Unless there's any evidence the store was somehow negligent or violated any laws, I can't really see it as anything more than an unfortunate coincidence.
Which is why I reported it without comment just to evoke the predictable kneejerk. And sometimes it's good news: Puppy shoots man
"The Stupid?" I'm still waiting for the data on how many people who bought guns there didn't kill anyone. Okay, I'll admit it's easier to count to "two" than it is to hundreds, if not thousands. But of course you can't compile the data, that's too hard. So please, bestow upon us feeble minded the great solution you obviously have regarding stopping further tragedies. I only have skin in the game, with a son, son-in-law, son-in-laws brother and sister -in-laws son currently serving as we speak. We would all greatly appreciate the liberal solution to keeping them safe. The "been there, done that" solution (wrong, of course by default) is to allow military members (the vast majority who are sane) to have the same rights as the insane, that is to carry a weapon on a military installation. But please, enlighten us liberal goddess.
What we're seeing in the news today is the result of the liberal solution. That's why leftists -- under whatever brand they appropriate for themselves, be it "liberals", "progressives", whatever -- that's why they always have to rebrand their stupid fucking ideas. Because their stupid fucking ideas fail. So they'll sell gun control as "common sense violence prevention" as if they haven't been selling it, and watching it fail, and watching us watch it fail, for 50 fucking years already.
And you (spoiler alert!) missed the point entirely. You never fail to disappoint! Indeed, sane soldiers may indeed shoot an insane soldier before he kills and/or injures a dozen + people. Amazing that we teach military members how to shoot effectively, then only arm them at the range, in a combat zone (where they have their whole unit helping them) or in their off-post neighborhood. Why? Because in theory not having guns around makes a place safer! Really? Then why do we take weapons into combat? Because bad people might try to kill us, but may not because everyone has a weapon and might shoot back. So armed (no pun intended) with this knowledge that bad people are deterred by armed good guys, why does the military assume that crazy/criminal members (who can and do carry weapons with impunity) will not attack people that are not armed? What part of "most people can safely handle weapons" do you not understand? The military may or may not have a grip on caring for the mentally ill. So rather than be under the risk of something we cannot control, let's give soldiers the same rights they have in combat - to protect themselves.
You mean kind of what's gone on in the world with nukes for the last seventy years? how many times have people used those in war since WWII? Muturally assured destruction works. But with that out the way, once again, this is yet another case of mental illness gone untreated for far too long, and I can confirm that this is sadly all too common. The folks at the VA act as though every person coming through there is trying to scam money from Uncle Sam's juicy ripe tits. And as Archangel mentioned in another thread some months ago, there are plenty of fuckwads trying to claim full disability for fucking hangnails. But the mentality that everyone is claiming PTSD for money or just to separate is only going to create more situations like this. But with all THAT out the way...too many people fall through the cracks from day one. There are a good number of whackaloons and borderline sociopaths that neve should have been given a green light at MEPS. Chelsea Manning, for example--need I say more there? And how in fuck's bell does someone over teh age of 25 get full disability for schizophrenia, which is something you're born (and while that's unfornutate, should be a barring from any sort of military service) while people can get fucked up arm and knee surgeries or lose limbs altogether and end up under the 30 percent disability line that guareentees a pention for life?
Bolding mine. Base shootings or not, this is a HUGE fucking problem. Too often people are willing to turn a blind eye to bad behavior or red flags because of the mentality that a body in the post is better than none at all. At best, the rest of the unit will be spending their time cleaning up and/or babysitting the waste of space, and it just holds up a billet for someone that could actually do the just right. And at worse...well, you've read about Chelsea Manning.
Don't get me started on VA disability. Like military justice, a total crap-shoot. Yes, hangnails get full disability, legs missing gets 50 percent. But mental problems are incredibly complicated. It's not cut and dried until it's after the fact. The first Ft. Hood shooter put out many red flags, but promotion of diversity trumped common sense. The second incident was just one dude going crazy (Ft. Hood has a HUGE population) with little to no warning, but because military posts are "gun free" the shooting victims had zero chance of stopping the shooter. That said, as proven time and time again........spoiler alert.....shooters choose soft targets. Sad our fellow military members are soft targets, but the lesson is this: rules regarding self defense don't mean shit to bad guys. These rules only weaken the average person, and enable the bad guys.
NJ is currently voting on reducing the legal magazine capacity limit to 10 rounds, based on the assumption that a bad guy having to reload every 10 shots will save lives. The gun this guy used was a S&W .45 which comes with a 10-rd mag. Now what?
The answer, obviously, is to mandate that all guns be manufactured as single-shot only, and all previously manufactured guns either be retrofitted to be single-shot only or surrendered to law enforcement agencies. You know, the guys with the fully-automatic weapons and armored personnel carriers. Oh, and let's not forget to forget about doing anything about the mentally ill. Because limiting their freedom would be wrong, y'know.
I have two clips here. First one is for good guys AKA evil gun fetish folk to defend themselves. Second one is how gun grabber minds process that information.
At a guess, I'd say the first 5 are all part of the answer. I'm especially curious about 2 and 3. What are the risks of death and injury from these scenarios compared to the risk of the lone nutjob?
I guess my question would be what was the policy before the no-guns rule? Did everyone carry a sidearm? Or just officers and guards? And was there ever a shooting incident before the rule?
No doubt the "gun free" rule is a safety thing. The military wants to cover their ass because accidents do happen. If they happen off-post the military can't do anything to prevent it. On post, they are liable. That's why every hunter (even bowhunters) need to take the Hunters Safety Course on post, but not off-post if they were born before a certain date. Allowing military members to carry freely will never, ever happen even if this kind of shit happened on a regular basis. BTW I wish the media would stop getting wrapped around the axle over the shooter being in his 30's and still only being an E-4. He was in the guard (reserve?) for a long time prior to going active-duty. They only have so many slots for certain ranks, so it's not unusual to see ex guard soldiers being old for their rank. Also he may have joined later in life. It's a total non-issue UNLESS he was low rank from getting in trouble a lot. So far those details aren't being told yet.
"The media", is about weaving stories, not dispensing objective information. They're a show. Like Honey Boo Boo, like Supernatural, like Workaholics. You want a world ruled by market forces? Well, behold what it has wrought.
Would a state run world be any more accurate? 90 percent of the news would be hidden from the public. No thanks!
You've got to keep them in opposition, checking each other. Soon as one or the other "wins", you're fucked.
People who have never been in the military cannot even begin to fathom the number of rules military personel live under. No personal weapons on base is just one of thousands of "feel good" and "show we are politicaly correct" rules that military and DOD civilians have to put up with.
Can you map out the evidence for your claim, that the rule is only the result of PC nonsense? When was the prohibition established?
I found this interesting: http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/04/03/what-conservative-media-are-getting-wrong-about/198738 More so the details on when the "no guns on base" rule was enacted, less so on the stuff after that and the fingerpointing.
I came in the military the first time in 1980. The gun rules are today almost exactly what they were back then. Anyway, I couldn't help but laugh at this: Ft. Hood Commanding Officer Lt. General Mark Milley: "We Shouldn't Have Concealed Weapons On Base." During an April 2 press conference, Lt. General Mark Milley, Ft. Hood's commanding officer, stated that military personnel "should not have concealed weapons on base," citing the fact that law enforcement agents and trained professionals are available who are authorized to carry weapons on base: MILLEY: If you have a weapon and you're on base, it's supposed to be registered on base. This weapon was not registered on base. [...] REPORTER: What are your thoughts on soldiers carrying weapons for self-defense? MILLEY: You're not allowed to carry concealed weapons on base. REPORTER: Do you think that should change? MILLEY: No I don't think so, we shouldn't have concealed weapons on base. We have law enforcement agents, with trained professionals, and I don't want to endorse carrying concealed weapons base. [Mediaite, 4/2/14] AVAILABLE? Fuck me running! There are places on my post (and every post) where there isn't one armed individual within many minutes to save us if somebody starts shooting. But then again I guarantee A FUCKING GENERAL has somebody to save him nearby versus the average soldier. So this general feels that his own soldiers aren't qualified or trained enough to responsibly handle firearms? That's a real confidence booster. "Okay, you can carry guns in combat to kill foreigners, but here in garrison you are an idiot." Fucking hypocritical fucktard.
I read that the shooter had never seen combat but claimed to have PTSD. Does that happen to soldiers that never actually fought?
It depends on how you define "fight." Combat is complicated - there are no front lines. A supply clerk or technician might be in a convoy that gets attacked (like Jessica Lynch and her folks) and half their group gets killed or injured. An actual combat trained grunt might never see any action just because every mission is different. Also some people get traumatized by blood + guts, other people it doesn't bother. So anybody may or may not end up with PTSD. And yes, some people fake it for benefits.
