- Joined
- May 17, 2019
- Messages
- 20,649
- Reaction score
- 2,465
- Location
- Idaho
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Have you ever served? Ever even been on a military installation?
Not served
Yes, was just on a base
Have you ever served? Ever even been on a military installation?
Not served
Yes, was just on a base
How many commanders have authorized carrying on a military installation? And who have they authorized?
many locations do not allow any personal firearms to be brought on the installation or stored in base housing or barracks.
This should Answer you
How can those commanders sleep at night..... Leaving their soldiers as sitting ducks.. what do they know that you don't?
Well , I got both my Daughter and Son in law in the Air force
Guess what?
They're unarmed
Yep(Angry)
Hmmm... What do their commanders know that you seem to be missing?... hmmmmm.....
Before I even scroll down, someone is probably already blaming Trump or the NRA if not both. Just saying.A shooting spree in Thailand left 26 people dead and 57 wounded. Now maybe if Thailand had stricter gun laws this wouldn't've happened, oh wait Thailand already has super strict gun laws. Much stricter than the USA.
Thailand shooting spree leaves 26 dead, 57 wounded, officials say; suspect is fatally shot | Fox News
Weapons should be distributed on an as needed basis. Only sentries should be carrying them on base.
Weapons should be distributed on an as needed basis. Only sentries should be carrying them on base.
And if a sentry decides to go on a shooting spree?
Sentries need to be armed with (loaded) guns?
In London, the ceremonial guards do not carry loaded guns.
Before I even scroll down, someone is probably already blaming Trump or the NRA if not both. Just saying.
Any time someone is given a loaded gun around people, there is the potential for a mass shooting.
Not if the other people also have loaded guns in which case they can shoot him as soon as he starts the mass shooting.
From my experience, and I've had experiences where everybody has a gun, it does not turn into a shooting spree.But then the mass shooting has already happened...would you place a guard on the guards...how about a guard on them...and a guard on them.
If everyone has a gun, you have the Wild West.
So you put your blanket trust in law enforcement, that's really naive.Better no-one has guns except law enforcement.
From my experience, and I've had experiences where everybody has a gun, it does not turn into a shooting spree.
BTW there wasn't much in the way of shooting sprees in the real Old West, gunfights were quite rare, unlike how Hollywood makes it look, you've been watching too many cowboy movies.
So you put your blanket trust in law enforcement, that's really naive.
There wasn't really anything anybody could do about Paddock and the shooting spree he went on including having more restrictive gun control. No amount of gun control would've stopped Paddock.How would you suggest armed citizens protect from a shooting like we saw from Stephen Paddock in Vegas ?
So they resort to stabbing and vehicle ramming.Seems to work where there's a gun ban
eg: the UK and three recent terrorist attacks in London (where the terrorists had no access to guns)
This is New Jersey we're talking about, the chances of finding armed citizens there is close to zero.Contrast this with a terrorist incident in New Jersey last year:
4 deaths, including a cop. Where were your armed citizens to stop it?
There wasn't really anything anybody could do about Paddock...
So they resort to stabbing and vehicle ramming.
This is New Jersey we're talking about, the chances of finding armed citizens there is close to zero.
No amount of gun control would've stopped Paddock what with him being as well funded as he was.Ban guns so he couldn't buy them
It seems that the gun owning lobby is just accepting mass shootings as a bearable consequence of the right to bear arms
Like Paddock's victims and the victim's of other mass shooters are nothing
And that the only response they offer is arrest AFTER the fact
Really? 2014 Kunming attack - WikipediaSome do, most don't attack people at all.
Terrorist knife attacks have proven to be far less deadly.
And they're increasing in frequency.Vehicle attacks have proven to be far less common
And if the aircraft is privately owned, then what?Attacks by hijacking an aircraft seem to have been prevented following 9/11
In New Jersey your chances of finding armed citizens who aren't cops is close to zero.Was not the cop armed ?
People can be killed in knife attacks too as I pointed out above.Bottom line people were killed by guns, not injured by knife as was the case in a recent London terrorist attack.
No amount of gun control would've stopped Paddock...
Really
And they're increasing in frequency.
And if the aircraft is privately owned, then what?
In New Jersey your chances of finding armed citizens who aren't cops is close to zero.
People can be killed in knife attacks too as I pointed out above.
You've admitted yourself that no amount of gun control is going to stop somebody whose well funded. Paddock was very well funded being a multimillionaire and all.Except a ban on the guns he bought and used in the LV shooting
Bombings and arsons on the average kill more people than shootings or stabbings.Yes really
Look up the definition of "most"
Have you been watching the news the last few years?Where's your evidence of this
You don't need to hi-jack a plane you privately own to fly it into a building or some other area where there's lots of people.Then so far, they haven't been hi-jacked
So controls put in place after 9/11 seem to be working
Technically NJ does issue CCWs but its very rarely ever done. NJ is a may issue state which means they may issue you a CCW if you apply for one if a judge decides you need one and most NJ judges are not going to issue a CCW for most reasons. The only way I can think of that can guarantee you would get a CCW in NJ is if you have a job where you carry a gun.Evidence ?
Doesn't New Jersey issue CCW's ?
And as I pointed out there are other methods of mass killing that can kill just as many or more people than mass shootings.But not so much in lieu of a mass shooting.
Those who do not study history are going to be ridiculed as foolish by those who do. Prohibition didn't stop drinking-rather it made gangsters rich. Same with the war on drugs. Pretending a gun ban will prevent criminals from obtaining firearms is a faith based argument that isn't even really believed by those who advocate it.
So because banning alcohol didn't work, banning guns wouldn't either ?
So by that score, banning anything - that is any object/item to prevent your smart comments - is useless ?