Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
Last time I was on a military base, I don't recall seeing anyone who was armed...
The gun thread, reloaded.
- Thread starter 23536
- Start date
Last time I was on a military base, I don't recall seeing anyone who was armed...
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Good, so we can take them over with pellet guns if necessary.
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
As far as I know, they have access to guns, but most people don't walk around armed.
I'm not even sure if you could legally walk around armed with permission or a good reason on a military base. Anyone else know?
Last edited:
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
I've never been to a military base personally. However, I can only assume that it's swarming with security. Checkpoints at the entrance, surveillance throughout the base, and armed security patrols. It's a military base, surely it can't be less secure than an inner city high school.
Belisarius
Bluelighter
There weren't enough guns. Install them in the sidewalk concrete and asphalt, put a sentry gun emplacement on every square yard of lawn, and scatter a few thousand butterfly mines around, and this would've never happened.
For the record, I live with someone who does everything short of beat off over his guns before bedtime, so I know what I'm talking about when I say I know gun fanatics.
For the record, I live with someone who does everything short of beat off over his guns before bedtime, so I know what I'm talking about when I say I know gun fanatics.
Folley
Bluelighter
^ What do gun fanatics have to do with this shooting? That's like basing your opinion of the entire Christian church on the teachings of the teachings of the Latter Day Saints and bringing it up anytime anyone talks about religion.
Personnel on US military bases don't walk around armed. That's been policy for decades. You're not allowed. (Unless you are military police of course. And I doubt they carry at ALL times.)
Unfortunately, you assume incorrectly. Getting past the front gate is hard. After that, the military figures there's no need for constant armed security. Of course when you're a solider posted on that base, you have every reason to be let in. So why are you using unfounded opinions to make judgments on loosely related political topics? I've seen/read many of your posts, you're better than that.
I'm curious. How would you propose to stop an individual with ANY weapon bent on doing you harm?
If the individual is coming at you with a bat or a club, would a knife be sufficient? Does it need to be a gun?
If yes, the knife is sufficient, why so?
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
So there's zero armed security at US military bases aside from the gate checkpoint? A carefully executed plan with a moderately/basically trained team could quietly storm and dismantle Ft. Hood among the other military outposts within the US? We're talking about a military fortification. Like I said, I've seen high schools with more security if this is true. Obviously I'm not talking about every single personnel in the fort walking around armed.
But you're saying there are no armed security patrols on US military bases?
I've done fine so far. Even with the unprecedented flood of firearms on the street. If we're talking about a baseball bat or a club, you have several options. You can flee, you can learn to fight or you can just get your ass kicked. Or you can not put yourself in that situation to begin with.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
I'm wondering if there is any tactical advantage to authorities using firearms rather than some equally incapacitating 'less lethal' weapon. If the goal is to subdue and disarm, I don't see what advantage lethal force confers, except in presenting a more credible threat of force. I'm pretty disturbed by how heavily the police are armed these days, with SWAT techniques used startlingly nonchalantly. In my city, a pretty large proportion of shootings are caused by the police, and it's usually someone of color who's unarmed. Disgusting.
ebola
ebola
treezy z
Bluelighter
i think assault rifles, rocket launchers, etc should be 100% legal with no license needed. if the police can have them the people should too. i'd rather have criminals armed to the teeth than police, good people even more so.
Folley
Bluelighter
It's not all about you, and this thread is not about "bats or clubs".
Try running from a bullet.. there's a Marine Corps saying about that.
"not put yourself in that situation to begin with"
Yea. Tell that to the kids of Sandy Hook or those in the Batman shooting. I'm sure they deserved it just like the girl who wore that short skirt, huh?
Sounds nice on paper but when someone is shooting at you, are you going to reach for the tazer or your sidearm? I think police shouldn't be allowed to unholster their weapon until shots are fired or someone's life is in immediate danger. I'm guessing a large amount of the deaths you mention are from overzealous cops running after a dope dealer with their weapon drawn.
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
So basically, I shouldn't go to work, because of assaults that have happened at bus stops.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Did you really not read the post I was responding to? That's sort of how forums like these work, they're not just random remarks without context. In fact, someone DID bring up bats and clubs. Please read the posts thoroughly before offering condescending responses.
As for your last paragraph, I have no idea what you're talking about or where you're going with this.
@Escher, no not quite. I see everyone decided to ignore the other options I listed and decided to fixate themselves on this one. If you don't start trouble it isn't likely to find you. If trouble does find you, see: the other options I listed.
Last edited:
Yes, I did. Well, sort of. I asked the question of alasdairm, but it was meant in a broader context. If someone intends you harm, or more aptly death, you have a few options. Flee. Call for help. Self defense. That's basically it.
Fleeing is situation specific. You may or may not have the option.
Calling for help (i.e. police) has an element of time. You may or may not have enough.
Self Defense is the most direct method. It has no time constraint and can always be attempted (you always have the option, even if you ultimately fail).
My example of the lessor weapon is merely to illustrate that in self defense, equal or greater armament at least removes a disadvantage. If someone attacks you with a bat, a knife may be sufficient because it can inflict a greater wound with less effort. But what of guns? The only sure counter to a fast-moving ranged projectile is another fast-moving ranged projectile. Melee weapons are possible, but are clearly at a disadvantage. (We're talking in the civilian sense here, so no need for "BUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS!" or other hyperbole.)
So in as much as people want to mock the statement "The only thing that stops a bad gun with a gun is a good gun with a gun," because it kind of sounds silly/ridiculous, it's actually 100% true. If we choose as a society to allow private ownership of firearms, then we must also accept the reality that we will need designated "good guys" to also be armed. Equal force for self defense. Some would consider the police to be the designated group, though I guess it depends on your point of view. (I'll leave that argument for another time.) But again we're back to that element of time. So what other option is there but to allow civilians to carry as well? If we don't we must collectively accept that when an incident like this occurs, some of us will be sacrificed before "help" arrives.
Last edited:
^ you some good points but these hypothetical what-do-you-do scenarios don't really advance the discussion because for every example you can trump up to strengthen your case, i can trump one up to strengthen mine.
so, "a bad guy approaches you with a gun and threatens to shoot you. what do you do?" in my sceanrio, i'd make sure he never got the gun in the first place.
alasdair
so, "a bad guy approaches you with a gun and threatens to shoot you. what do you do?" in my sceanrio, i'd make sure he never got the gun in the first place.
alasdair
But see, that's where I get confused. How would you do that? Practically. I'll take it to the extreme just to illustrate a point. Total Prohibition? I'm going to guess that I'm in the right environment here, such that I don't have to explain why it doesn't work.
I know there are things we can improve. However, I think that improvement isn't going to come by going in the direction people think. It's a "genie is out of the bottle" situation with guns. We can't put it back in, so how to deal? This isn't mindless rhetoric by the way. I intentionally wanted to get involved in this discussion here, knowing full well that I'm likely of the minority opinion, because maybe the "other side" has ideas I haven't thought of. As it stands, frankly I'm of the opinion that the current push towards more control is actually causing more harm. I'd like to see what ideas are out there.
I know there are things we can improve. However, I think that improvement isn't going to come by going in the direction people think. It's a "genie is out of the bottle" situation with guns. We can't put it back in, so how to deal? This isn't mindless rhetoric by the way. I intentionally wanted to get involved in this discussion here, knowing full well that I'm likely of the minority opinion, because maybe the "other side" has ideas I haven't thought of. As it stands, frankly I'm of the opinion that the current push towards more control is actually causing more harm. I'd like to see what ideas are out there.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Sorry, that was meant for Folley.
I mock the slogan because it's not "100% true". It's a catchy political slogan meant to simplify a complex political debate. It would be like me arguing "the only thing that stops bad laws from being written is good politicians". There may be truth to this, but the situation is far more complex and it feels as if I'm being spoken to like a child. Who are these "good guys" and "bad guys"? How many shooters were good guys before they turned bad? How many good people commit violent acts out of desperation or necessity? How often are people killed by the good guys unintentionally? The good vs. bad guy dichotomy is extremely limited and black and white while the truth is in color.
Aside from that, I can agree with what you're saying. Sometimes fleeing isn't an option. Sometimes aggressors aren't only carrying clubs or knives. Sometimes there isn't time to involve the police.
Right, I agree it's an oversimplification. Things don't fit into neat little categories. There's always gray. It's worse in my view because I'm mostly a naturalist. I don't believe in concepts like "good" and "evil." Everything is relative, in my opinion.
I'm just trying to dig at the practicality of stopping/preventing these incidents. We see time after time that equal force is the only thing that ends these rampages. So I'm trying to figure out what other options, if any, we have.