Notices
Results 1 to 49 of 49
Like Tree14Likes
  • 3 Post By danhanegan
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 2 Post By billvon
  • 1 Post By RedPanda
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 2 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By GiantEvil

Thread: "Gun-free Zones"

  1. #1 "Gun-free Zones" 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    The clipping below caught my eye today. Earlier reports indicated, perhaps erroneously, that the shooter, Aaron Alexis, had taken a handgun from a security guard, presumably using it as the primary weapon. However, If U.S. Marine guards present didn't have ammunition for use in the weapons they brandished, presumably M-4 successors to the older M-16 rifle, to me it seems unlikely that a security guard would have been "live-armed", but, who knows, given the idiotic politics prevailing. ALL U.S. Marines are taught to shoot; if they cannot learn that skill adequately, they cannot remain in the Corps. The "Gun-free Zone" thinking apparently includes the thought that some armed miscreant might disguise himself as a security guard, but as a U.S. Marine? Laughable. Perish the thought, but no doubt consideration went into the possibility of an armed U.S. Military person "going bad".

    The whole ball of wax is ludicrous, but the loss of innocent lives surely is not. Nowadays, we have school Administrations arming selected employees in violation of Clinton's lame-brain edict.

    I should like to hear comment. Thanks for reading. jocular






    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    Its ludicrous that marine security guards are not allowed to carry ammunition. What is just as telling to me, is I have been listening to TV news stories about this incident for days, and not one has mentioned marine security guards with no ammunition. The irresponsibility of network journalists who fail to report important facts because they don't support the network's political agenda is a primary factor in what's wrong with our government.


    sculptor, Neverfly and jocular like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by danhanegan View Post
    Its ludicrous that marine security guards are not allowed to carry ammunition. What is just as telling to me, is I have been listening to TV news stories about this incident for days, and not one has mentioned marine security guards with no ammunition. The irresponsibility of network journalists who fail to report important facts because they don't support the network's political agenda is a primary factor in what's wrong with our government.
    I doubt it's an accurate story. Never in my 24 years did I see a soldier at any guard post, or any form of patrol, without ammunition anymore than at arms length, and most often on his person...not once. The only times Soldiers, or the Marines I was around didn't have ammo was during parades, during transportation moves, and while their weapon was being issues or turned back in. Now where exactly that ammo was varies widely depending on threat levels, ranging from in some magazines in a bandoleer at arms reach to having a round locked in the chamber. Usually it was somewhere in between, most often a mag loaded in the weapon and no rounds chambered.

    If true it is really messed up.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by danhanegan View Post
    Its ludicrous that marine security guards are not allowed to carry ammunition. What is just as telling to me, is I have been listening to TV news stories about this incident for days, and not one has mentioned marine security guards with no ammunition. The irresponsibility of network journalists who fail to report important facts because they don't support the network's political agenda is a primary factor in what's wrong with our government.
    I doubt it's an accurate story. Never in my 24 years did I see a soldier at any guard post, or any form of patrol, without ammunition anymore than at arms length, and most often on his person...not once. The only times Soldiers, or the Marines I was around didn't have ammo was during parades, during transportation moves, and while their weapon was being issues or turned back in. Now where exactly that ammo was varies widely depending on threat levels, ranging from in some magazines in a bandoleer at arms reach to having a round locked in the chamber. Usually it was somewhere in between, most often a mag loaded in the weapon and no rounds chambered.

    If true it is really messed up.
    Thank you, Sir! I was about to suggest that we might hear from you. Now, was your active service performed before 1993?

    The "threat level", then, assuming truth to the above ammunition-less allegation, existing at a Naval Base, would be inconsequential, or for what other reason would we deploy "armed guards" unarmed (U.S. Marines, no less). If the truth of the matter be as you suggest, why in the fuck did not one of those armed Marines stop that bastard?

    Your final sentence reveals a fact common to us all: YOU don't know, and WE don't, either. There you have the "transparency" touted by our President! jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Yes I was active before 1993.

    As for "what other reason." I agree, either a bad threat assessment or a garrison commander's (or higher) orders or regulation that put those guys in a bad situation.

    I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he would have been stopped any faster either. Where would the marines have stopped him? He got in with a valid pass. He assembled the gun inside a building and started his killing spree--even if the security had ammo, it's not entirely clear whether they could have stopped him much faster. Like any military response they are going to take a few minutes to get organized, put together a hasty plan before they move, especially if it's a team that's not well trained to work together in clearing buildings. (it takes a lot of teamwork and has considerable fratricide risk).
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Yes I was active before 1993.

    As for "what other reason." I agree, either a bad threat assessment or a garrison commander's (or higher) orders or regulation that put those guys in a bad situation.

    I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he would have been stopped any faster either. Where would the marines have stopped him? He got in with a valid pass. He assembled the gun inside a building and started his killing spree--even if the security had ammo, it's not entirely clear whether they could have stopped him much faster. Like any military response they are going to take a few minutes to get organized, put together a hasty plan before they move, especially if it's a team that's not well trained to work together in clearing buildings. (it takes a lot of teamwork and has considerable fratricide risk).
    Agreed, and understood! Your own personal knowledge and experience militarily pales my own into oblivion. Because of that, I realize my own assessments tend to often be based on emotion. Here's my simple-minded evaluation:

    First scenario:

    Given an everyday gathering of everyday folks, perhaps a party, political gathering, family picnic, demonstrative group making political demands.........IF all attendees are unarmed, by law, and only one either as an interloper, or part of the original party is ILLEGALLY armed, with intent to kill, the group of innocents stand to be decimated. SOLUTIONS: The interloper MUST not be armed; how do we guarantee that? More laws against gun ownership, longer prison terms for gun violations, ban import & manufacture of guns, TAX the hell out of ammunition, ban firearms magazines, ban firearms having no intrinsic "sporting" value, investigate individuals seeking firearms acquisition, ban felons from firearms possession, hire more police, ban "gun shows", ban sales of firearms between individuals.......on, and on, ALL these "fixes" have been tried, are bullshit, do not work.

    Second scenario: Firearms be universally available to citizenry, no bull about skin color (yep, most "gun laws" in Missouri aimed to prevent blacks from having firearms!), folks choosing individually to not allow themselves to be victimized by criminals, possess firearms for self defense use. MOST will never need to use them, thusly. Back up above in the groups of folks having a good time, say, a picnic, and one aberrant asshole, for WHATEVER reason, argument, fight, pushed out of the Beer line, pulls out some type of weapon, make it a GUN, but this scenario carries a different impact: many of the participants are armed, as they are Everyday, EVERYWHERE, just like COPS, only now, the COP is present to stop the miscreant aberrant. Is it not reasonable, that only a totally deranged fool, bent on dying, would attempt to start shooting folks, if he knew IN ADVANCE that some, or many, are ALSO ARMED?

    I maintain that disarming an already armed citizenry is a FALLACY, impossible to achieve, very likely to PROVOKE even further disarray and distrust amongst the law-abiding. Now, go ahead and tell me of the "virtual successes" in Canada, UK, Australia, Japan, but don't go pokin' into folks self defense business in Czech Republic, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Israel, 'cause you might get SHOT!. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    My understanding, is that only MP's are allowed guns (except those training with them on their training sites only) on base.

    I have performed on every base in the Western USA. I never saw anyone carrying a weapon except an MP.

    Ever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he would have been stopped any faster either. Where would the marines have stopped him? He got in with a valid pass. He assembled the gun inside a building and started his killing spree--even if the security had ammo, it's not entirely clear whether they could have stopped him much faster. Like any military response they are going to take a few minutes to get organized, put together a hasty plan before they move, especially if it's a team that's not well trained to work together in clearing buildings. (it takes a lot of teamwork and has considerable fratricide risk).
    1.)Lone shooter opens fire and no one is able to shoot back. Must duck and cover.
    2.)Lone shooter opens fire and guard gets locked and loaded and takes out the shooter.

    Yeah, I guess you're right... I don't see how it could have gone faster. Because a guard returning fire on a shooter always requires a huddle with a tactical team, foreman, strategic consultant and one dozen doughnuts.
    jocular likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    1.)Lone shooter opens fire and no one is able to shoot back. Must duck and cover.
    2.)Lone shooter opens fire and guard gets locked and loaded and takes out the shooter.

    Yeah, I guess you're right... I don't see how it could have gone faster. Because a guard returning fire on a shooter always requires a huddle with a tactical team, foreman, strategic consultant and one dozen doughnuts.
    Except in this case, he killed the armed guard and took his weapon and ammunition.
    Survellance video shows the gunman entered the NAVSEA building, at 1336 Isaac Hull Ave., with a shotgun, law enforcement officials told News4's Jackie Bensen.
    The suspected gunman shot a security officer in the head, killing him, and took the officer's 9 mm pistol and a magazine of ammunition. The shooter then continued through the building and seemed to target his victims, who were mostly on the third and fourth floors, Bensen reported.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    If indeed the Marines were not armed, then perhaps it was something to do with posse comitatus? Not wanting US soldiers to be in a position to take action against the civilian population?

    I don't see how it's at all likely that a Military base would ever be declared to be a "gun free zone". A school maybe (though we've seen the folly in that, too, now.)


    edit: oh nevermind. I found something that explains the gun free issue. Apparently it's due to the army base gun rage killing spree that was committed by that Muslim dude : Maj. Nidal Hasan


    This Is Why Most Military Personnel Aren’t Armed on Military Bases
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    1.)Lone shooter opens fire and no one is able to shoot back. Must duck and cover.
    2.)Lone shooter opens fire and guard gets locked and loaded and takes out the shooter.
    Or as in this case:
    3) Lone shooter opens fire and kills armed guard. Better armed lone shooter then proceeds to kill several others with additional weaponry.
    John Galt and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    My understanding, is that only MP's are allowed guns (except those training with them on their training sites only) on base.

    I have performed on every base in the Western USA. I never saw anyone carrying a weapon except an MP.

    Ever.
    kojax's link agrees with you:

    Steven Bucci, a military expert for The Heritage Foundation who served 28 years in the Army and retired in 2005 with the rank of colonel...
    “We have never had our soldiers walking around with weapons all the time, other than in combat zones,” he added, noting only Military Police have had that authority.
    babe likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Or as in this case:
    3) Lone shooter opens fire and kills armed guard. Better armed lone shooter then proceeds to kill several others with additional weaponry.
    Aye, that is possible. But the odds are better with armed guards that are able to return fire even if the shooter can capture weapons and ammo than if there are unarmed guards who cannot return fire at all.

    Here's the basics: In both situations, the shooter is armed. In one situation, it's possible to return fire and in the other- it isn't.
    The risk that he might be able to arm himself more makes no real difference. The real difference is made by the ability to have the risk to defend yourselves from him present.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    My understanding, is that only MP's are allowed guns (except those training with them on their training sites only) on base.

    I have performed on every base in the Western USA. I never saw anyone carrying a weapon except an MP.

    Ever.
    Quite right. The vast majority of soldiers and marines in garrison, unless they are specifically performing a security mission, do not carry either weapons or ammo with them on US post and most non-combat post overseas. My prior comments were addressing the question of whether soldiers or marines with weapons, would also have ammunition.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quite right. The vast majority of soldiers and marines in garrison, unless they are specifically performing a security mission, do not carry either weapons or ammo with them on US post and most non-combat post overseas. My prior comments were addressing the question of whether soldiers or marines with weapons, would also have ammunition.
    Or doing training out in the field.
    No ammo, but you do have to carry your weapon, PLGR, N.O.D.'s, gas mask, etc.
    A D.R.F. without M-16's (Now M-4's) ain't a D.R.F.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quite right. The vast majority of soldiers and marines in garrison, unless they are specifically performing a security mission, do not carry either weapons or ammo with them on US post and most non-combat post overseas. My prior comments were addressing the question of whether soldiers or marines with weapons, would also have ammunition.
    Or doing training out in the field.
    True enough--though field time isn't' usually considered garrison, I should have included it. (thinking about all the measures we'd take when soldiers would switch from blanks to ball ammo and back again...yikes)

    --
    One of things this thread has got me wondering is whether the prohibition about weapons and ammo while in garrison is reasonable or not. When I consider the high rates of suicide and negligent misfires overseas when soldiers were armed, I think I'm lean towards it still being pretty reasonable when soldiers are in garrison. In the combat zone, soldiers were available and usually under observation from their peers and/or supervisors 24/7 in a controls in a no booze environment where you could spend hours a day counseling, inspecting and in general had a much more ability to gauge their mental states. If pulling security missions in the states, there's likewise opportunities to control and monitor soldiers as well as prohibitions from drinking directly related to their primary mission of security. Most times in the states though, that's simply not true--the soldier is coming from home (most soldiers are married now days), there's few limits to drinking while off duty, and supervisors could not apply the same degree of scrutiny without sharply reducing the amount of time the soldier spends in their primary garrison duties.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Well, the primary focus in this thread is whether or not the armed guards had access to ammo or not.
    jocular likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Well, the primary focus in this thread is whether or not the armed guards had access to ammo or not.
    Obviously at least one security in position to stop the gunman had both weapon and ammo, both of which were used to kill more people.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Well, the primary focus in this thread is whether or not the armed guards had access to ammo or not.
    Obviously at least one security in position to stop the gunman had both weapon and ammo, both of which were used to kill more people.
    I was just reading that, actually. Which means the editorial posted in the O.P...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I was just reading that, actually. Which means the editorial posted in the O.P...
    Not sure what you mean.

    It is clear though that there was no blanket policy at the Navy yard about no ammo for the weapons.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I was just reading that, actually. Which means the editorial posted in the O.P...
    Not sure what you mean.

    It is clear though that there was no blanket policy at the Navy yard about no ammo for the weapons.
    The editorial clipping claims that they were disallowed ammo. It claims they had no ammo. Other news reports claim the shooter shot a guard and took the guards ammo.
    jocular likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Well, the primary focus in this thread is whether or not the armed guards had access to ammo or not.
    Two points to be made: Should we consider rifle-possessing guards without ammunition to be "armed"?

    At least ONE apparently had a firearm AND ammunition, and the bastard intent on killing must have either known it, or lucked out. Once he had that guy's gun, no Marine, or anyone else carrying an unloaded rifle, which was akin to having a CLUB with which to defend against bullets, could have been expected to respond against him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Well, the primary focus in this thread is whether or not the armed guards had access to ammo or not.
    Obviously at least one security in position to stop the gunman had both weapon and ammo, both of which were used to kill more people.
    Is your point here meant to imply that better it would have been, if the security guard in question had NO ammunition? jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I was just reading that, actually. Which means the editorial posted in the O.P...
    Not sure what you mean.

    It is clear though that there was no blanket policy at the Navy yard about no ammo for the weapons.
    If Navy Yard policy had allowed ammunition, it would have been in violation of Clinton's 1993 Executive Order, not to mention the presence of the firearms. Now, there IS possibility that obscure wording in the "Gun Free Zone" act, allows for certain individuals, i.e., Marines, to possess arms within such zones. That I cannot say. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    [QUOTE=Neverfly;464147]
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I was just reading that, actually. Which means the editorial posted in the O.P...he editorial clipping claims that they were disallowed ammo. It claims they had no ammo. Other news reports claim the shooter shot a guard and took the guards ammo.
    As I said, WE don't know the truth, conclusively. Those who DO, will not reveal it, fearing both retribution and future "endangerment" possibilities elsewhere, quotation marks meant to illustrate the idiocy involved here: it "couldn't happen" this time, but did, therefore, it can't happen again at a future date.

    Maybe hide the rifles, along with the ammunition, next time, and implement all sorts of NEW lamebrained policies aimed at successfully screening ALL entrants to ALL facilities everywhere (facetiousness intended). jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If Navy Yard policy had allowed ammunition, it would have been in violation of Clinton's 1993 Executive Order, not to mention the presence of the firearms. Now, there IS possibility that obscure wording in the "Gun Free Zone" act, allows for certain individuals, i.e., Marines, to possess arms within such zones. That I cannot say. jocular
    Or perhaps it's just a big myth to obfuscate the facts surrounding the shooting by gun rights groups (e.g., a popular obese radio talk show blowhard, the NRA cough cough)

    Fortunately we being smarter than the average bears, and having access to information, we can verify some of these things on our own. For example: Was there really a 1993 Executive Order by President Clinton that restricted weapons and ammo at the Navy Yard?

    We'll as it turns out, I can't find it.
    Can you? And just in case I looked at '94 and '95' with no such luck either:

    Executive Orders Disposition Tables

    At this point, based on the little bit of research, I think it's completely fabricated and there was no such executive order by President Clinton.
    GiantEvil and RedPanda like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Actually, there was an act signed by bush's secretary of defense in 1992 which forbade carrying of personal weapons on military installations except by security forces, and then the weapon had to be of government issue(not personal).

    Nothing in that act forbade arming security personal. Whether the weapon was loaded was left to the discretion of the local commander.

    I have no idea what security the navy yard had, but civilian contractors were allowed to drive onto the base, so getting weapons in wasn't a problem.

    It really doesn't matter what precautions are taken, there is ultimately no defense from an assassin who is willing to give up his or her life in pursuit of his or her goals.
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    Yep, the "Gun Free Zone" is a myth; The Growing Myth Of Mass Shootings And "Gun-Free Zones" | Blog | Media Matters for America

    I realize that my citation is a link is to an obviously "liberal" source, but the OP's source is an unidentified copy-paste of two letters to the editor.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    As I recall those times, "schools" was being criticized as undefinable: were bases where military personnel were being trained, "schools"?

    Disastrous Gun Law Sparked School Shootings :

    Disastrous Gun Law Sparked School Shootings
    Gun Watch ^ | 19 December, 2012 | Dean Weingarten

    Posted on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:19:23 AM by marktwain

    From 1900 to the late 1990’s, there were no mass school shootings. Lest it be thought that guns were uncommon in schools, that was not the case. Guns were commonly brought to school for shooting competitions, hunting after school, for teachers to trade or show to each other or their students, or for show and tell. Guns were even made in shop class under the supervision of the shop teacher. Guns were common in gun racks in pickup trucks in the school parking lot. Even today, many schools provide special dispensation for students to take off from school for deer hunting season.

    During the height of gun control fever during the Clinton Presidency, the Congress passed the Gun Free School Zones act of 1990. It was designed to make it impossible for ordinary people to carry guns most places, because it forbid the carrying of guns within a thousand feet of a school. If you overlap the 1000 foot gun free zones that surround schools in most cities and towns, no one can go about their daily business without intersecting one of these zones at some time.

    The Gun Free School Zone act was quickly challenged in the courts, and found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court under the interstate commerce clause, in U.S. v. Lopez, 1995. The reasoning was simple: If merely possessing a gun within a thousand feet of a school was interstate commerce, and therefore subject to federal regulation, what could possibly be construed as not interstate commerce? Virtually everything would then be controlled by the federal government. As the Constitution means something, the interstate commerce clause must mean something. If all of life can be controlled by the federal government, the clause means nothing.

    President Clinton blew a gasket when the Gun Free School Zone act was found unconstitutional. He fiercely lobbied congress to pass a replica act, slightly modified. He threatened to keep congress from adjourning to go home to run for office if they did not pass the replica act. They passed the new Gun Free School Zone act in 1996. Since then, federal prosecutors have been very careful not to prosecute many cases under the act, not wanting to present the Supreme Court with another test case.

    Etc., etc.


    The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) is a federal United States law that prohibits any individual from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a "school zone" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25). Its formal title is the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and is sometimes referred to as the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995, possibly

    S.890
    Latest Title: Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Leaving aside any tendency to political polorazition...................

    There are indeed "gun free zones" wherein only authorized personnel are allowed to carry weapons.
    Obviously the MP(s?) was(were) not able to contain the assassin. Had there been other armed people there, like a jocular who wouldn't mind carrying the extra weight of a pistol, there could have been fewer victims.

    (gun-gun-gun-----jeezzz-old memories..."this is my rifle and this is my gun, this one's for shooting and this one's for fun"---one hand held a rifle, the other......)
    'course the assassin actually did bring a shot gun to the party.


    Anytime you rely on a third party for your protection, you are playing chess(rolling the dice) with death.
    Usually, you win.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Yep, the "Gun Free Zone" is a myth; The Growing Myth Of Mass Shootings And "Gun-Free Zones" | Blog | Media Matters for America

    I realize that my citation is a link is to an obviously "liberal" source, but the OP's source is an unidentified copy-paste of two letters to the editor.
    The "OP's" source appears to look no more illegitimate than yours, it looks to me. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Are already forgetting about Major Nidal Hasan?


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan

    Ft. Hood Victim Stares Down Nidal Hasan, Points to 7 Bullet Wounds - ABC News







    The case of an officer who decided to go on a killing spree? I'm not surprised if soldiers on base are left unarmed for two reasons:

    1) Fear of another Hasan.
    2) To give Military police an advantage when they go to make an arrest.

    #1 is a silly fear. Dudes like Hasan will always be able to get themselves a weapon, especially if there are lot of soldiers running around with rifles and no ammunition. How's anyone supposed to see that he's put bullets in his gun?

    However #2 makes a lot of sense. If soldiers are carrying rifles around outside of combat, it's a lot easier for them to mutiny. It may be a somewhat antiquated concern because of the current situation. However, there's also the prospect of a sort of half mutiny where soldiers simply make it clear that they can and will come together if their superiors push them, or even worse: where perhaps an unpopular officer is threatened with fragging.

    Best to put an end to that stuff before it begins. Got to remember that a lot of these soldiers are still just kids. Dumb teenagers that are prone to do dumb things. Put the odds sufficiently against them, and bad ideas become a lot less contagious.
    jocular likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Are already forgetting about Major Nidal Hasan?


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan

    Ft. Hood Victim Stares Down Nidal Hasan, Points to 7 Bullet Wounds - ABC News




    The case of an officer who decided to go on a killing spree? I'm not surprised if soldiers on base are left unarmed for two reasons:

    1) Fear of another Hasan.
    2) To give Military police an advantage when they go to make an arrest.

    #1 is a silly fear. Dudes like Hasan will always be able to get themselves a weapon, especially if there are lot of soldiers running around with rifles and no ammunition. How's anyone supposed to see that he's put bullets in his gun?

    However #2 makes a lot of sense. If soldiers are carrying rifles around outside of combat, it's a lot easier for them to mutiny. It may be a somewhat antiquated concern because of the current situation. However, there's also the prospect of a sort of half mutiny where soldiers simply make it clear that they can and will come together if their superiors push them, or even worse: where perhaps an unpopular officer is threatened with fragging.

    Best to put an end to that stuff before it begins. Got to remember that a lot of these soldiers are still just kids. Dumb teenagers that are prone to do dumb things. Put the odds sufficiently against them, and it's a lot less contagious.
    This concern has likely been a fueling source for government paranoia since the time governments began forming militaries to back them. OTOH, what really exists in place, to prevent Military Police, or ANY police, for that matter, from "turning on their masters"? Traditionally, loyalty has usually been "bought", paid for handsomely, but still there can always be that one slip-up in psychological "predetermination of fitness" that allows for the creation of a berserk individual's unexpected activity. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    It may be a somewhat antiquated concern because of the current situation.
    Very much so.

    Best to put an end to that stuff before it begins. Got to remember that a lot of these soldiers are still just kids. Dumb teenagers that are prone to do dumb things. Put the odds sufficiently against them, and it's a lot less contagious.

    Young adults that are deliberately pushed to the limits for training routinely asked to do nearly the impossible. They also drink, get in fights and generally raise hell much like their non-military counterparts. As a general rules wouldn't want soldiers in garrison to have weapons all the time because of misfires and lost weapons.

    The Fort Hood shooting doesn't' apply for another reason--the soldiers were at a Soldier Readiness Processing Center which is sometimes the last stop immediately before soldiers get ships to the airport to go overseas. For some reason commercial airlines get nervous about loaded weapons. (Something about an accident, pressured cabins and such I imagine:-)
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    It may be a somewhat antiquated concern because of the current situation.
    Very much so.



    I think it's not so much a matter of the times, as a matter of the quality of soldiers. The core of the US military is made up of high quality soldiers, who are mostly very dedicated to the cause.
    I rarely meet a career soldier who would refuse a difficult order out of fear of death. It's more common to meet the kind of soldier who would jump on a grenade to save his friends.

    The ones to worry about are the national guard, and outsources (mercenaries.) There's no practical way to disarm the mercenaries, since they own their own guns, and the national guardsmen would have to be very brave to fire shots at the core soldiers, who are much better trained than they.

    It's antiquated, but not in the sense of being from the stone age. Having an army like the one the USA has now is a particular situation the USA is in, which may not always last, but its a great thing that it is so right now. Of course I hope it lasts, but history isn't full of situations like this one that lasted.



    As a general rules wouldn't want soldiers in garrison to have weapons all the time because of misfires and lost weapons.
    That makes sense. Better to have all the weapons stored somewhere they can be inventoried. On a base, there are enough guns gathered in one place that they could be tempting to thieves. In the field, the guns are spread out over a wide area. A thief would have to be very patient and dedicated (which most thieves aren't.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Yep, the "Gun Free Zone" is a myth; The Growing Myth Of Mass Shootings And "Gun-Free Zones" | Blog | Media Matters for America

    I realize that my citation is a link is to an obviously "liberal" source, but the OP's source is an unidentified copy-paste of two letters to the editor.
    The "OP's" source appears to look no more illegitimate than yours, it looks to me. jocular
    Hey, my source has a name. Your's didn't till now; LETTERS: Gun-free zones creating murder zones | Las Vegas Review-Journal.
    And my source contains links to sources for its assertions; Navy Yard Shows Fallacy of NRA's 'More Guns' Solution - NationalJournal.com
    Anyhow, the assertion that military bases are "Gun Free Zones" has been pretty thoroughly debunked in this thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by post#29
    From 1900 to the late 1990’s, there were no mass school shootings.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

    Sorry Jocular, not picking on you personally, just debunking zombie myths. There should always be a convention of providing citation for all assertions. Keeps us all honest.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Anyhow, the assertion that military bases are "Gun Free Zones" has been pretty thoroughly debunked in this thread.

    Sorry Jocular, not picking on you personally, just debunking zombie myths. There should always be a convention of providing citation for all assertions. Keeps us all honest.
    No apology needed, I would just like to say, that I didn't assert that, the editorial did. I was simply putting it up for scrutiny. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    I didn't assert that, the editorial did.
    Quite right. If I were a news editor, I would employ a full time fact checker.
    Is there a formatting convention for citation in print media?
    jocular likes this.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    I didn't assert that, the editorial did.
    Quite right. If I were a news editor, I would employ a full time fact checker.
    Is there a formatting convention for citation in print media?
    Could use more media who actually do that. It seems more often now days that neither right or left media outlets have interest in the facts. Turn to Fox news and their ilk and hear about the Clinton executive order...turn to MSNBC and they keep pounding that gunman played violent video games despite the fact that there's hardly any evidence of a connection in many studies. Both sides more interesting in echoing mythologies than actually checking or reporting facts--or even better yet correcting them even when it erodes their position.

    --
    On a base, there are enough guns gathered in one place that they could be tempting to thieves.
    Not really. Approved weapons storage buildings are a pretty hard target with multiple layers of security including: thick reinforced concrete, IR cameras and motion detectors, electrical passcodes all connected to law enforcement stations. No one person has the accesscodes or keys...there's a two person rule for everything. The units themselves do multiple random checks on the outsides, which requires duty NCOs and officers to initial off the check and record in an official logs. Once you get in every is again locked to weapons wracks or small storage containers. Yep there are thieves once and a while...but it's almost always in inside job.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    What makes me cringe about the "Gun Free Zones" is they are almost always applied to targets that only a suicidal maniac would want to target anyway. A pragmatic criminal looking to make a profit doesn't walk into a school zone with a gun.

    Pragmatic criminals are the ones that are most likely to care what is legal and/or illegal, and how illegal. A suicidal rage shooter doesn't care, because they don't plan to be alive anyway. It's useless to pass a law against doing something that only an utterly un-deterrable person would do anyway.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    I didn't assert that, the editorial did.
    Quite right. If I were a news editor, I would employ a full time fact checker.
    Is there a formatting convention for citation in print media?
    Could use more media who actually do that. It seems more often now days that neither right or left media outlets have interest in the facts. Turn to Fox news and their ilk and hear about the Clinton executive order...turn to MSNBC and they keep pounding that gunman played violent video games despite the fact that there's hardly any evidence of a connection in many studies. Both sides more interesting in echoing mythologies than actually checking or reporting facts--or even better yet correcting them even when it erodes their position.

    --
    On a base, there are enough guns gathered in one place that they could be tempting to thieves.
    Not really. Approved weapons storage buildings are a pretty hard target with multiple layers of security including: thick reinforced concrete, IR cameras and motion detectors, electrical passcodes all connected to law enforcement stations. No one person has the accesscodes or keys...there's a two person rule for everything. The units themselves do multiple random checks on the outsides, which requires duty NCOs and officers to initial off the check and record in an official logs. Once you get in every is again locked to weapons wracks or small storage containers. Yep there are thieves once and a while...but it's almost always in inside job.
    I like to believe that few thieves, especially those who have been successful and remain thieves rather than jailbirds, are truly fools. Thus, thieving aimed at obtaining a bunch of firearms in one swift swike is very unlikely to happen on a military installation. Gun store, maybe. But, I fail completely to understand the extreme preoccupation with thieves obtaining their weapons by thieving. Given the risk of capture, any far-thinking dolt bent on obtaining a firearm incognito need only hang around the parking lot of any of the hundreds of truly large gun shows staged nation-wide. I personally have seen very numerous gun sales take place there, even took part in a number myself. Buying a gun anonymously from an individual all but guarantees the purchaser free-reign with the use, legal or otherwise, of that arm. Undoubtedly, the bulk of such sales are legit: the schoolteacher I met, fearing his small boys' (two of them) right to own such weapons would not exist when they came of age, bought 2 Uzi carbines from me. He explained the guns would be locked up until his boys were a bit older. He wisely elected to purchase thusly, knowing that a dealer-handled purchase might someday bring about seizure of guns so purchased. He happily paid top-dollar. If feelings prevail that I should be admonished for doing this, fire away! Should I have obtained his name, address, etc., questioned his recent police profile, etc., etc.? What absurdity! OK, though, if I sold him a baseball bat, shovel, machete, or some other such instrument capable of killing, without paying heed to his credentials, right? jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    My understanding, is that only MP's are allowed guns (except those training with them on their training sites only) on base.

    I have performed on every base in the Western USA. I never saw anyone carrying a weapon except an MP.

    Ever.
    Quite right. The vast majority of soldiers and marines in garrison, unless they are specifically performing a security mission, do not carry either weapons or ammo with them on US post and most non-combat post overseas. My prior comments were addressing the question of whether soldiers or marines with weapons, would also have ammunition.
    My observations were that during training (rifle practice on the range) they have ammunition.

    Question though. Are bombs considered ammo? Because they use real ones albeit little ones when practicing at Pohakuloa Training Area.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    My observations were that during training (rifle practice on the range) they have ammunition.
    Yes at ranges....they have to shoot :-) The training NV was talking about is maneuver training, where blanks set off a laser to simulate rounds fires, while the opposing force wears laser detectors to simulate the target effects.

    Question though. Are bombs considered ammo? Because they use real ones albeit little ones when practicing at Pohakuloa Training Area.
    Yes it's all considered either ammunition, which is usually defines as coming complete or munition which are those things that come in parts such as primer and explosive. There's a lot of simulators used in training that ARE minor explosives often designed to make noise, light or smoke to simulate larger explosives. Some of the larger training areas have even had Hollywood special effects teams help design their simulations -- so how to we simulate a large truck bomb...and the team puts something together that's easy to use and advise about their recommended safety measures. A lot of fun :-)
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    My observations were that during training (rifle practice on the range) they have ammunition.
    Yes at ranges....they have to shoot :-) The training NV was talking about is maneuver training, where blanks set off a laser to simulate rounds fires, while the opposing force wears laser detectors to simulate the target effects.

    Question though. Are bombs considered ammo? Because they use real ones albeit little ones when practicing at Pohakuloa Training Area.
    Yes it's all considered either ammunition, which is usually defines as coming complete or munition which are those things that come in parts such as primer and explosive. There's a lot of simulators used in training that ARE minor explosives often designed to make noise, light or smoke to simulate larger explosives. Some of the larger training areas have even had Hollywood special effects teams help design their simulations -- so how to we simulate a large truck bomb...and the team puts something together that's easy to use and advise about their recommended safety measures. A lot of fun :-)
    Well we hear them going off! *L* all the time...as that is one Base that is used for training just before deployment!

    Thank you for the answers. It is as I thought!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    What you might also hear is actual rounds as well on a live mortar or some other range. The simulators are usually only used around troops or the actual stuff is too expensive.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    What you might also hear is actual rounds as well on a live mortar or some other range. The simulators are usually only used around troops or the actual stuff is too expensive.
    We have a lot of EOD teams around! *L*

    It sounds like thunder and they are at least 45 minutes east of us between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea Volcano's!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If indeed the Marines were not armed, then perhaps it was something to do with posse comitatus? Not wanting US soldiers to be in a position to take action against the civilian population?

    I don't see how it's at all likely that a Military base would ever be declared to be a "gun free zone". A school maybe (though we've seen the folly in that, too, now.)


    edit: oh nevermind. I found something that explains the gun free issue. Apparently it's due to the army base gun rage killing spree that was committed by that Muslim dude : Maj. Nidal Hasan


    This Is Why Most Military Personnel Aren’t Armed on Military Bases
    You are not supposed to mention the fact, that this dude was actually a Muslim.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Aye, that is possible. But the odds are better with armed guards that are able to return fire even if the shooter can capture weapons and ammo than if there are unarmed guards who cannot return fire at all. Here's the basics: In both situations, the shooter is armed. In one situation, it's possible to return fire and in the other- it isn't.
    Again, the converse is that in one situation the shooter leaves the scene less well armed; in the other situation the shooter leaves the scene better armed. Being well armed did not protect Adam Lanza's mother from being murdered - and indeed afterwards her murderer set off to Sandy Hook armed with her guns and killed twenty more. It's pretty safe to say that her ownership of guns enabled a heinous crime.

    Moral of the story - banning guns won't keep criminals from getting them, and being armed won't keep you from being killed. Your weapon is just as effective in the hands of a murderer as it is in your hands.

    The risk that he might be able to arm himself more makes no real difference.
    I think the families of the Sandy Hook victims might disagree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Aye, that is possible. But the odds are better with armed guards that are able to return fire even if the shooter can capture weapons and ammo than if there are unarmed guards who cannot return fire at all. Here's the basics: In both situations, the shooter is armed. In one situation, it's possible to return fire and in the other- it isn't.
    Again, the converse is that in one situation the shooter leaves the scene less well armed; in the other situation the shooter leaves the scene better armed. Being well armed did not protect Adam Lanza's mother from being murdered - and indeed afterwards her murderer set off to Sandy Hook armed with her guns and killed twenty more. It's pretty safe to say that her ownership of guns enabled a heinous crime.

    Moral of the story - banning guns won't keep criminals from getting them, and being armed won't keep you from being killed. Your weapon is just as effective in the hands of a murderer as it is in your hands.

    The risk that he might be able to arm himself more makes no real difference.
    I think the families of the Sandy Hook victims might disagree.
    Well said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Possiby the best free game ever..."Path Of Exile"
    By MacGyver1968 in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2013, 06:06 AM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2012, 04:13 PM
  3. What about "Free Energy" machines?
    By dapifo in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 19th, 2012, 04:47 PM
  4. the united states and the "free riders"
    By aboud7 in forum Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 4th, 2010, 10:02 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •