Four US Marines dead in suspected domestic terror attack

[Amazon 7]

jtiflyer

******As usual, the old, "so what you're saying is..." technique fails.

I think it is obvious what I was saying, because I said it quite plainly. No spin required, thanks.

Add the sailor to the list of the dead

I believe that at this point..... there needs to be a sidearm incorporated into the uniform of ALL service members. With this latest threat from ISIS to go after them here in the homeland... I think OPEN CARRY by our service members should be mandatory.... They are targets... let all of them be trained and act accordingly...


I agree completely. The only problem is qualifying with the sidearm. I few years ago I overheard a friend who is a captain in the reserves talking about how over HALF of the unit failed rifle qualification due to lack of training time/ammo. And this was a unit that has seen combat (were actually seen at the end of Fahrenheit 9/11). I have no clue if training and qualifying for active duty easier to accomplish (more training and ammo readily available) but my only concern (same concern with most LEO) is being a piss poor shot.




Then that is a training FAIL especially for combat arms...... if they are motivated sufficiently... I bet they can be trained up... seriously... If you are in uniform... and I do not care if you are a mechanic, a cook or some of the college boys who drove airplanes that I trained.. they need to be qualified... no matter how long it takes..... PERIOD.

[Bolas 5]

Amazon

*********As usual, the old, "so what you're saying is..." technique fails.

I think it is obvious what I was saying, because I said it quite plainly. No spin required, thanks.

Add the sailor to the list of the dead

I believe that at this point..... there needs to be a sidearm incorporated into the uniform of ALL service members. With this latest threat from ISIS to go after them here in the homeland... I think OPEN CARRY by our service members should be mandatory.... They are targets... let all of them be trained and act accordingly...


I agree completely. The only problem is qualifying with the sidearm. I few years ago I overheard a friend who is a captain in the reserves talking about how over HALF of the unit failed rifle qualification due to lack of training time/ammo. And this was a unit that has seen combat (were actually seen at the end of Fahrenheit 9/11). I have no clue if training and qualifying for active duty easier to accomplish (more training and ammo readily available) but my only concern (same concern with most LEO) is being a piss poor shot.




Then that is a training FAIL especially for combat arms...... if they are motivated sufficiently... I bet they can be trained up... seriously... If you are in uniform... and I do not care if you are a mechanic, a cook or some of the college boys who drove airplanes that I trained.. they need to be qualified... no matter how long it takes..... PERIOD.

Think both of you are missing the point.

It doesn't need to be mandatory, nor does how good a shot they are matter in this case.

It just needs to be allowed so they aren't just known unarmed targets.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[DanG 1]

I didn't get caught at anything. I haven't tried to backpedal, in case you haven't noticed. I find absolutely nothing wrong with anything I've said.

The reason why the suicide rate has skyrocketed is that we've been involved in the longest war in US history. You can't compare the atmosphere in the early 90s to the atmosphere today.

If someone could explain to me why I should be ashamed of explaining why the DoD is unlikely to forces all servicemembers to be armed on US soil, and why I think it's a stupid idea, maybe I'll feel the shame you all think I should be experiencing.

- Dan G

[Amazon 7]

Bolas

************As usual, the old, "so what you're saying is..." technique fails.

I think it is obvious what I was saying, because I said it quite plainly. No spin required, thanks.

Add the sailor to the list of the dead

I believe that at this point..... there needs to be a sidearm incorporated into the uniform of ALL service members. With this latest threat from ISIS to go after them here in the homeland... I think OPEN CARRY by our service members should be mandatory.... They are targets... let all of them be trained and act accordingly...


I agree completely. The only problem is qualifying with the sidearm. I few years ago I overheard a friend who is a captain in the reserves talking about how over HALF of the unit failed rifle qualification due to lack of training time/ammo. And this was a unit that has seen combat (were actually seen at the end of Fahrenheit 9/11). I have no clue if training and qualifying for active duty easier to accomplish (more training and ammo readily available) but my only concern (same concern with most LEO) is being a piss poor shot.




Then that is a training FAIL especially for combat arms...... if they are motivated sufficiently... I bet they can be trained up... seriously... If you are in uniform... and I do not care if you are a mechanic, a cook or some of the college boys who drove airplanes that I trained.. they need to be qualified... no matter how long it takes..... PERIOD.

Think both of you are missing the point.

It doesn't need to be mandatory, nor does how good a shot they are matter in this case.



It just needs to be allowed so they aren't just known unarmed targets.


My point is far more complex... if one is going to be in the military.... the service member needs to be first and foremost a warrior... the Marines know this... EVERY marine is supposed to be a warrior. If one aspires to being a warrior in our military..... I would hope they would wish to learn the craft of war.

[jgoose71 0]

DanG

Why wouldn't I own my previous statement? You want servicemembers to be armed all the time to prevent terrorist attacks. I was just pointing out that the result of that will likely be more tragically dead servicemembers.

Yes, restricting access to guns does not solve the mental health problems experienced in greater frequency by military personnal. We, as a nation, need to address that in a concrete way. But in the meantime, a kneejerk reaction to the tragic killing of five servicemembers that will result in the tragic death of even more doesn't make much sense.

While suicide among service members is a problem (depending on the source you use it's 1 per 18 hours up to 22 a day) I don't think access to guns have anything to do with it. Service members are all ready banned from having guns on base and the suicide rate has gone up in recent years.

More guns does not equal more suicides. My guns have never tried to talk me into killing my self.

However, being trained in the use of a fire arm and having one on you can give you a fighting chance in a time of need.

Now if you were to suggest limiting firearms to people who were still active duty or separated with honorable discharge, then you might convince people that you know what you are talking about. Some reading for you.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/benefits/health-care/2015/04/01/suicide-troops-veterans-combat-study-says-no-link-between-combat-deployment-suicides/70771276/

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jclalor 12]

jgoose71

***Why wouldn't I own my previous statement? You want servicemembers to be armed all the time to prevent terrorist attacks. I was just pointing out that the result of that will likely be more tragically dead servicemembers.

Yes, restricting access to guns does not solve the mental health problems experienced in greater frequency by military personnal. We, as a nation, need to address that in a concrete way. But in the meantime, a kneejerk reaction to the tragic killing of five servicemembers that will result in the tragic death of even more doesn't make much sense.

While suicide among service members is a problem (depending on the source you use it's 1 per 18 hours up to 22 a day) I don't think access to guns have anything to do with it. Service members are all ready banned from having guns on base and the suicide rate has gone up in recent years.

More guns does not equal more suicides. My guns have never tried to talk me into killing my self.

However, being trained in the use of a fire arm and having one on you can give you a fighting chance in a time of need.

Now if you were to suggest limiting firearms to people who were still active duty or separated with honorable discharge, then you might convince people that you know what you are talking about. Some reading for you.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/benefits/health-care/2015/04/01/suicide-troops-veterans-combat-study-says-no-link-between-combat-deployment-suicides/70771276/

Some more reading:

Quote

In 2006, after years of suicides among young men in the Israel Defense Forces, authorities forbade the troops from bringing their rifles home on weekends. Suicides dropped by 40 percent, according to a 2010 study by psychiatrists with the IDF and the Sheba Medical Center.

http://www.stripes.com/news/experts-restricting-troops-access-to-firearms-is-necessary-to-reduce-rate-of-suicides-1.199216

[jgoose71 0]

Interesting, but that is the IDF. I'm sure that there tour of duty needs differ from U.S. needs, which differ from Mexican Army needs, which differ from the needs of the Swiss military.

Do you have any data from when they banned the U.S. troops from bringing home weapons?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Dan,

Quote

I didn't get caught at anything.

IMO No, you did not.

I think this is simply a subject on which you & I disagree.

All is well with the world,

Jerry Baumchen

[Anvilbrother 0]

Exactly! Isn't the old saying no matter what specialty you went into your always a rifleman fist.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Amazon 7]

Anvilbrother

Exactly! Isn't the old saying no matter what specialty you went into your always a rifleman fist.

Specialization is one thing but if your ass is on the line....it behooves you to be able to cover yours as well as the person next to you

[Anvilbrother 0]

Yea hence the old saying.....

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Driver1 0]

RonD1120

***Care to compare the number of dead servicemembers through suicide vs those killed by homegrown terrorists?

Good luck.

You went off on an unfortunate tangent and got caught. Now you are in an apples and oranges box. Suicide is certainly a problem amongst our veterans. It was not not frequent when Clinton banned their weapons.

Now the question to you, how many suicides at recruitment facilities or on active duty in general?

The reality is that we have homegrown terrorists as well as immigrant terrorists. We all need to be prepared. It is here now.

And I seem to recall a prominent professor stating that domestic terrorism was the least of his worries.

And that was after the attempted shootup of the Draw Muhammad event in Texas.

This is going to happen again and again. We just can't prevent all of them, especially the lone wolves.

There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"!

[RonD1120 58]

Driver1

******Care to compare the number of dead servicemembers through suicide vs those killed by homegrown terrorists?

Good luck.

You went off on an unfortunate tangent and got caught. Now you are in an apples and oranges box. Suicide is certainly a problem amongst our veterans. It was not not frequent when Clinton banned their weapons.

Now the question to you, how many suicides at recruitment facilities or on active duty in general?

The reality is that we have homegrown terrorists as well as immigrant terrorists. We all need to be prepared. It is here now.

And I seem to recall a prominent professor stating that domestic terrorism was the least of his worries.

And that was after the attempted shootup of the Draw Muhammad event in Texas.

This is going to happen again and again. We just can't prevent all of them, especially the lone wolves.

I don't think we can do much in the way of prevention in these latter days. I've been following the teachings of Jimmy Evans, Jonathan Cahn, et.al. The big question for me is how do I balance defense and faith in Jesus Christ at this juncture?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[jtiflyer 0]

DanG

Why wouldn't I own my previous statement? You want servicemembers to be armed all the time to prevent terrorist attacks. I was just pointing out that the result of that will likely be more tragically dead servicemembers.

Yes, restricting access to guns does not solve the mental health problems experienced in greater frequency by military personnal. We, as a nation, need to address that in a concrete way. But in the meantime, a kneejerk reaction to the tragic killing of five servicemembers that will result in the tragic death of even more doesn't make much sense.

Letting active duty military carry sidearms is not intended to prevent terrorist attacks. Its meant to give them a chance at defending themselves if they are attacked. Again if somebody wants to kill themselves there are a lot of different ways to do it that do not involve a gun. Just ask a drug addict how they score if they have no money. Desperation leads to creativity, if you want something done bad enough you will find a way. Leaving them unarmed will not increase the chances they will not kill themselves.

[jtiflyer 0]

Amazon

***************As usual, the old, "so what you're saying is..." technique fails.

I think it is obvious what I was saying, because I said it quite plainly. No spin required, thanks.

Add the sailor to the list of the dead

I believe that at this point..... there needs to be a sidearm incorporated into the uniform of ALL service members. With this latest threat from ISIS to go after them here in the homeland... I think OPEN CARRY by our service members should be mandatory.... They are targets... let all of them be trained and act accordingly...


I agree completely. The only problem is qualifying with the sidearm. I few years ago I overheard a friend who is a captain in the reserves talking about how over HALF of the unit failed rifle qualification due to lack of training time/ammo. And this was a unit that has seen combat (were actually seen at the end of Fahrenheit 9/11). I have no clue if training and qualifying for active duty easier to accomplish (more training and ammo readily available) but my only concern (same concern with most LEO) is being a piss poor shot.




Then that is a training FAIL especially for combat arms...... if they are motivated sufficiently... I bet they can be trained up... seriously... If you are in uniform... and I do not care if you are a mechanic, a cook or some of the college boys who drove airplanes that I trained.. they need to be qualified... no matter how long it takes..... PERIOD.

Think both of you are missing the point.

It doesn't need to be mandatory, nor does how good a shot they are matter in this case.



It just needs to be allowed so they aren't just known unarmed targets.


My point is far more complex... if one is going to be in the military.... the service member needs to be first and foremost a warrior... the Marines know this... EVERY marine is supposed to be a warrior. If one aspires to being a warrior in our military..... I would hope they would wish to learn the craft of war.


Technically every marine is a rifleman first

[jakee 1,254]

Driver1

And I seem to recall a prominent professor stating that domestic terrorism was the least of his worries.

And that was after the attempted shootup of the Draw Muhammad event in Texas.

This is going to happen again and again. We just can't prevent all of them, especially the lone wolves.

Using stats from 2010, and assuming the rate stays flat through the year, there will have been something like 120 shooting murders and 210 shooting suicides in the US during the 4 days since this attack.

So yeah, I'd put domestic terrorism pretty damn low on your list of worries.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

Quote

Letting active duty military carry sidearms is not intended to prevent terrorist attacks.

Um, that's exactly what everyone here is arguing. If the targets are "harder" then they will be less likely to be attacked. Of course, the terrorists will just attack somewhere else, so the only real logical conclusion isthat we need to become a fully militarized police state to prevent a nutjob from killing people every couple years. Sounds like a great America.

Quote

Again if somebody wants to kill themselves there are a lot of different ways to do it that do not involve a gun. Just ask a drug addict how they score if they have no money. Desperation leads to creativity, if you want something done bad enough you will find a way.

True, people who are really intent on killing themselves will get the job done somehow. Most suicide attempts, however, are more a cry for help then a true desire to end it all. Not having a gun on your thigh 24/7 will make those attemps less successful.

Quote

Leaving them unarmed will not increase the chances they will not kill themselves.

Yes, in fact, it will.

- Dan G

[Bolas 5]

DanG

Quote

Letting active duty military carry sidearms is not intended to prevent terrorist attacks.

Um, that's exactly what everyone here is arguing. If the targets are "harder" then they will be less likely to be attacked. Of course, the terrorists will just attack somewhere else, so the only real logical conclusion isthat we need to become a fully militarized police state to prevent a nutjob from killing people every couple years. Sounds like a great America.

All we need to do is eliminate "gun free zones" except for secured areas with armed guards. This way those that choose to carry, can. If you don't personally want or feel you need a gun (such as myself) don't carry one. Just the fact that you can, and others will, will make all potential targets "harder" without militarizing the police.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[RonD1120 58]

DanG

True, people who are really intent on killing themselves will get the job done somehow. Most suicide attempts, however, are more a cry for help then a true desire to end it all. Not having a gun on your thigh 24/7 will make those attemps less successful.

Quote

Leaving them unarmed will not increase the chances they will not kill themselves.

Yes, in fact, it will.

Based on my experience in the mental health field, I found that females tend to have multiple suicide attempts. This leads one to believe it is a cry for help. Males, on the other hand, tend not to cry for help. If they are suicidal they complete the task.

Just my opinion, stats may have changed in the past six years.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Males, on the other hand, tend not to cry for help. If they are suicidal they complete the task.

How do males tend to do the deed, statistically?

- Dan G

[RonD1120 58]

DanG

Quote

Males, on the other hand, tend not to cry for help. If they are suicidal they complete the task.

How do males tend to do the deed, statistically?

Generally, a self-inflicted GSW most often. I am not aware of any that had concealed carry permits. We have had some jump in front of a truck. I always thought that weird. In my specific field, drug OD.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Generally, a self-inflicted GSW most often.

Thank you for being honest. Access to guns makes it easier for suicidal people, especially men, to commit suicide.

To all the kneejerkers, I'm not saying soldiers shouldn't have guns, or all soldiers are suicidal. I'm simply pointing out that the suicide rate would likely go up if servicemembers were required to be armed at all times. It's not a value judgement, it is a statement of fact. If you're okay with that as the price for making recruiting centers "harder" targets, then at least be honest about it. I personally don't think arming all soldiers in garrison would solve anything, but would create a whole host of other problems.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

DanG

Quote

Generally, a self-inflicted GSW most often.

Thank you for being honest. Access to guns makes it easier for suicidal people, especially men, to commit suicide.

To all the kneejerkers, I'm not saying soldiers shouldn't have guns, or all soldiers are suicidal. I'm simply pointing out that the suicide rate would likely go up if servicemembers were required to be armed at all times. It's not a value judgement, it is a statement of fact. If you're okay with that as the price for making recruiting centers "harder" targets, then at least be honest about it. I personally don't think arming all soldiers in garrison would solve anything, but would create a whole host of other problems.

Actually, many studies show that having guns only helps them commit suicide by gun
These same studies show that if they did not have access to guns they would still find a way as rates do not drop where access to guns is limited

So you assurtion is what is kneejerk as you have NO facts to back you what is clearly your opinion

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jgoose71 0]

DanG

Quote

Generally, a self-inflicted GSW most often.

Thank you for being honest. Access to guns makes it easier for suicidal people, especially men, to commit suicide.

To all the kneejerkers, I'm not saying soldiers shouldn't have guns, or all soldiers are suicidal. I'm simply pointing out that the suicide rate would likely go up if servicemembers were required to be armed at all times. It's not a value judgement, it is a statement of fact. If you're okay with that as the price for making recruiting centers "harder" targets, then at least be honest about it. I personally don't think arming all soldiers in garrison would solve anything, but would create a whole host of other problems.

And on the flip side, this is America. If someone wants access to a gun, they can get that.

And I also whole heartedly disagree that giving an American soldier who is sworn to protect the U.S. access to the tools to do it does not create "a whole host of other problems."

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[DanG 1]

Quote

And I also whole heartedly disagree that giving an American soldier who is sworn to protect the U.S. access to the tools to do it does not create "a whole host of other problems."

There is a difference between giving him access, and requiring he be armed at all times, which is what has been proposed here.

- Dan G