0
Driver1

Four US Marines dead in suspected domestic terror attack

Recommended Posts

Quote

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



Which studies are those?

Quote

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



Until you post those "many studies" then you're just expression your opinion with no backing either.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

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.



Access to a gun. be it full time or part time, is access to a gun. If a person wants to kill himself, he doesn't need to be armed full time to do it.
"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Access to a gun. be it full time or part time, is access to a gun. If a person wants to kill himself, he doesn't need to be armed full time to do it.



Then soldiers already have access to a gun. At the very least they have access during yearly qual. How many kill themselves on the firing range during qualification? I would guess just about none.

I'm not saying they need to be armed full time to do it. I'm saying that forcing them to be armed full time will make it more likely that people who are thinking about it will do it. Probably after hours or on the weekend.

Stop putting words into my mouth, please.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.



Raw data from CDC.gov - open to interpretation:

Age-Adjusted Suicide Rates, by State — United States, 2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're against forcing them to be armed full time.

What's your stance on allowing them to be armed anytime?
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.



I wouldn't be in favor of requiring them to be armed, any more than I'm in favor of prohibiting it.

But allowing it? You bet. Personally, I've always liked the look of the Marine dress blues with a pistol holster (can't find an image of it, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it).

Or perhaps concealed to "avoid scaring the women and the horses."

In any case, publicizing that some of them are armed might give pause to these sorts of attackers.

It wouldn't stop an ambush, where there wouldn't be any time to pull out a gun, but then again, nothing will.

And:

yoink

When they're off a military environment (even if they're in uniform) the onus has to be on the public security forces to protect them just as they have to protect every other member of society, otherwise you're creating 2 classes of civil rights. Military people can protect themselves, but not a civilian? You'd have riots on the streets...



As it is now, the civilians can protect themselves (outside of the "gun free" zones).

I can legally open carry in Wisconsin, and carry permits are "shall issue" with Hunter's Safety, Honorable Discharge from the military or completion of a training course.

So, right now, we do have 2 classes. Civilians who can carry the means to protect themselves, and military who cannot.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

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



Which studies are those?

Quote

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





Until you post those "many studies" then you're just expression your opinion with no backing either.



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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

***

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
Quote

clearly your opinionCite please. And not to Breitbart or the NRA newsletter.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bolas

You're against forcing them to be armed full time.

What's your stance on allowing them to be armed anytime?



stop that, need to continue to wallow in the strawman

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

***

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.



I wouldn't be in favor of requiring them to be armed, any more than I'm in favor of prohibiting it.

But allowing it? You bet. Personally, I've always liked the look of the Marine dress blues with a pistol holster (can't find an image of it, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it).

Or perhaps concealed to "avoid scaring the women and the horses."

In any case, publicizing that some of them are armed might give pause to these sorts of attackers.

It wouldn't stop an ambush, where there wouldn't be any time to pull out a gun, but then again, nothing will.

And:

yoink

When they're off a military environment (even if they're in uniform) the onus has to be on the public security forces to protect them just as they have to protect every other member of society, otherwise you're creating 2 classes of civil rights. Military people can protect themselves, but not a civilian? You'd have riots on the streets...



As it is now, the civilians can protect themselves (outside of the "gun free" zones).

I can legally open carry in Wisconsin, and carry permits are "shall issue" with Hunter's Safety, Honorable Discharge from the military or completion of a training course.

So, right now, we do have 2 classes. Civilians who can carry the means to protect themselves, and military who cannot.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads/monthly_08_2011/post-15570-1312795152.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

stop that, need to continue to wallow in the strawman



Strawman? Directly from Amazon up thread (elipses are hers, not mine):

Quote

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...



- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I can legally open carry in Wisconsin, and carry permits are "shall issue" with Hunter's Safety, Honorable Discharge from the military or completion of a training course.

So, right now, we do have 2 classes. Civilians who can carry the means to protect themselves, and military who cannot



Not true. Military personnel can carry when they are off duty and off post. They (generally) can't carry at work, just like most civilians.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

What's your stance on allowing them to be armed anytime?



I think that should be up to the local commander. He/she knows the environment of the local situation much better than anyone else.



Nope..

I am pretty sure the commander in the Chattanooga area thought they were in a pretty safe place in the Homeland. [:/]

The point is... if the whack-a-doodles are encouraging their would be seekers of 72 virgins... to attack anywhere at any time and putting out the home addresses of service members...they would have the right that other citizens have of carrying to protect themselves AND their families..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here in Louisiana as well as other states there have been a list of named service members targeted by extremist for killing as of recent. Also Bobby Jindal signed an executive order for LA National Guard to carry on base last week.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The point is... if the whack-a-doodles are encouraging their would be seekers of 72 virgins... to attack anywhere at any time and putting out the home addresses of service members...they would have the right that other citizens have of carrying to protect themselves AND their families..



Servivemembers who live off post already have the right to be armed at home. You're saying they should be armed at work, and at all other times. Throwing in a "think of the children" is bullshit.

And guess how many soliers and Marines will sign up for 24/7 open carry when they learn that means they can't drink anymore.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

stop that, need to continue to wallow in the strawman



Strawman? Directly from Amazon up thread (elipses are hers, not mine):

Quote

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...



whoops, my bad. Not used to you and Jeanne disagreeing on things...


I'd prefer they have the option to carry and not restrict.

Requiring it 100% for non-combat duty is also very controlling. Not as bad as advertising a gun free zone, but along the same lines where one's choices are needlessly removed by edict


Edit: just for clarity, this vision by some, of a couple armed recruiters sitting in a quiet office playing with their sidearms and anguishing over whether they should shoot themselves or at least shoot each other is goofy too.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

this vision by some, of a couple armed recruiters sitting in a quiet office playing with their sidearms and anguishing over whether they should shoot themselves or at least shoot each other is goofy too.



See, now there's an idea for a short story, or a 1-act play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8

Quote

this vision by some, of a couple armed recruiters sitting in a quiet office playing with their sidearms and anguishing over whether they should shoot themselves or at least shoot each other is goofy too.



See, now there's an idea for a short story, or a 1-act play.



In the end after talking, they decide not to shoot each other or themselves and instead lock the guns in their cars.

They come back in and are gunned down.

-Written by: M. Night Shyamalan :P
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

Oh. Just like yours?



Yes, exactly like mine. So feel free to shut up just like you want me to.



Feel free

I can come up with a few studies
They have been posted here
I will when I get off the road

Glad you admitted your post was just opinion

Even though you did not represent it in that light
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

Sarcasm dude. As stated one was a war hero. I think if they had am M-4 instead of a sign, the results would have been different



My point was that the "Gun Free Zone" was not in place because the Marines are anti-gun lefty nutjobs, which is the common place people are getting ready to go when they bring up the gun free zone thing.

Most likely, the Marines decided that having recruiters armed would not lead to the welcoming atmosphere they are trying to promote at a recruiting station. On most military bases, soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines are not allowed to have privately owned weapons in their residences. The DoD has decided that the risk of suicide/accident/fratricide is higher than the risk of the base being attacked. So far, they are right.




The individual marines didn't get to decide jack squat. That was DOD mandated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regulator

***

Quote

Sarcasm dude. As stated one was a war hero. I think if they had am M-4 instead of a sign, the results would have been different



My point was that the "Gun Free Zone" was not in place because the Marines are anti-gun lefty nutjobs, which is the common place people are getting ready to go when they bring up the gun free zone thing.

Most likely, the Marines decided that having recruiters armed would not lead to the welcoming atmosphere they are trying to promote at a recruiting station. On most military bases, soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines are not allowed to have privately owned weapons in their residences. The DoD has decided that the risk of suicide/accident/fratricide is higher than the risk of the base being attacked. So far, they are right.



The individual marines didn't get to decide jack squat. That was DOD mandated.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the Marine Corps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0