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.

Oh for feth's sake. Another shooting?!

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Oh for feth's sake. Another shooting?!

Happens every day in places like Chicago...


So...wassup?

 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".

^^
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.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Oh for feth's sake. Another shooting?!

Military targeted

Other then that I'm having a bit of an off day

Back to War Thunder

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.

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.

 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?!

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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

 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.

 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.

 whembly wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Oh for feth's sake. Another shooting?!

Happens every day in places like Chicago...


So...wassup?

Memphis, TN as well, or near enough.

Sad day. Condolences.

 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.

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

 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)

 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

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.

This is going to be a hot topic for the Presidential candidates on both sides

 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?

 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.

 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

 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.

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....

 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...

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.

 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.