Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This doesn't seem to be related to PTSD.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Rubberanvil wrote:

Fifty wrote:This happened on a military base, and the answer mooted is still "More Guns!" Seriously, how many guns would be enough?

More guns would've been nice for the victims as most of them were unarmed at the time of the attack.

Accidental gun injury and death goes up hand in hand with the prevalence of guns. Give everyone a gun and you MAY lower shooting crime (Or it will rise due to the prevalence of sidearms in crimes of passion and more general emotionally charged crimes such as assault which are typically far less damaging or fatal without the presence of firearms) but you will definitely experience more accidental deaths. Likely more so than you save as the cavalier idea of a self policing populace has never in mankind's history worked. Likely considerably more so than you save due to the greatly increased number of likely shootouts between multiple parties untrained in armed combat in civilian areas (all that police training has a purpose). It's statistically a net negative.

Though I'm surprised that there were seemingly few armed and able responders in a military base, though it being the largest of its kind in america it's more of a large town.

Giving everyone a gun will weed a large majority of the stupid out of the world. Just because you are able to use something you probably shouldn't without first hand knowledge of how it works. If someone gave me some weapons-grade plutonium and the necessary components to make a nuclear missile but didn't tell me how it all goes together I'm not going to be dumb as to try to just "wing" it. Guns are not toys and yet I see a lot of idiots in videos posted up on youtube (and even at gun ranges) who should not be allowed within 100ft of a gun.

As to why there were so few unarmed responders it was explained earlier. Only the MP's and certain ranks of Officer are allowed to carry firearms on their person while on a military base. He opened fire on soldiers awaiting flu vaccinations, hence by military code of conduct there would have been nobody in the room or anywhere nearby that would have had a firearm. I imagine once the shooting started it took minutes for officers and mp to figure out who was shooting and where it came from. Obviously he was a good shot and fast reloader so when seconds counted the MP's were only minutes away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jp400 wrote:

r3n3g8b0y wrote:RIP guys, and the US should check their troops regurlary( because of PTS and similar)

Yeah, Trust me when I say we get checked so much that ive considered beating the face in on the next guy that shows up for a re-evaluation cause they are worse then the bible beaters that show up every saturday.


Army Motto:
"If it ain't broke, Fix it till it is!"

I thought Army (and every other branch) motto was:

"Hurry up and wait!"

Well, as I've said before Natural Selection works wonders in nature. The stupid die, the smart survive. Giving everyone a gun will weed a large majority of the stupid out of the world. Just because you are able to use something you probably shouldn't without first hand knowledge of how it works. If someone gave me some weapons-grade plutonium and the necessary components to make a nuclear missile but didn't tell me how it all goes together I'm not going to be dumb as to try to just "wing" it. Guns are not toys and yet I see a lot of idiots in videos posted up on youtube (and even at gun ranges) who should not be allowed within 100ft of a gun.

I think i've said this in reference to your posts before but..

Thats not how natural selection works.

Insert end of argument here...

Given the fact that we can all read, this conversation seems better left to a P.M. battle.

I edited my post. Moot point anyway. The dumb will kill themselves making the world a better place. End of discussion.

ShumaGorath wrote:Accidental gun injury and death goes up hand in hand with the prevalence of guns.

]Generally those who have little or no training on proper gun safety and handling, then to be the ones to shoot themselves and any one else in the general vicinity. Those with the proper training rarely make a mistake resulting in an accidental gun injury or death.

Likely more so than you save as the cavalier idea of a self policing populace has never in mankind's history worked. /quote]It worked the past and it is working now in the U.S. (in states allowing conceal carry) and especially now in Israel.

Self policing would conclude that the majority of people carry concealed fire-arms (or firearms in general). Neither of these are true for Israel, or any state in the U.S.

A minority of people carrying guns does not make me imagine some sort of self policed society; it just makes me imagine a group of people that like their guns.

This is a thread approaching a rather touchy subject, so keeping it as civil as earthly possible, would be advisable.

Can't forget we like our beer and bbq as well.

And our waffles, and Texas too... whether they like it or not .



This is no Belgian Waffle... this.... this right here, is a Texan Waffle.

Self-policing has always existed to a degree, and it has always worked to a degree. The justice system we currently have needs regular citizens to act as jury members, witnesses, the people who report crimes, etc. It's also pretty universally accepted that people have a right to inflict violence on a criminal to avoid being the victim of, at the very least, harm equal to what you inflict on them. Plus there's private security, and private investigations of criminal activity, and things like that.

And on the other hand, I don't think there are very many people advocating unsupervised lynching as a substitute for criminal trial and sentencing, so it's clear that policing ability outside of the government's authority must be (significantly) more limited.

So really, I would say gun control has little to do with the concept of a self-policing populace either being a valid one or an invalid one. More to do with what ability should be given to the civilian population to provide policing without the government present (at least when looking at gun ownership from a purely criminological standpoint).