The Ridiculousness Of Military Bases And Places Being "Gun-Free Zones"
We make our military sitting ducks for the likes of the Chattanooga shooter.
Bob Owens, author of the ebook "So You Want to Own a Gun," writes at the LA Times:
Despite being active-duty servicemen with military weapons training, few of the victims in these attacks had an opportunity to defend themselves, thanks to Department of Defense Directive 5210.56, enacted in 1992 under President George H.W. Bush.That policy strictly limits the military and civilian personnel who can carry firearms at military facilities to those in law enforcement or security roles. U.S. bases and recruiting centers have been "gun-free zones" ever since.
The directive made sense at the end of the Cold War, when the risks of sabotage to nuclear missile sites and command-and-control facilities were thought to be lower. The world has changed since then, and we now find ourselves embroiled in a global war on Islamic extremism.
Non-state enemy actors, including Islamic State, are pursuing the strategy of radicalizing converts within the United States to carry out attacks on Americans. Although we cannot harden every possible terrorist target in a nation as large as ours, there is proverbial "low hanging fruit," which means we can make some targets less vulnerable with minimum effort.
One of the easiest safeguards would be for the Obama administration to revise the gun rule that has made military targets such easy prey to armed attackers.
...Such a policy would ensure that there would be an armed deterrent to acts of terrorism on military targets, even at those facilities too small to warrant dedicated military or civilian security personnel.
On larger bases -- many encompassing hundreds of thousands of acres -- these armed ranking officers could provide immediate defense until existing base security arrives.
Dumb comment at LAT site from "Archibald":
Typical NRA approach to solving a deadly problem: Arm everyone.Memo to NRA: Guns are designed for only one purpose: To kill animals or people.
(The NRA gun-nut response is, "I have been shooting targets for decades and haven't killed anyone yet." The gun was designed to kill. How a person chooses to use it is the person's choice.)
People with guns kill people.
We need sane restrictions: limit magazine sizes, ban military assault rifles (AR-15 etc), background check, including closing the gun-show loophole. The FBI admitted that it failed to conduct the background check for the Chattanooga terrorist in a timely manner. If more funding is necessary to assure that background checks are performed in a timely manner, then a special tax on ammunition should be imposed. The tax could be named, "Safety First: The Background Check Tax."
We need fewer guns, not more guns.
Heroin is also illegal. A half mile from my house, you can buy it from a man on the street corner.
Amazing isn't it that people not at risk have no problem deciding how those that are at risk should handle that risk.
(Ladies leaving work late and going into dark parking garages should just hope for the best? or plan for the worst.)
Mankind has always determined that those w/weapons decided what to do w/those w/o weapons.
Seems common sense to me based on our own history as well as the recent mass shootings but ...
found this guy's notes very interesting:
The worst genocides of the 20th and 21st Centuries
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Bob in Texas at July 21, 2015 6:44 AM
We need fewer guns, not more guns.
Actually, the gun has been around since the 1200s, and interpersonal violence has done nothing but decline since.
It is the only weapon invented which puts everyone on an somewhat equal footing
lujlp at July 21, 2015 8:50 AM
Never mind, the problem's been solved:
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/07/18/marine-recruiters-told-not--wear-uniforms-offices-closed/30353587/
Wearing civvies will do the trick. 'cause no one will ever suspect that the guy in civilian dress with a high and tight cut inside the office clearly marked "USMC Recruiting Station" is a Marine.
Conan the Grammarian at July 21, 2015 9:08 AM
What "gun show loophole?" You mean the right of a citizen to dispose of his or her personal property without government intervention? That's not a loophole, it's a Constitutional right.
And, since fully automatic weapons are illegal for civilian use, banning "military assault rifles" will have no effect whatsoever. They're already banned. And a semi-automatic hunting rifle is just as deadly as a semi-automatic military-style rifle.
And limiting magazine sizes won't do any good - unless you think you can actually rush the shooter when he stops to switch magazines. Or that one bullet from a small magazine is somehow less deadly than one bullet from a large magazine.
These are fantasy solutions urged by people who don't understand what they're talking about, like the woman in our local paper who held that mandating manual transmissions would cut down on drunk driving - because she found driving a stick shift to be difficult.
Conan the Grammarian at July 21, 2015 9:17 AM
Conan, fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal for civilian use in the USA, just in a handful of states. If you live in a state that allows them, you buy your Federal tax stamp, pass the background check (along with other requirements) and you can own one. They are not cheap at approximately $5000 for the least expensive. There are about 500000 registered, with about half in private civilian hands (the police have to register them too). Individuals (not cops) can only own those that were manufactured before May 19, 1986j, when the ATF began to refuse to collect the tax. The tax is $200. Only two deaths have been attributed to legal automatic weapons since 1934, and one of those was misused by a cop.
Military "assault rifles" are select-fire (i.e. have full auto capability per Jane's Small Arms) and are not to be confused with the political term "assault weapon." "Assault Weapon" is a made-up term that can mean anything at all. In Calfornia, a five foot long single-shot .50 caliber rifle that weighs 35 pounds or more is considered an "assault weapon" even if one has never been used in a crime. In Calforna an AR-15 Series (i.e. clone) firearm is an "assault weapon" with a push-button magazine release, but if you change the push-button to a button that requires a tool (such as a bullet tip) to remove the magazine, it's perfectly legal and NOT an "assault weapon" by definition -- it's the same rifle either way.
A World War II vintage M1 Garand, which is not an "assault weapon" can do a lot more damage and (in skilled hands) is just as fast as an AR-15 to operate. The federal government will sell you a Garand through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Look it up.
Jay J. Hector at July 21, 2015 10:47 AM
LOL at the transmission/drunk driving idea. Where do these loons come from?!
Running background checks to prevent certain people from buying guns is not that helpful anyway. Unless they have been convicted of certain offenses already or had court commitments for psychiatric reasons it's not going to prevent them. They ask if you have substance abuse issues on the form. You can lie about that and they'll never know unless you've had felony convictions related to it. They won't know if you're bat-shit crazy unless there has been a court commitment to a psychiatric institution. Apparently those don't always get put into a database anyway. People can have all sorts of issues that are supposed to disqualify them from buying guns and no one would know if you've managed to fly under the radar.
BunnyGirl at July 21, 2015 10:49 AM
fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal for civilian use in the USA
They are prohibitively expensive for the average person. So, they are effectively banned. At some point, all of those weapons will have become collector's items and be way too valuable to actually use.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 21, 2015 11:17 AM
My bad. I was under the impression that the federal government had banned fully automatic weapons for civilians.
Nonetheless, the comment's underlying assumption was false. Banning the types of guns he wants to ban would do little to nothing to reduce gun violence. Most homicides by gun are committed with handguns, not "assault" rifles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0
Conan the Grammarian at July 21, 2015 12:26 PM
I for one would feel safer if the Capitol building and White House were complete gun-free zones. Let's get to work on this at once.
Every time the "gun control" debate gets going again, hubs and I go buy another gun.
You know the best way to stop a crazy guy with gun from killing you? Shoot him first. At the end of the day, that's all that works.
momof4 at July 21, 2015 1:43 PM
"The tax could be named, "Safety First: The Background Check Tax."
How statist of that writer - let's create another tax, give it a cute name, and the world will be safer!
It would be laughable; except that some folks actually do believe this kind of nonsense.
charles at July 21, 2015 2:47 PM
Muslim attackers in gun-free military zones sounds like a real problem. More and more we could take a clue from the Israeli model. Sad, really. America should be different.
Canvasback at July 21, 2015 3:02 PM
You are all missing something, again.
A soldier or a Marine with a weapon does NOT have the job of determining who is and is not a threat, and/or considering the civil rights of anyone. The threat, when identified, is eliminated as rapidly as possible. This gets very messy. Back in the Rodney King riots, some idiot rushed a National Guard barricade with a car - they killed the driver instantly and tore the car to ribbons.
The issuance of your weapon from the armory is a cusp, a "switch", that says, "You have orders to use this to achieve an objective." There are American soldiers who have killed HUNDREDS of people with a rifle.
You do not want to dilute the distinction between "home" and "combat zone".
Next to the troops carrying rifles, we are all just armchair-quarterbacking while we ignore yet another example of the BIG LIE, that police can protect your person - but make no mistake: police and OTHER civilian venues are in no way a military environment.
Radwaste at July 21, 2015 3:42 PM
Why is anyone allowed to be in uniform who can't be trusted with a weapon?
@Radwaste: Trained soldiers know perfectly well the difference between legitimate targets and noncombatants. This is taught in basic training.
jdgalt at July 21, 2015 6:35 PM
jdgalt: the point is... when you have a fireman put on his bunker gear, you expect him to be ready to fight a fire.
How is that training you mention working out in the Middle East?
Think about this. You want to arm the military against other American citizens while performing its official duties. And putting them in civilian clothing won't change this.
Have you ever thought about why the police can't call an Army rifle squad to invade a home like a SWAT team?
Has any of you realized that the majority of our military does not carry arms as part of their duties? They are LOADED with technicians who can sneak into your computer no matter what you do, sneak up to a coastline in a submarine or make sure a really violent missile gets to the bad guys, but they can't shoot a hundred-year-old pistol design worth a damn. Now what?
There is NO WAY we should be telling Americans in the military that their combat stance is to be adopted at the mall.
Radwaste at July 22, 2015 5:47 AM
Israeli girls enjoying a day at the beach:
https://twg2a.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/gunsisraeliwomanbikini.jpg?w=595
Ken R at July 22, 2015 5:51 AM
Israeli girls out shopping, getting ice cream:
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u92/wasteofspaces/Buying_Ice_Cream.jpg
Ken R at July 22, 2015 5:53 AM
Cute Israeli girl:
http://cdn.jewsnews.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/6276.jpg#Israel%20%20women%20with%20guns%20675x809
Ken R at July 22, 2015 6:15 AM
Anytime there is a viable threat, or you are in a combat zone, the military should be armed, no matter what your duties are.
When I was in the Army many years ago, there was a service member sitting in every bank at a military installation with a loaded M-16.
When I was pay officer, and carrying large amounts of cash, I had a loaded and holstered 1911 on my hip. My driver, and guard, carried a loaded M16.
This was back before the nervous nellies, and zero risk agitators bought into the notion, that a gun was more of a risk to the people carrying them, than a deterrent to potential thieves and terrorists.
Isab at July 22, 2015 7:30 AM
In Paris, in 1985, at the Montparnasse train station, there was a soldier with an MP5 watching the terminal.
Is that what you want?
Radwaste at July 22, 2015 9:32 AM
Every Marine a rifleman.
"Marines who will NOT be infantrymen go through the Marine Combat Training course, which is a 4 week-long seminar on learning even more about the role of Marine infantrymen. Here they learn to shoot such varied weapons as the M249 machine gun, the M203 grenade launcher, the AT4 rocket, 60mm mortar tubes, 155mm Howitzer artillery and more."
"This bears repeating again: all Marines, regardless of whether they will be on the front lines in Afghanistan or repairing Cobra helicopters at Camp Lejeune, go through at least 4 weeks of advanced infantry training, in addition to what they learned in boot camp."
This degree of combat training is not necessarily true for the other branches of the military - to rad's point.
Conan the Grammarian at July 22, 2015 9:34 AM
"This degree of combat training is not necessarily true for the other branches of the military - to rad's point."
But... when we're talking about carrying on base, for the most part we're talking about people carrying personal sidearms. The ones who are not in a security role do not expect to be issued weapons from the armory; they want authorization to carry their own guns on base just like they do around town. If you argue that they shouldn't be allowed to carry on base because (in the heat of the moment) they can't tell the diff between combatants and civilians, then the logical endpoint is that they shouldn't be allowed to carry off base either. But of course that's a ridiculous conclusion.
Cousin Dave at July 22, 2015 10:31 AM
In Paris, in 1985, at the Montparnasse train station, there was a soldier with an MP5 watching the terminal.
Is that what you want?
Posted by: Radwaste at July 22, 2015 9:32 AM
Yes, that is exactly what I want, because soldiers are not the police, and can't arrest people for civil infractions.
They are there for security, not civil order. Therefore this is better than an armed police presence, and better than the status quo which is no security at all.
Isab at July 24, 2015 6:30 AM
Insanity.
Are you old enough to ask yourself how we got to having police permanently assigned to schools?
What's the difference between having a National Guardsman at the airport terminal and calling an Army rifle squad to secure and office building or a residential home?
Radwaste at July 24, 2015 9:28 AM
Some people (yes, just like this Marine at Camp Pendleton) should NOT have a weapon.
PTSD and rage disorders aren't uncommon, and I think they're a far better determinant of who should own a gun than prior criminal convictions.
THAT raging guy gets weapons but Martha Stewart can't hunt ducks?
Mind boggling.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 24, 2015 5:10 PM
Leave a comment