saying we're in a combat zone. People will get the idea that the US Military is viewing them as a "threat"
Israel and US of A is two different animal.
This is a fair point. In Israel, your parents were soldiers, your friends and siblings are soldiers, and your children will be soldiers (or sailors, or border police, or domestic police if they are Russian). I used to routinely hitchhike in uniform with kitbag and M4 in tow. If I stood out on a street in the US with an M4 on my shoulder, I'm pretty sure the only ride I'd get would be in the back of some donutpounder's squad car.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Grey Templar wrote: Psienesis wrote:Because, here, "professional" means "gets paid" and "voluntary" usually means "had no other options after high school".
Which still shouldn't preclude running a tight ship. Thats kinda the point of training isn't it?
US Army Basic Training is 8 weeks long. Most of it is not specifically range-time or tactical awareness. A lot of it is D&C, Army academia (rank structure & recognition, terms of address, etc). You get maybe three days on HTH Combat (including bayonet usage), a day on deploying a Claymore mine, about a week with your '16, basic map-reading and orienteering, basic first aid/combat life-saving, and some basic survival skills (foraging, water-gathering, shelter-building, etc), a day or two on using hand grenades, and a day on commo. The rest is physical training, marches, NBC training, with an obstacle course/survival camp/night fire exercise at the end to sum it all up. Then you graduate and go to AIT to learn what you will actually be doing for the Army, and might not touch a weapon again the rest of your military career.
Your duty station will determine how tight a ship your unit is. Lots of units that are not Combat Arms MOS units are... a lot like living in a frat in college. Most units in the Army, even CA ones, are basically 9-5 jobs, outside of combat AOs. You get up at 6 AM, you go to PT, you go shower and hit the DFAC for breakfast, you report for duty at 9 AM. In most cases, you're off at 4:30 PM and have the rest of the night pretty much to yourself, unless you pulled KP or CQ or some other role on the duty roster that day.
4402
Post by: CptJake
NuggzTheNinja wrote:So here's a question - CptJake, how do you feel about active duty personnel carrying if they don't have a carry permit, in states where open carry without a permit is legal?
For example, it is perfectly legal to open carry in PA outside of Philadelphia and perhaps Pittsburgh. I've never seen anybody do it, and it would probably result in a call to the cops, but it is legal. Since civilians can do it, should AD military in open carry states be able to OC in uniform on post / base?
I would say 'no' and for the simple reason that 'in uniform' implies exactly that, in uniform. I have yet to see where the daily duty uniform allows a guy to have a holster strapped on, unless he/she is an MP or in a similar role where the holster is part of the uniform. Hell, gals are restricted to the type/color of purse they can carry and all are restricted to the types of personal backpack/laptop case they can carry.
But I've lived in open carry places (like Arizona) and seen military and civilians in civilian clothes carry openly off post. Heck, saw a guy last weekend here in NC open carrying. I'm not a fan of open carry for a variety of reasons, but if it is legal, go for it.
But in uniform? It seems to break the uniform part of that. Which is one of the many reasons I'm more for conceal carry. Automatically Appended Next Post: Psienesis wrote:
Folks like me wanting troops to be allowed to carry concealed IF they have the permit would tell you there are laws against carrying while under the influence (or drinking while carrying). I would fully expect an active duty trooper to abide by the law as do civilians, or get punished according to the law (if off post) or by the UCMJ (article 134 at a minimum) if on post.
The issue weapon for an active duty soldier is an assault rifle, not a sidearm. The majority of enlisted soldiers are never issued sidearms in the first place, it's not part of their kit or function. Given that it will be done in the most cost-effective method (assuming, for sake of argument, that it does happen), what you will have is not a bunch of soldiers going around with hidden 9mm pistols but, rather, loaded M-16s over their shoulders. This is a weapon lethal out to several hundred yards. In the event that something happens, you will be turning wherever this is going on into a free-fire zone... and, making things perhaps more complicated, in the moment, it may be impossible to tell if Person A who is firing is the bad guy, a bystander, or one of the good guys, especially if there's a mix of attire present (people in civvies, people in uniform, people in Class As, people in Class Bs, people in BDUs, etc.).
Given that the scenario has just gone from "another day at the PX" to "active shooter(s)" with potentially-scores of people involved, you've got such a cross-fire going on that while, yes, it is likely the actual perpetrator of the crime is going to be killed, there is an extremely-elevated risk of friendly fire incidents, since those involved and shooting are not going to be certain that the people they're shooting at are also not trying to shoot back at them. Add to that a number of people running to and fro for cover, or attempting inexpert E&E maneuvers, or attempting to line up a shot at a perceived target (potentially erroneous), with 99% of the people involved not at all knowing what the hell is going on, this is simply a recipe for disaster.
How was the Active Shooter at Ft Hood stopped? HINT: It wasn't by nice thoughts. The fact is almost EVERY active shooter has been stopped when guns come towards them. Some eat their own gun at that point, others get capped or quit. Any place you go off post in a state that allows concealed carry, by your definition, must be a potential confusing cross fire because you don't know who is and who is not armed. Yet cases where a slew of innocents are capped by others engaging an active shooter tend to be limited to those capped by cops who feth up, not by concealed carry permit holders. The current 'Curl up in a ball and hide' tactic the Army teaches for active shooter scenarios didn't work well for Hasan's victims.
I couldn't give two gaks about what the issue weapon is. You won't find me advocating issuing DoD weapons all around and in fact I've argued AGAINST trying to upgrade recruiting stations to hold arms rooms and such. What I have been pretty clearly advocating is that service members, their families, civilians working on DoD facilities and so on be ALLOWED to get a concealed carry permit and then carry concealed if they so choose, or not carry if they don't want to. My wife can (and does) carry concealed off post (when not in uniform) as do I. Anyone willing to go through the process (here in NC it requires a class with a written and shooting test for example) should be allowed to carry if they want. There are not very many shooting crimes committed by concealed carry permit holders. And there are a lot of military folks with concealed carry permits (some with one from a few states).
39550
Post by: Psienesis
How was the Active Shooter at Ft Hood stopped? HINT: It wasn't by nice thoughts. The fact is almost EVERY active shooter has been stopped when guns come towards them. Some eat their own gun at that point, others get capped or quit. Any place you go off post in a state that allows concealed carry, by your definition, must be a potential confusing cross fire because you don't know who is and who is not armed. Yet cases where a slew of innocents are capped by others engaging an active shooter tend to be limited to those capped by cops who feth up, not by concealed carry permit holders. The current 'Curl up in a ball and hide' tactic the Army teaches for active shooter scenarios didn't work well for Hasan's victims.
The shooter in the 2009 incident was shot by a police officer, the shooter in the 2014 incident died by self-inflicted gunshot.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Psienesis wrote: We'd lose twenty people a day to accidents and altercations at the PX.
Nah... not the PX. It'd only be the commissary, and only on "black friday"
And my own two cents: I think that if SMs have requisite carry permits for the locality where they are stationed, they should be allowed to do so. But here's where I think things need to be reigned in a bit. IMO, if a SM does this, it should only be available to them at their POV (if they work on base) or must be secured in the arms room during duty hours. Then, they may retrieve said firearms at the end of the duty day, or when they return to their POV at the end of the day to head home. I would imagine that the Reserve Center that was hit in Chattanooga wasn't really a "base" per se, and thus didn't have the gate systems that basically all active military installations have. This means, IMO, that SMs who work "normal" duties on those kinds of bases, dont really need to be carrying them at all times in the PX, Commissary, commander's office, platoon offices, etc. They only "need" them from the point of exiting the gates, to their place of residence.
People on special duties like Recruiters are different obviously, and the idea of them openly carrying all the time is one that, I can see some people being "turned off" of military life seeing that. But, I don't think that should negate those guys' ability to defend themselves. Perhaps their compromise would be to have their carry weapon, should they choose to use one, in their desk or somewhere not readily in sight of potential recruits/ recruits family.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Psienesis wrote:The shooter in the 2009 incident was shot by a police officer, the shooter in the 2014 incident died by self-inflicted gunshot.
Which incidents were these?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ft Hood and I think the other was El Paso
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
I suppose that it will take a few more casualties before people take the idea seriously. Sadly.
34390
Post by: whembly
Um... you gotta think this General has his hands tied...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-military-tells-recruiting-centers-to-step-up-security-1437414196
Adm. Bill Gortney, head of the U.S. Northern Command, which oversees security for military facilities in America, issued a directive Sunday night that calls on centers nationwide to implement modest new security measures while the Defense Department considers more substantive steps to address threats to the facilities, officials said.
The steps don’t authorize recruiters to carry weapons in their centers, something that would require higher-level action. Instead, they direct hundreds of recruiting centers, reserve centers and ROTC facilities to increase surveillance and take basic steps such as closing blinds at the offices, officials said.
Them blinds bullet-proof??
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
on post the only ones carrying weapons should be MPs, those at the range and maybe people pulling duty at CQ/BN/BDE/DIV. Actually guys pulling duty definitely should have the option to be armed. They are the ones charged with keeping watch over those off duty. Just have an arms locker installed and special code issued to those on duty to open it. Just like Armorers have rounds to defend the arms room if necessary duty personal should be able to defend the barracks.
Off post it should only be a side arm and those only on official business. Naturally they would be trained to use the weapon.
Then just ban the wearing of the uniform off post.
23
Post by: djones520
Psienesis wrote:ROE are going to vary too much by environment to matter... and given the amount (and levels) of alcohol and drug consumption in the Armed Forces, having everyone walking around with a '16 and ten magazines is trouble just waiting to happen.
So clearly you have no idea what your talking about...
I'm not even going to touch on the incredibly insulting comment about substance abuse, but even here in Afghanistan we aren't walking around loaded for bear. I have a full combat load because my mission does take me off FOB. Those who remain on FOB though only carry one magazine with their weapon. Hell I only carry a single magazine while on FOB. With my M-9, not M-4.
Now to the real topic.
Arming Recruiters, while an incredibly impractical measure, since they won't have access to an armory, they would only be armed with an M-9, and would have the minimal amount of ammunition necessary for an active shooter incident.
If any steps are going to be taken, I would imagine that it would be the DoD allowing Recruiters to have a personal firearm at their office. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if many didn't lately.
Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:Um... you gotta think this General has his hands tied...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-military-tells-recruiting-centers-to-step-up-security-1437414196
Adm. Bill Gortney, head of the U.S. Northern Command, which oversees security for military facilities in America, issued a directive Sunday night that calls on centers nationwide to implement modest new security measures while the Defense Department considers more substantive steps to address threats to the facilities, officials said.
The steps don’t authorize recruiters to carry weapons in their centers, something that would require higher-level action. Instead, they direct hundreds of recruiting centers, reserve centers and ROTC facilities to increase surveillance and take basic steps such as closing blinds at the offices, officials said.
Them blinds bullet-proof??
The blinds provide concealment, not cover. If you can't see what you're shooting at, you are much less likely to hit it.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 djones520 wrote:
If any steps are going to be taken, I would imagine that it would be the DoD allowing Recruiters to have a personal firearm at their office. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if many didn't lately.
I know a couple senior enlisted troops who carry regularly on post and just hope they won't get caught.
I can't break rules like that.
64581
Post by: Jerram
And the fact that that idea is given more consideration in the halls of power than allowing military members to carry their personally owned and permitted hand guns to work is seriously fethed up.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Jerram wrote:
And the fact that that idea is given more consideration in the halls of power than allowing military members to carry their personally owned and permitted hand guns to work is seriously fethed up.
But the thing is, this "ban" is already in place. And I know from talking to marines and former marines, that the USMC has a much stricter policy on the wear of uniforms off base than the army does. The problem, at least as of when I was in the army, was that you almost never saw those regs enforced.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
djones520 wrote: Psienesis wrote:ROE are going to vary too much by environment to matter... and given the amount (and levels) of alcohol and drug consumption in the Armed Forces, having everyone walking around with a '16 and ten magazines is trouble just waiting to happen.
So clearly you have no idea what your talking about...
I'm not even going to touch on the incredibly insulting comment about substance abuse, but even here in Afghanistan we aren't walking around loaded for bear. I have a full combat load because my mission does take me off FOB. Those who remain on FOB though only carry one magazine with their weapon. Hell I only carry a single magazine while on FOB. With my M-9, not M-4.
I can't begin to tell you the number of people in my unit who pissed hot for pot, coke and amphetamines when I was in the service. Alcohol was a given. You assumed, any night of the week, that there was alcohol freely available in the barracks. As the saying goes, "If you weren't an alcoholic or a drug-addict when you went into the military, you sure will be by the time you get out."
And if you're going to get your panties in a twist over a bit of hyperbole, that's fine, but even a single thirty-round magazine in an area potentially filled with civilians (like a strip-mall at a Recruiter's station) who might also be armed and, hey, who knows, have a chip on their shoulder about the military invading their "sovereign state" or some such BS, is a nightmare just waiting to happen.
64581
Post by: Jerram
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Jerram wrote:
And the fact that that idea is given more consideration in the halls of power than allowing military members to carry their personally owned and permitted hand guns to work is seriously fethed up.
But the thing is, this "ban" is already in place. And I know from talking to marines and former marines, that the USMC has a much stricter policy on the wear of uniforms off base than the army does. The problem, at least as of when I was in the army, was that you almost never saw those regs enforced.
Yes the USMC has a stricter policy on wear of uniforms out and about town as compared to any of the other services, but no that doesn't mean such a "ban" is in place. Heck as if you need the uniform to identify a marine anyways....
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Not all Marines are Bigguy McLargehuge.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
No, but there is a reason we call them "Jarheads"
Seriously, every marine that I've known or hung out with, all had the same "high and tight". Every. Single. One.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Seriously have to issue the weapon to someone who has not deployed just to remove "OMG A VET WITH PTSD JUST WENT NUTS!" incident
12313
Post by: Ouze
So, CNN is reporting that the shooter probably wasn't associated with ISIL, at least by his own words.
Chattanooga shooter Mohammad Abdulazeez told a friend that ISIS was "doing wrong" and "it was a stupid group and it was completely against Islam," the friend told CNN on Monday.
The article is way too long to paste here.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Which is funny, since it doesn't match his actions. I'ma call BS on that assertion.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Grey Templar wrote:Which is funny, since it doesn't match his actions. I'ma call BS on that assertion.
Shh... it was a cover, so his friends didn't suspect
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Marines aren't allowed to Wear Cammies or Dress Blue Alphas, those are the 2 big no nos. Other then that you can wear Dress Blue Bravo's and Chucks/deltas whenever the hell you wanted. Of course if you did and you didn't have a specific reason I.E. Event, Speech, formal dinner/affair then we would label you as a Motard. And trust me those rules were STRICTLY enforced. I personally chewed a group of Bootenants a new butthole when I saw them off base in Cammies at a Dunkin Donuts out of their cars joking around. (I was a Salty Cpl at the time).
Also whenever we did any kind of troop movements that didn't involve military transports we usually were ordered to do it in civilian attire....granted as stated earlier its kinda hard to miss a group of Marines pretending to be civilians.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Grey Templar wrote:Which is funny, since it doesn't match his actions. I'ma call BS on that assertion.
By all means, make up any story you like?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Think I take whatever the LEO investigation turns up before I take what his friend and CNN says. Still early in the investigation
12313
Post by: Ouze
Absolutely. CNN isn't the greatest reporting at the best of times, anyway.
He also seems to have been a big stoner, which is a little weird since in my anecdotal experience marijuana usually mellows people out.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
djones520 wrote:Arming Recruiters, while an incredibly impractical measure, since they won't have access to an armory, they would only be armed with an M-9, and would have the minimal amount of ammunition necessary for an active shooter incident.
Less ammo than is ideal still beats none at all. Having taken a quick drive around, most of the recruiting in this area is done in buildings whose defensive characteristics i would generously call 'minimum'. Big glass walls on one side and little in the way of interior walls, substantial furniture, or even a back door. If they come through the front, there's nowhere to go.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Guess you never seen what a pissed off NCO can do with a Skillcraft pen eh
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Jihadin wrote:Guess you never seen what a pissed off NCO can do with a Skillcraft pen eh
My personal favorite was the ammo cans lying randomly around offices and company offices. You know the ones that got turned into PT equipment, loose storage and the sort. I distinctly remember coming into work one day after my squad had annoyed our Sgt the day before to find hand shovels and a map on 2 dozen locations where he had buried an ammo can with a piece of gear we needed the next day for an inspection....D*** move
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ghazkuul wrote: Jihadin wrote:Guess you never seen what a pissed off NCO can do with a Skillcraft pen eh
My personal favorite was the ammo cans lying randomly around offices and company offices. You know the ones that got turned into PT equipment, loose storage and the sort. I distinctly remember coming into work one day after my squad had annoyed our Sgt the day before to find hand shovels and a map on 2 dozen locations where he had buried an ammo can with a piece of gear we needed the next day for an inspection....D*** move
What you get for leaving your crap unsecure.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Nope, it was very much secured inside EKMS, what we had done was run a PFT that wasn't for score and decided to go as fast as we wanted...which meant SLOW AS ......
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ghazkuul wrote:
Nope, it was very much secured inside EKMS, what we had done was run a PFT that wasn't for score and decided to go as fast as we wanted...which meant SLOW AS ......
So your key card was left unsecured..........plot thickens
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Jihadin wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:
Nope, it was very much secured inside EKMS, what we had done was run a PFT that wasn't for score and decided to go as fast as we wanted...which meant SLOW AS ......
So your key card was left unsecured..........plot thickens
I have no idea how your EKMS worked but we didn't have key cards, EKMS was a manned post, usually by a SSgt or his alternate a Sgt. silly army Key cards are for the AIr force and their hotel room/barracks.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ghazkuul wrote: Jihadin wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:
Nope, it was very much secured inside EKMS, what we had done was run a PFT that wasn't for score and decided to go as fast as we wanted...which meant SLOW AS ......
So your key card was left unsecured..........plot thickens
I have no idea how your EKMS worked but we didn't have key cards, EKMS was a manned post, usually by a SSgt or his alternate a Sgt. silly army Key cards are for the AIr force and their hotel room/barracks.
Tells me you left your gear unsecure. Guard or not. One always secure their gear. 110% accountability. Your squad took it for granted that since a guard was posted it was "secure". A NCO Guard at that. End. Of. Story.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Fort Hood shows the need for timely armed intervention when someone is attacking unarmed personnel. El Paso seems strange to mention as it was not a terrorist attack, it was someone with a mental health issue and a grudge. Automatically Appended Next Post:
He may not have been connected to ISIS, but there are religious extremist undertones to the attack.
Authorities are investigating a text message from Abdulazeez to a friend before the attack, law enforcement sources said. The message included an Islamic verse that says, "Whoever shows enmity to a friend of mine, then I have declared war against him."
443
Post by: skyth
On arming soldiers off base...Look at the outcry (legitimized by a sitting govenor) over the Jade Helm exercises.
An executive order from Obama ordering off-base soldiers to be armed (or even seeing armed uniformed soldiers) would make the uproar about Jade Helm seem minor.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 skyth wrote:On arming soldiers off base...Look at the outcry (legitimized by a sitting govenor) over the Jade Helm exercises.
An executive order from Obama ordering off-base soldiers to be armed (or even seeing armed uniformed soldiers) would make the uproar about Jade Helm seem minor.
If you can't conceal a personal weapon while wearing ACUs or similar, you are an idiot or incompetent. I can conceal my pistol in shorts and a t-shirt.
And screw the Executive Order straw man. How about the various legislative efforts out there to allow soldiers to conceal carry if they desire and have the requisite permits? Frankly I have not seen too many calls to have every troop carrying his/her M4 around all the time off or on post. Automatically Appended Next Post: The following shows (approximate in some cases) numbers of concealed carry permits by state:
http://www.legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm
They do link to some sources and state some others without links. I have zero idea how accurate it is.
This PDF has similar numbers and shows sources for their numbers at the end:
http://www.crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf
Now, the reason I bring this up is to show that there are a bunch of folks with permits out there. How can anyone think these people are any better or worse at handling a concealed weapon than a soldier or DoD civilian with the same permit would be? Did I increase your level of fear of being shot out of hand by pointing out there are concealed guns all over the place?
Now, I'm going to assume some (probably small) proportion of those numbers are active duty members or DoD civilians (I know several in both categories that have their permits). Assuming those already with permits were those most interested in obtaining one, I suspect if these folks were allowed to carry at work the numbers wouldn't rise too much, though being allowed to carry would indeed influence some folks to then seek out and obtain a permit and a weapon. If you believe active duty and DoD civilians are representative of the overall population, the %s given in that PDF would probably be representative of the %s who would end up with a permit, maybe active duty would have slightly higher %s, but I would bet not by much. Not everyone with a permit carries all the time (or at all).
443
Post by: skyth
Regardless, allowing soldiers to be armed off-base wi create a huge outcry from the type of people worried about the Jade Heln exercises.
Granted, if it was a Republican president there likely wouldn't be any outcry.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Arming soldiers in general or having armed guards at military facilities? Think we're blurring the line here
4402
Post by: CptJake
skyth wrote:Regardless, allowing soldiers to be armed off-base wi create a huge outcry from the type of people worried about the Jade Heln exercises.
Granted, if it was a Republican president there likely wouldn't be any outcry.
When they are in civilian clothes, they CAN be armed off post as is (assuming they have their permit).
Do the tinfoil hat wearing types get upset at this as is?
And do you really think the folks scared of Jade Helm give a rat's ass if the sitting POTUS has an R or a D? If they are the ones you are worried about complaining, I submit that tiny fraction of our population doesn't care R or D.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Jihadin wrote:Arming soldiers in general or having armed guards at military facilities? Think we're blurring the line here
I actually saw a proposal to put bullet proof glass and hire security guards for recruiting stations. What a waste of tax dollars that would end up being.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
I don't think anyone is arguing against armed guards at a military post. The gate team at Ft. Lewis, now JBLM, was always armed when I was there, and we always went armed when pulling guard rotation at our ASP (Ordnance unit) and when transporting to/from.
But at an off-post site, such as a recruiting office in a strip mall (which is why structural security is so poor, it's a rented store-front, not designed IAW military standards or tactical planning) is, as I've said, an accident waiting to happen. Whether its some moron going for a squealie around the parking lot that seems to be aiming for the station, some conspiracy-theory idiot off his/her meds (look at the poor vet in Florida that got shot for guarding some sea-turtles!) or just your regular, run-of-the-mill kook, the number of potentially-terrible events involving civilian casualties far outstrips the number of actual attacks happening on sites like this.
Upthread, someone mentioned the Ft. Hood shooting. They are apparently forgetting that armed people *did* respond to Hasan. He shot most of them. He was, specifically, targeting military personnel, after all. Eventually, a police officer shot and paralyzed him, ending the threat, but that was not the first armed response to the incident. It was not a lack of armed response that allowed that, simply that Hasan was a better shot, or that he already had his weapon out and active, or was simply one lucky SOB.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Psienesis wrote: Upthread, someone mentioned the Ft. Hood shooting. They are apparently forgetting that armed people *did* respond to Hasan. He shot most of them. He was, specifically, targeting military personnel, after all. Eventually, a police officer shot and paralyzed him, ending the threat, but that was not the first armed response to the incident. It was not a lack of armed response that allowed that, simply that Hasan was a better shot, or that he already had his weapon out and active, or was simply one lucky SOB.
Not an entirely accurate way to describe it. The first cop to confront him, he got off the first shots and he hit her, though she did return fire (officer Munley). The next (officer Todd) tried to get him to surrender, ended up exchanging fire with Hasan and took Hasan down. Munley was the ONLY one of the victims shot (13 killed 32 wounded) who was armed. So he did not shoot 'most' of the armed responders, and only TWO armed responders confronted him. NONE of the military were armed (except of course Hasan himself...) What is worth noting is that at least three of those killed were killed trying to charge Hasan and stop him. Maybe if one of them had been armed Hasan kills less folks. Maybe not. What we DO know is it took a guy shooting Hasan to stop Hasan.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
You might be right, I posted that from memory, and knew that several people confronted/attacked Hasan, but don't recall the specifics of who was armed with what and when (though he did shoot a guy with a table? Chair? Something.) Shot Munley, of course. Shot at Todd, and hit him... twice? One might have been a deflection shrapnel wound.
... so, yeah, actually, armed with whatever, Hasan did shoot every armed person to engage him.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
It happen at a medical facility though. Like the last place for something like that happen on a military post.
Anyone remember the Towle Stadium shooting on Ft Bragg? En entire Brigade was getting ready for the run when that shooter went active
4402
Post by: CptJake
Psienesis wrote:You might be right, I posted that from memory, and knew that several people confronted/attacked Hasan, but don't recall the specifics of who was armed with what and when (though he did shoot a guy with a table? Chair? Something.) Shot Munley, of course. Shot at Todd, and hit him... twice? One might have been a deflection shrapnel wound.
... so, yeah, actually, armed with whatever, Hasan did shoot every armed person to engage him.
No, he did not hit Todd. You are wrong again.
But even if you had ben right (though again, you are not) it would not negate my point at all. Hasan was only stopped by a guy with a gun. Any fire he exchanged with armed responders was fire he was not directing at unarmed victims.
443
Post by: skyth
CptJake wrote: skyth wrote:Regardless, allowing soldiers to be armed off-base wi create a huge outcry from the type of people worried about the Jade Heln exercises.
Granted, if it was a Republican president there likely wouldn't be any outcry.
When they are in civilian clothes, they CAN be armed off post as is (assuming they have their permit).
Do the tinfoil hat wearing types get upset at this as is?
And do you really think the folks scared of Jade Helm give a rat's ass if the sitting POTUS has an R or a D? If they are the ones you are worried about complaining, I submit that tiny fraction of our population doesn't care R or D.
Considering that the people concerned about Jade Helm had a sitting govenor on their side...I'd say yes, it would matter. The Jade Helm nonsense only spread like it did because it was done during the Obama administration. This would be worse.
Plus arming recruiters wouldn't do much good. I'm sure the shooter identified himself as an enemy before starting to engage as opposed to attacking from ambush. Also, a recruiting office being armed makes it a less inviting place to visit and will hamper recruiting.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
skyth wrote: CptJake wrote: skyth wrote:Regardless, allowing soldiers to be armed off-base wi create a huge outcry from the type of people worried about the Jade Heln exercises.
Granted, if it was a Republican president there likely wouldn't be any outcry.
When they are in civilian clothes, they CAN be armed off post as is (assuming they have their permit).
Do the tinfoil hat wearing types get upset at this as is?
And do you really think the folks scared of Jade Helm give a rat's ass if the sitting POTUS has an R or a D? If they are the ones you are worried about complaining, I submit that tiny fraction of our population doesn't care R or D.
Considering that the people concerned about Jade Helm had a sitting govenor on their side...I'd say yes, it would matter. The Jade Helm nonsense only spread like it did because it was done during the Obama administration. This would be worse.
Plus arming recruiters wouldn't do much good. I'm sure the shooter identified himself as an enemy before starting to engage as opposed to attacking from ambush. Also, a recruiting office being armed makes it a less inviting place to visit and will hamper recruiting.
Ummmm, if recruiters being armed would deter someone from signing up for the army I'm not sure they are the kind of person who should be joining the army.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
CptJake wrote: Psienesis wrote:You might be right, I posted that from memory, and knew that several people confronted/attacked Hasan, but don't recall the specifics of who was armed with what and when (though he did shoot a guy with a table? Chair? Something.) Shot Munley, of course. Shot at Todd, and hit him... twice? One might have been a deflection shrapnel wound.
... so, yeah, actually, armed with whatever, Hasan did shoot every armed person to engage him.
No, he did not hit Todd. You are wrong again.
But even if you had ben right (though again, you are not) it would not negate my point at all. Hasan was only stopped by a guy with a gun. Any fire he exchanged with armed responders was fire he was not directing at unarmed victims.
You seem to be the only one thinking I'm trying to negate a point you're making. This is an internet argument, nothing anyone here says is going to change the mind of any other participants.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Psienesis wrote: CptJake wrote: Psienesis wrote:You might be right, I posted that from memory, and knew that several people confronted/attacked Hasan, but don't recall the specifics of who was armed with what and when (though he did shoot a guy with a table? Chair? Something.) Shot Munley, of course. Shot at Todd, and hit him... twice? One might have been a deflection shrapnel wound. ... so, yeah, actually, armed with whatever, Hasan did shoot every armed person to engage him.
No, he did not hit Todd. You are wrong again. But even if you had ben right (though again, you are not) it would not negate my point at all. Hasan was only stopped by a guy with a gun. Any fire he exchanged with armed responders was fire he was not directing at unarmed victims.
You seem to be the only one thinking I'm trying to negate a point you're making. This is an internet argument, nothing anyone here says is going to change the mind of any other participants.
When I see someone putting out info I know is false in order to make a point, I try to point out it is false because here on the Net I don't assume everyone reading it will know. I couldn't give a gak about changing your mind, it is folks who don't know better I feel deserve more accurate info to form their opinions.
53516
Post by: Chute82
Jihadin wrote:It happen at a medical facility though. Like the last place for something like that happen on a military post.
Anyone remember the Towle Stadium shooting on Ft Bragg? En entire Brigade was getting ready for the run when that shooter went active
I was in the 82nd airborne at that time but was in panama the morning of the shooting. I was in the 505th and the battalion that the guy went nuts on was the 325.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
LOL
I was in 3/319th at that time. It was nuts. All those guys pouring out over the stadium running for the barracks. The pops we were hearing we attribute to the speakers warming for the cadence tape to play for PT. Then all those guys yelling "shooter shooter"
Word was he was pissed he was not going to get out of JRTC to handle some personal issue.
The BDE XO, Major I believe, was killed being he was the final authority on yes or no for that guy
53516
Post by: Chute82
Jihadin wrote:LOL
I was in 3/319th at that time. It was nuts. All those guys pouring out over the stadium running for the barracks. The pops we were hearing we attribute to the speakers warming for the cadence tape to play for PT. Then all those guys yelling "shooter shooter"
Word was he was pissed he was not going to get out of JRTC to handle some personal issue.
The BDE XO, Major I believe, was killed being he was the final authority on yes or no for that guy
I was in Bco 3/505 everybody was calling my mother telling her there was a shooting at Bragg that morning. My parents had to keep telling the, I was in panama. One of the craziest things that happened also at Bragg was those skinheads that executed that Afracian American couple while they where walking down the street. All started when a skinhead in my company was shot by a man after they kicked the lights out of his car. So the skinheads retaliated and killed those two. There where a bunch of skinheads at that time in the 505th. One idiot skinhead in my company had a tattoo of a black man being hung and tried to explain to CID that he was not a skinhead. He had skinhead tattooed on his inside of his lips also. They threw all those skinhead idiots out of the army and cleaned the place up. Automatically Appended Next Post: JRTC that was always a good time. When had a German lose his M16 somewhere in the woods. Stayed a extra week out there looking for it walking shoulder to shoulder across the box. Found out one of the civilian artillery markers found it and brought it home. That guy got in a bunch of trouble
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I was made EO at the time of that racial killing
It was a interesting time to have tattoo's
Hate groups have uneasy history with military base
A billboard along the main road into Fort Bragg, N.C., in the mid-1990s read: “Enough! Let’s start taking back America.” Below the slogan was the telephone number for the National Alliance, a white-supremacist group.
Wade Michael Page, who killed six on Sunday at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, must have driven by that billboard dozens of times while stationed at the base back then. It was paid for by an active-duty soldier at Fort Bragg who served as a recruiter for the hate group.
Page was at Fort Bragg in 1995 when two neo-Nazi soldiers from the 82nd Airborne killed a black couple in nearby Fayetteville, according to a former soldier who served with him.
At the time, Page was assigned to a unit that specialized in Latin American affairs. Many members were fluent in Spanish, but Page wanted only to learn German, said Fred Allen Lucas, 43, who served with him in A Company, 9th Psychological Operations Battalion.
Once, while on temporary duty in Germany, Page got drunk and started goose-stepping down the street Nazi-style.
“He started singing Nazi marching songs,” said Lucas, of Bloomington, Ind.
At the time, military policy prohibited active membership in hate groups, but not so-called passive support of their ideas.
The racially motivated murders in Fayetteville exposed a thriving subculture at Fort Bragg, according to a March 1999 article in the Military Law Review.
Nazi flags adorned the barracks of National Alliance sympathizers, who handed out pamphlets on the base. At parties, they played “Third Reich,” a song about killing blacks and Jews. They tied their Doc Martens boots with white laces and wore red suspenders and leather jackets when not in uniform.
“White supremacists have a natural attraction to the military,” the article says. “They often see themselves as warriors, superbly fit and well-trained in survivalist techniques and weapons and poised for the ultimate conflict with various races.”
In the wake of the Fayetteville murders and the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress convened hearings and the Department of Defense commissioned a study on extremism in the military.
The murders weren’t the only evidence of neo-Nazi soldiers at Fort Bragg, according to congressional testimony by Joseph T. Roy Sr., director of Klanwatch, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
In 1991, one soldier from Fort Bragg and one from Fort Campbell, Ky., were indicted on a charge of amassing large amounts of weapons in preparation for attacks on media organizations and other companies owned by Jews and blacks.
In 1992, Fort Bragg was home to a white-supremacist group called Special Forces Underground.
“They combined a racist, antidemocratic agenda with sophisticated technical skills and weaponry,” Roy said. “The combination is extremely dangerous.”
In 1994 and 1995, skinheads were suspected of eight assaults on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Police suspected soldiers were involved in all of them.
Also in 1995, a man was shot in the chest during a fight between two skinhead gangs near the base. Both groups included members of the military.
The Defense Department investigation, which identified 19 white supremacists at Fort Bragg in addition to the two who killed the couple, likely underestimated the number, John J. Johnson, director of the armed services and veterans affairs department of the NAACP, told Congress.
“It is clear that Fort Bragg has a serious problem,” he said.
As a result of the investigation and hearings, the Defense Department gave commanders more authority to crack down on extremists.
“Department of Defense policy leaves no room for racist and extremist activities in the military. We must – and we will – make every effort to erase bigotry, racism and extremism from the military,” Secretary of the Army Togo D. West Jr. said in 1996. “Extremist activity compromises fairness, good order and discipline, and, potentially, combat effectiveness.”
But the problems at Fort Bragg continued, Defense Department investigator Scott Barfield told the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2006.
In 2004, a Fort Bragg military intelligence officer stationed in Iraq was dishonorably discharged for sending weapons from Iraq to the U.S. Investigators found neo-Nazi literature in his home, according to Barfield.
And in 2006, Barfield discovered a group of more than 50 military skinheads online, some of them from Fort Bragg.
“Today’s white supremacists in the military become tomorrow’s domestic terrorists once they’re out,” Barfield said.
I was in 319th, we had a couple Neo-Nazi's (white lace), KKK card carrying members (at one time a a whole crapload of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Caucasians were card carrying members due to a piss poor application process)
91-95 was pretty bad to be a member of the 82nd
Then gang members became a thing
Then tattoo checks were implemented. My first tattoo had to be removed being it was assiociated with a Separatist Group in Hawaii (gecko). Either that or leave the Army.
Anything related to Extremists groups, Hate groups, and Gang tattoo's were checked for (we had the damn book of symbols to look for)
We also had the former American French Foreign Legion medic who joined the US Army and was in the 82nd caught some flak for his tattoo's but was dropped
Black Panthers had to be removed or one get removed from the military
Spider web regardless of setting had to be removed
Gecko had to be removed
Gang symbols had to be removed
When in doubt it had to be removed
Nordic symbols had to be removed
We had some Eastern Europeans (Ukranian and Russian) in the 82nd who went through the process after we received subject matter material from FDR
Nazi tattoo's were removed.
Then all flags rather tattoo or hanging had to be removed
221
Post by: Frazzled
Apparently there are reports that 1 marine and 1 Navy (officer?) actually returned fire and may have been responsible for stopping the terrorist, despite policy against having firearms. it seems a little confused.
91
Post by: Hordini
 Frazzled wrote:Apparently there are reports that 1 marine and 1 Navy (officer?) actually returned fire and may have been responsible for stopping the terrorist, despite policy against having firearms. it seems a little confused.
Have you got any links Frazzled? Edit - Never mind, I found some. It's possible they might have been on duty, as non- MP and non- LE personnel can be armed while on duty.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
From all reports it seems LEO nailed him
It would be an interesting situation if a S/M was armed with a personnel side arm on Federal Government propertry and took out the shooter.
91
Post by: Hordini
According to the Navy Times, it sounds like they were both personal weapons, so that rules out it being the officer or NCO on duty.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Hordini wrote: Frazzled wrote:Apparently there are reports that 1 marine and 1 Navy (officer?) actually returned fire and may have been responsible for stopping the terrorist, despite policy against having firearms. it seems a little confused.
Have you got any links Frazzled?
Edit - Never mind, I found some. It's possible they might have been on duty, as non- MP and non- LE personnel can be armed while on duty.
No, recruiters can't legally be armed on duty, and definitely NOT with personal weapons (which these allegedly were.) So you have two rule breakers. Sounds like they at least suppressed the crap bag giving the LEOs a chance to cap him.
And amazingly it would appear they did not cap fellow troopers nor slay any innocent bystanders as I seem to always will be told would happen.
I'll also go out on a limb and bet neither ever had an accidental discharge of their personal weapon while on duty (or they would have been hammered for having the POW and likely not have been carrying that day as a result.)
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I'm thinking the POW were in their POV. It happen during 1130-1300 right? So that would put the S/M near their vehicles either going to lunch or preparing to go to lunch
POW =Privately Owned Weapons
POV = Privately Owned Vehicle
53516
Post by: Chute82
Going to some gun shows near Bragg, the neo nazi and kkk would be there recruiting
I remember them ( skinheads in my company) asking me if I was Jewish since I made a comment that my grandfather was Jewish to one of the joes. As far as I'm concerned they where just a bunch of punks, most of them where gakky soldiers that I could out pt any day. I was happy the 82nd cleaned house with those losers.
91
Post by: Hordini
CptJake wrote: Hordini wrote: Frazzled wrote:Apparently there are reports that 1 marine and 1 Navy (officer?) actually returned fire and may have been responsible for stopping the terrorist, despite policy against having firearms. it seems a little confused.
Have you got any links Frazzled? Edit - Never mind, I found some. It's possible they might have been on duty, as non- MP and non- LE personnel can be armed while on duty.
No, recruiters can't legally be armed on duty, and definitely NOT with personal weapons (which these allegedly were.) So you have two rule breakers. Sounds like they at least suppressed the crap bag giving the LEOs a chance to cap him. And amazingly it would appear they did not cap fellow troopers nor slay any innocent bystanders as I seem to always will be told would happen. I'll also go out on a limb and bet neither ever had an accidental discharge of their personal weapon while on duty (or they would have been hammered for having the POW and likely not have been carrying that day as a result.)
I wasn't referring to recruiters, I'm aware they aren't allowed to be armed on duty at a recruiting station. I was thinking of the officer/NCO on duty at the reserve center who could potentially be armed with an issued sidearm. (Which we now know wasn't the case, as they were both POWs, but I didn't know that when I made my original post)
4402
Post by: CptJake
Got it!
I don't think many duty officers/NCOs are armed (unless they are guarding some facility that requires it like a SCIF or AHA (where classified is held/worked on or ammo is stored). Those examples and a certain flight line we had to guard are the only times I saw duty personnel armed CONUS.
21971
Post by: Mozzyfuzzy
Quick question, how does being armed stop people from "surprise" shooting you as it were? (not sure about the technical jargon).
I assume that as a would be shooter, I'm going to be shooting first and worrying about the consequences later.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:Quick question, how does being armed stop people from "surprise" shooting you as it were? (not sure about the technical jargon). I assume that as a would be shooter, I'm going to be shooting first and worrying about the consequences later.
It doesn't. If you are unlucky enough to be the target of the first shots and the shooter is accurate you're fethed. What it DOES do is allow you to react to a shooter (this guy did not hit with every shot, let alone his first shots) and defend yourself and others. Additionally there is at least some deterrent effect though it is obviously hard to quantify. Often the types of gak bags that commit these acts purposely seek out soft targets (or approach harder targets in a way to negate their ability, like the guy that came up behind the two cops and capped them http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/cops-shot-brooklyn-sources-article-1.2051941 ). If they know there is a possibility your would-be target(s) are armed and will fight back, they pick different targets. That is why recruiting stations and recruiters are attacked and not the front gate of a major military installation (like Bragg or Hood). The guards at the front gates have cover and the ability to shoot back. Recruiters do not.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
If everyone been at Campbell back in the days the Main Gate was a frequent target by gang members driving down 41A at night
4402
Post by: CptJake
There is a difference between a drive by (not generally an attempt to cause real casualties) and the type of attack this guy did (especially at the second location where the casualties were). Drive-by tend to be geared towards intimidation/earning 'rep' for your gang than geared towards actually killing people (though clearly some poor bastard can end up getting hit).
Having said that, I remember when I was at Hood when gangs were a big deal and some fethers did a drive by in an on post housing area and capped some poor major carrying groceries into his house (he was not 'targeted' specifically, he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.)
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
I remember in Afghanistan the haji's would do drive by's on our base in Toyota Corollas! sometimes they would stop about 600-900 yards out and pull a Mortar out of the trunk, fire 2-3 rounds and drive like hell back into the bazaars nearby. This worked pretty well for about 3-4 weeks. The last time they tried this we had some Snipers from 3/4 on base with Sassers and...yeah. When you see your brother get domed by a .50 you usually decide to find a new job.
15571
Post by: BaronIveagh
Ghazkuul wrote:I remember in Afghanistan the haji's would do drive by's on our base in Toyota Corollas! sometimes they would stop about 600-900 yards out and pull a Mortar out of the trunk, fire 2-3 rounds and drive like hell back into the bazaars nearby.
I bet even there the tube was more valuable than the Corolla. In the old days, the IRA would rig up these Stalin's pipe-organ looking jobs inside the boot of a car with between five and twenty tubes. All linked to an electric timer. They'd park the car someplace inconspicuous near the target, adjust the tubes, and then walk away. Timer runs down, and opens fire.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
BaronIveagh wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:I remember in Afghanistan the haji's would do drive by's on our base in Toyota Corollas! sometimes they would stop about 600-900 yards out and pull a Mortar out of the trunk, fire 2-3 rounds and drive like hell back into the bazaars nearby.
I bet even there the tube was more valuable than the Corolla. In the old days, the IRA would rig up these Stalin's pipe-organ looking jobs inside the boot of a car with between five and twenty tubes. All linked to an electric timer. They'd park the car someplace inconspicuous near the target, adjust the tubes, and then walk away. Timer runs down, and opens fire.
No cars in afghanistan are expensive, the tubes are actually fairly cheap because of the surplus left over from the Russians, the Iranians supplying from the west and Pakistan supplying from the east.
They do something similar right now, except instead of mortars they rig up 107mm Rockets with kitchen timers and then flee so when we tried to retaliate they were long gone, that one we never figured out how to counter.
20373
Post by: Inquisitor Lord Bane
So this is cool, me thinks.
People in open carry states are guarding recruitment posts because they can't defend themselves. They scooped some Chick-fil-A on the way, good choice
42013
Post by: Sinful Hero
 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:So this is cool, me thinks.
People in open carry states are guarding recruitment posts because they can't defend themselves. They scooped some Chick-fil-A on the way, good choice
I love it.
Although they could get pinged for loitering if they weren't hired, and the cops weren't in a good mood.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Depends on if they could get official recognition of volunteer status. Then I think they wouldn't be loitering.
|
|
