Oleg Volk ([info]olegvolk) wrote,
@ 2009-11-07 10:29:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry


(29 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Fort Hood
(Anonymous)
2009-11-07 04:45 pm UTC (link)
The left will never figure this out. Their masters already know it. In fact, they rely upon it.

(Reply to this)


[info]reytsman
2009-11-07 04:46 pm UTC (link)
Nice. Feels similar to "guns do not kill people, people kill people", but I can't quite pinpoint why.

(Reply to this)

Base Safety
(Anonymous)
2009-11-07 05:00 pm UTC (link)
This is an incredibly painful truth.

I usually feel pretty safe on base but the number of times I've accidentally CCW'd through the gate are numerous so anybody with an ID could do the same thing. I leave the gun at home if I'm going on base for work or something else because if I get searched I don't want to "see the Commander" about it or a possible felony charge and lose my CCW; but even with the 100% ID check there's no way to stop someone on the inside.

(Reply to this)


[info]wolfrick
2009-11-07 05:00 pm UTC (link)
YES.

(Reply to this)


[info]daddygod
2009-11-07 05:05 pm UTC (link)
Yes, but her being armed was due to the fact that she is a police officer and was carrying on duty, thereby becoming one of the privileged class allowed to do so.

This doesn't address anything about everyone else being unarmed IMO since everyone knows that's what the police are for.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]daddygod
2009-11-07 09:17 pm UTC (link)
Oh, and you're using USMC styled camouflage to refer to an US Army related incident.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]praecorloth
2009-11-08 03:23 am UTC (link)
Couple of people I know from Facebook who are in the Army got the digital. Unless there's a coloring distinction that I'm just not aware of.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]daddygod
2009-11-08 03:32 am UTC (link)
Army wears the ACU which blends green, tan, and grey, there is no desert variant.

ACU


MARPAT Desert

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]tomcatshanger
2009-11-08 03:48 pm UTC (link)
The military IS the privileged class.

But only when they are not in the states evidently.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]daddygod
2009-11-08 05:54 pm UTC (link)
You are correct in that for this case the military as a whole was not the privileged class however all they have to do is leave just the base to be able to carry, not the entire country.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]tomcatshanger
2009-11-09 01:31 am UTC (link)
But their ability to carry off base does not depend on them being military.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]stitchmegently
2009-11-09 03:23 am UTC (link)
The military, in the context of the US, is not a privileged class. If anything, they are subordinate in social positioning to the civilian government whom they are in abeyance to and the greater population from which they have stepped away from. Servicemembers are public servants, part of a greater federal organization; relative to other public servants and the free market, they receive lower pay, worse treatment, longer hours, and so forth as is part of the military lifestyle. Not only do all of the same laws apply to them, but an entirely separate and comprehensive legal system, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is applicable; at times both legal systems will be applicable and overlapping, without technically being double jeopardy. By very neccessity and cumulative social evolution, the military in this nation is a socialistic existence more so then any other aspect of the country. It is, after all, a lifestyle, not just a job; one's food, clothes, behavior, appearance, grooming, medical treatment, non-tax deductions from pay, associations, and relationships all fall under its purview, after all.

So what would make one confuse the military for a privileged class?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]staghounds
2009-11-07 05:12 pm UTC (link)
Change "could not" to "didn't". Unarmed people CAN stop a shooter, if they attack him, and we need to encourage that or at least not discourage it with the he has a gun, we're helpless" outlook.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]mat_uc
2009-11-07 06:12 pm UTC (link)
Haha!

Nobody want to get first bullet.

Just crazy people can try to beat armed man :)

Edited at 2009-11-07 06:13 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Fighting or crying
(Anonymous)
2009-11-07 07:24 pm UTC (link)
Your most effective weapon is between your ears, not in your hand. Better to die on your feet fighting, than on your knees begging for mercy. The only problem is in recognizing that your inevitable fate is on you much sooner than expected.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]stitchmegently
2009-11-07 07:14 pm UTC (link)
There were those who tried to stop him, some of whom were detained afterwards because of their actions. You are speaking in ignorance of the circumstances of the incident, and being rude. How's that armchair feel, from which you are quarterbacking?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2009-11-07 09:22 pm UTC (link)
They did NOT succeed. They would have had a much better chance if they had been armed.

Why can you not see that this is NOT criticism of the actions of the people at the sharp end, but a criticism of the powers who decided to keep the people at the sharp end disarmed?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]stitchmegently
2009-11-07 11:04 pm UTC (link)
Because it is a criticsm. Don't hide one behind the illusion of another.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2009-11-09 05:09 pm UTC (link)
Here is my opinion on the events.

Caveat: I have never been to the location of the shooting. Without having walked the ground in question, I cannot tell you where the bottlenecks, lines of fire and avenues of approach are located. I cannot tell you what the shooter saw. I cannot tell you what the targeted soldiers saw. I cannot tell you what the officer saw.

What I can say is this: I THINK the situation could be classified as an urban, near ambush. My preference is on the former. But when we are being shot at, our survival often depends on our ability to instantly analyze the type enemy contact and respond accordingly. Most training and experience for soldiers and police when taking fire is to take cover and then maneuver for advantage.

The biggest exception to this is what I think that the soldiers encountered: A near ambush in which the enemy catches the targets out of cover and has them dialed in. As SFC Brown told me during training: What usually happens is that you die loudly. Your only hope is to break through the kill zone. Some people do. Some people don't.

There are ways to deal with a firearm equipped enemy with bare-hand or improvised melee weapons. Most of them involve getting inside the enemy's decision and action cycle. All but one of them involves closing to touch range of the enemy without being disabled. The one that does not involve closing is to run away, very fast. That is not necessarily an act of cowardice. If an enemy has someone dialed in and they are unable to return fire effectively, very often the best decision is to break contact and attempt to re-engage under more favorable conditions.

One of the rules of combat, either hand or ranged, is that the person who starts it usually wins it. I really wish our legal system would realize that but that is another topic.

when one is faced with an enemy who has already decided to open fire and is actively doing so, the chances of sucessfully closing and neutralizing are vanishingly small. But there is a chance-especially if multiple people can coordinate because one firearm can only point in one direction at one time. The chances of doing so are very dependent on possible cover and concealment, ranges and maneuver room. In a bottleneck scenario with limited avenues of approach and obstacles to slow flanking and evasive maneuvers, it would be very difficult to complete a successful engagement.

It is not that the unarmed soldiers could not attempt to intervene and not that they did not make such attempts. It is the simple fact that they were in a scenario with a very small chance of success: Surprised, unable to return fire and very likely having to cross terrain that offered obstacles to movment but little or no cover to utilize.

End of opinion on the situation.

As an aside, I do remember my instructors telling me about being in the post Vietnam military in which officers and NCOs regularly went armed on base because of the threats to their lives. There are precedents for soldiers carrying sidearms on base. I can envision a system in which carrying a sidearm on base is something like security clearance: It is individually reviewed and can be revoked by the chain of command if they feel the soldier is a risk.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]tomcatshanger
2009-11-08 03:49 pm UTC (link)
And I didn't shit golden eggs today either.

Doesn't mean I could not. Just means I didn't.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]benweger
2009-11-07 09:30 pm UTC (link)
My wife's first comment was "I wonder how many would have died if they had been armed."

I would be willing to bet that far fewer men and women would have died that day had they been able to defend themselves.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]darthzeth
2009-11-09 03:53 pm UTC (link)
The fact that an entire army base is full of unarmed soldiers kinda boggles the mind in the first place.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]epetuk_resist
2009-11-08 12:32 pm UTC (link)
Хороший постер! :)

(Reply to this)


[info]po6om
2009-11-08 07:01 pm UTC (link)
What massacre do you mean?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]olegvolk
2009-11-08 07:10 pm UTC (link)
http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2009/11/06/police-sgt-kimberly-munley-hailed-as-hero-after-fort-hood-shooting/

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]staghounds
2009-11-08 09:59 pm UTC (link)
My gripe is with "couldn't".

"Hundreds of unarmed soldiers" weren't in a position to try, so to say they "could not" is wrong.

The implication of the line is that hundreds of people, no matter who they are, are at the mercy of one armed one, which I submit is neither an accurate nor desirable message to promote.

(Reply to this)


[info]bobn1955
2009-11-09 02:09 am UTC (link)
Particularly galling was the media's silly insistence on endlessly seeking "friendly fire".

Because it would so much safer for soldiers to never have guns at all, ever.

Munley was there in 3 minutes! She was as aggressive and accurate as anybody could hope for. 13 people *still* died.

"When seconds count, cops are only minutes away".

(Reply to this)

UNarmed or DISarmed
[info]rocketsong.blogspot.com
2009-11-09 06:50 am UTC (link)
My first thought was, no not unarmed, disarmed. The distinction being one who would carry if not prevented has been disarmed rather than simply unarmed, which has different connotations.

Great article here though:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d7-First-responders-at-Fort-Hood-Fox-News-gets-it-wrong

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: UNarmed or DISarmed
[info]olegvolk
2009-11-09 06:52 am UTC (link)
excellent point.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(29 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…