• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Marine kills two colleagues at Quantico base

Cute, but stupid. And willfully so - you know better. It's not anti-military to recognize that those of us inside it have given up our freedoms in order to protect others'.

Are you saying that is a bad thing?

I think it makes excellent sense to only let authorized people carry weapons.



You can't really compare "general pop" to "on-base" directly without filtering the first to ensure an apples-to-apples.

You mean like they screen those who enter the military, a background check to get in. And even more screening to become an MP or an armed guard. A very good idea!
 
Are you saying that is a bad thing?

:shrug: it is what it is. I would say in this instance, it was a foolish decision.

I think it makes excellent sense to only let authorized people carry weapons.

:shrug: as one of the people who is thus left unprotected, I disagree.

You mean like they screen those who enter the military, a background check to get in. And even more screening to become an MP or an armed guard. A very good idea!

Hey, if you want to just authorize all military personnel on base with exceptions for those with psy/legal issues etc, I'm fine with that.
 
:shrug: it is what it is. I would say in this instance, it was a foolish decision. :shrug: as one of the people who is thus left unprotected, I disagree.
Hey, if you want to just authorize all military personnel on base with exceptions for those with psy/legal issues etc, I'm fine with that.


I think the gun control measure that makes the most sense is the one employed by the military since the 1990s where only authorized people are allowed to carry weapons on base in the US.
 
But what if you were to know whether one is a sicko and is twice as more likely to re-offend than average due to low activity in the anterior cingulate cortex?

References:

Aharoni, E., Vincent, G. M., Harenski, C. L., Calhoun, V. D., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., ... Kiehl, K. A. (2013). Neuroprediction of future rearrest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1219302110
You're diving into psychological diagnoses. Naturally we are speaking of relatively sane people in this discussion. I understand that this is a physical cause of possible psychological disfunction, however, it still boils down to psychological disfunction. If we have the observation time of a person, who most likely is an inmate to receive this type of observation, I would have to reassess my opinion of that. Honestly, I haven't thought enough about it to give you one right now.
 
Interesting to see the military fighting with the NRA -


Gun control: Why the US military is fighting with the NRA

"US military commanders are increasingly expressing frustration with the National Rifle Association for blocking what they feel are vital measures to keep troops safe.

The controversy revolves around the surge in suicide within the armed forces. The Pentagon is facing an “epidemic,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told lawmakers this week, with some 206 US troops suspected of taking their own lives so far this year.

“That is an epidemic,” he said. “Something is wrong.”

As they cast about looking for possible ways to bring down the rates of suicide, commanders say that the answer may lie in having candid discussions with their soldiers about their personal firearms--and to take personal weapons away from those who appear likely to hurt themselves.

“The majority of [suicides] have two things in common: Alcohol and a gun. That’s just the way it is,” General Peter Chiarelli, the Army’s former Vice Chief of Staff, told the Monitor this January, shortly before he retired. “And when you have somebody that you in fact feel is high risk, I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to tell that individual that it would not be a good idea to have a weapon around the house.”

The problem, say US military commanders, is that a new NRA-backed law prohibits them from engaging in discussions about weapons and safety.
“I am not allowed to ask a soldier who lives off-post whether that soldier has a privately-owned weapon,” Chiarelli says. The legislation took effect at the end of 2010.

While commanders are permitted to ask troops who appear to be an imminent danger to themselves or others about private firearms--or to suggest locking them temporarily in a base depot--the law requires that if the soldier denies that he or she is thinking about harming anyone, then the commander cannot pursue the discussion further, he adds."

"Half of troops that killed themselves use firearms to end their life and “suicide in most cases is a spontaneous event” that is often fueled by drugs and alcohol. But “if you can separate the individual from the weapon,” he added, “you can lower the incidences of suicide.”

Gun control: Why the US military is fighting with the NRA - CSMonitor.com
 
Interesting to see the military fighting with the NRA -


Gun control: Why the US military is fighting with the NRA

"US military commanders are increasingly expressing frustration with the National Rifle Association for blocking what they feel are vital measures to keep troops safe.

The controversy revolves around the surge in suicide within the armed forces. The Pentagon is facing an “epidemic,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told lawmakers this week, with some 206 US troops suspected of taking their own lives so far this year.

“That is an epidemic,” he said. “Something is wrong.”

As they cast about looking for possible ways to bring down the rates of suicide, commanders say that the answer may lie in having candid discussions with their soldiers about their personal firearms--and to take personal weapons away from those who appear likely to hurt themselves.

“The majority of [suicides] have two things in common: Alcohol and a gun. That’s just the way it is,” General Peter Chiarelli, the Army’s former Vice Chief of Staff, told the Monitor this January, shortly before he retired. “And when you have somebody that you in fact feel is high risk, I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to tell that individual that it would not be a good idea to have a weapon around the house.”

The problem, say US military commanders, is that a new NRA-backed law prohibits them from engaging in discussions about weapons and safety.
“I am not allowed to ask a soldier who lives off-post whether that soldier has a privately-owned weapon,” Chiarelli says. The legislation took effect at the end of 2010.

While commanders are permitted to ask troops who appear to be an imminent danger to themselves or others about private firearms--or to suggest locking them temporarily in a base depot--the law requires that if the soldier denies that he or she is thinking about harming anyone, then the commander cannot pursue the discussion further, he adds."

"Half of troops that killed themselves use firearms to end their life and “suicide in most cases is a spontaneous event” that is often fueled by drugs and alcohol. But “if you can separate the individual from the weapon,” he added, “you can lower the incidences of suicide.”

Gun control: Why the US military is fighting with the NRA - CSMonitor.com

Those damn civil rights! Keep getting in the way every damn time!

Confiscating private firearms from soldier isn't going to to keep them from killing themselves. What's next? Are all the bed sheets in the barracks going to be taken away because a soldier could hang himself?

The United States military has the authority to put troops into protective custody, if there's a concern that they will harm themselves. If that's not what's being done, then there are some clowns in the Pentagon that are allowing soldiers to off themselves and doing nothing about it, for political reasons.

If the anti-gunners REALLY gave two hoots about our servicemen, they would demand that the heads of the people not excercising that authority should roll. But, we all know it has nothing to do with the troops and more to do with politics.
 
I don't know about Army guys, but as a Marine if I carried a firearm on my uniform that was not issued, I was out of uniform. If my pen stuck up out of my pocket on my cami's I was out of uniform. There is just a lot more that goes into this.
Those damn civil rights! Keep getting in the way every damn time!

Confiscating private firearms from soldier isn't going to to keep them from killing themselves. What's next? Are all the bed sheets in the barracks going to be taken away because a soldier could hang himself?

The United States military has the authority to put troops into protective custody, if there's a concern that they will harm themselves. If that's not what's being done, then there are some clowns in the Pentagon that are allowing soldiers to off themselves and doing nothing about it, for political reasons.

If the anti-gunners REALLY gave two hoots about our servicemen, they would demand that the heads of the people not excercising that authority should roll. But, we all know it has nothing to do with the troops and more to do with politics.
 
Those damn civil rights! Keep getting in the way every damn time!

Confiscating private firearms from soldier isn't going to to keep them from killing themselves. What's next? Are all the bed sheets in the barracks going to be taken away because a soldier could hang himself?

The United States military has the authority to put troops into protective custody, if there's a concern that they will harm themselves. If that's not what's being done, then there are some clowns in the Pentagon that are allowing soldiers to off themselves and doing nothing about it, for political reasons.

If the anti-gunners REALLY gave two hoots about our servicemen, they would demand that the heads of the people not excercising that authority should roll. But, we all know it has nothing to do with the troops and more to do with politics.



It isn't the Pentagon Apdst, it is "US military commanders." But it is noted that you disagree with their views.
 
OK, how about a compromise: We can let gays get married, provided they both own guns.
 
I don't know about Army guys, but as a Marine if I carried a firearm on my uniform that was not issued, I was out of uniform. If my pen stuck up out of my pocket on my cami's I was out of uniform. There is just a lot more that goes into this.

:shrug: his pistol being non-issued didn't stop one of my Marines from sending a round through his heart. Apparently he forgot to check with Catawba to make sure that he was authorized to do so :roll:
 
What years were you in? We had a Marine shoot himself in the heart too over a woman out in town.
:shrug: his pistol being non-issued didn't stop one of my Marines from sending a round through his heart. Apparently he forgot to check with Catawba to make sure that he was authorized to do so :roll:
 
It isn't the Pentagon Apdst, it is "US military commanders." But it is noted that you disagree with their views.

Whoever! It still boils down to the fact that the military has the authority to put potential suicided into protective custody. If this isn't being done, there are biggers problems than private firearms ownership.

Why aren't you hyped up about obvious derelicition of duty?
 
I don't know about Army guys, but as a Marine if I carried a firearm on my uniform that was not issued, I was out of uniform. If my pen stuck up out of my pocket on my cami's I was out of uniform. There is just a lot more that goes into this.

Same same in the Army. But, in all fairness, Catawba's source was refering to privately owned firearms, being kept by soldiers who live off post.
 
What years were you in? We had a Marine shoot himself in the heart too over a woman out in town.

:) Still am. Posting to you now live from beautiful (somewhat rural-smelling) Okinawa, Japan.
 
Oh, the guy in our unit was in in 1980's. My son is now at 29 Palms. Semper Fi.
:) Still am. Posting to you now live from beautiful (somewhat rural-smelling) Okinawa, Japan.
 
Oh, the guy in our unit was in in 1980's. My son is now at 29 Palms. Semper Fi.

My condolences. No Stumps for me, thanks.

Did he get the word yet that he's stuck on the West Coast for at least 10 years? Apparently they're going to stop approving cross-country PCS except in particular and identified circumstances (there are only so many infantry battalions to command, etc).
 
Those damn civil rights! Keep getting in the way every damn time!

Confiscating private firearms from soldier isn't going to to keep them from killing themselves. What's next? Are all the bed sheets in the barracks going to be taken away because a soldier could hang himself?

The United States military has the authority to put troops into protective custody, if there's a concern that they will harm themselves. If that's not what's being done, then there are some clowns in the Pentagon that are allowing soldiers to off themselves and doing nothing about it, for political reasons.

If the anti-gunners REALLY gave two hoots about our servicemen, they would demand that the heads of the people not excercising that authority should roll. But, we all know it has nothing to do with the troops and more to do with politics.

Military personnell fall under the purview of the UCMJ and not the constitution.
 
HE just got orders to another unit. Still on 29 Palms. He is not real happy.
My condolences. No Stumps for me, thanks.

Did he get the word yet that he's stuck on the West Coast for at least 10 years? Apparently they're going to stop approving cross-country PCS except in particular and identified circumstances (there are only so many infantry battalions to command, etc).
 
The service member. I know for sure when MP arrested someone out in town they had to take along local officers in case there were civilians involved or got involved. But yes, if you are in the service you are under the UCMJ and the same laws as a civilian 24/7 if you are in town.
I think you are wrong. When you are active duty, they own you 24/7.
 
I think you are wrong. When you are active duty, they own you 24/7.

Yes, but the residences themselves do not. So, for example, I cannot commit adultery out in town (illegal under the UCMJ), but I can keep a weapon. I simply cannot take that weapon onto base, so when a psycho major runs into an office building, screams allahu akbar, and begins to mow down my brothers and sisters, the best I can do is maybe make alot of noise and distract him while wishing that I had just broken the law, and gone armed.
 
Back
Top Bottom