?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Thu, Nov. 5th, 2009, 06:49 pm
On mass murder at Ft.Hood

I am so glad that I no longer work at Ft.Campbell. In my opinion, the administrators who insist on disarming their own troops are enemies. Administrators who don't trust either their own troops or the civilian contractors are saboteurs and should be dealt with as such. Just as mad dogs who kill their own should be shot on the spot, so should be anyone insisting on disarming our own people. The blood is on their hands also.

Update: A friend who is in the military said that carry by troops was not practical for various reasons (immaturity, likelihood of friendly fire) and un-necessary in controlled environments. I disagree but will put that up as he's got much more experience in the matter than I do.

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 12:58 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): +1

There are more armed folks in my town than on Ft. Campbell.
The DOD are will say this is why they hate private ownership of firarms by soldiers. It's a completely twisted view.
Gerry

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 01:10 am (UTC)
warpedpuppy

there's no restriction on private ownership of firearms by soldiers - at least none that I knew of.

the restriction was that if any soldier residing in the barracks was required to keep his weapons in the battalion arms room. It was a hassle for most folks - that's for damn sure - and most of us kept our guns at a friend's place off post.

military barracks are NO PLACE for firearms.

the one thing that has to be kept in mind is that when someone enlists they are voluntarily waiving a lot of their civil rights.

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 01:14 am (UTC)
olegvolk

Carry was prohibited at Ft.Campbell. And yes, working there was a voluntary activity. But there's no reason to prohibit carrying defensive sidearms. It shows lack of trust and it shows complete disregard for the personal safety of the soldiers and the contractors.
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 01:13 am (UTC)
byron

I was listening to a former soldier talk about the base. He kept going on about how the only people armed on this base were the MP's. He then said, "Its just like church on Sunday morning."

Uh....not so much. I go to a rather large Baptist church in Texas. I'm fairly certain about 30% of the deacon body has a 1911 on them. I know for a fact that 90% of my Bible Study class is armed. Two of the three members of the sound booth are carrying mid to full sized Glocks with at least one spare full size mag.

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 01:41 am (UTC)
007zed

Well...it is Texas :P

Though as a Texan I'm glad that it seems CHL licensees are apparently on the rise here, without permissive open carry and all.


That said, a friend of mine in the military isn't against restricted firearms on base because he believes that the average deaths per year to mass shootings on base right now would be surpassed by an increase in the suicide and homicide rate if arms were allowed in barracks. In his words, "...military people get drunk and are depressed sometimes...We have enough deaths per year w/out the use of [guns] to surpass [suicides + homicides per year to mass shootings on base]".

Part of me thinks that it might be mitigated by using the similar but more strict guidelines for carry/ownership (regarding mental condition, use of meds, carrying while drunk, etc), but there's no way for me to know whether the additional rules and enforcement would be effective enough to not result in more overall on-base soldier deaths per year from suicide or homicide.

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 01:38 am (UTC)
libidoergosum

HERE HERE!!!

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 01:53 am (UTC)
wolfrick

The 1991 Killeen Luby's Cafeteria massacre galvanized the Concealed Handgun License movement in the US, and inspired me to be an armed citizen.
I hope that this incident can be a nail in the coffin of "gun free zones", and I want to work to see that happen.
I hope that you, Oleg, and all your followers will join me in working for an end to "gun free zones" wherever they crop up.
I came up with a slogan today... I'm not sure it's original to me, but I hope you'll help me spread it far and wide:

GUN FREE ZONES = CRIME SPREE ZONES

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 02:31 am (UTC)
oldcurlywolf

sadly the municipality up the street is going to learn the lesson the hard way. I saw them putting up signs declaring "Gun/Drug Free Zone" why don't you just put up a sign that says..please come take advantage of us..we like being hurt!" grrrrrrr idiots

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 02:49 am (UTC)
praecorloth

I'm not sold on it. Having been there, the people just joining up don't give me a whole lot of faith in humanity. A lot of blind patriotism (read: My country, right or wrong) and egos that rival the size of the base they're on. Maybe after they've been in for a while and have been allowed to mature. But let E-0s - E-4s walk around with guns right after basic and AIT and you'll see a lot more arguments solved with them.

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 03:58 am (UTC)
maineshark

Sounds like they need better selection criteria, eh?

I'm glad to live in a place where even children can carry, openly or concealed. We don't have mass shootings...
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 03:35 am (UTC)
templarwolf

This is the one thing I hate about where I work. As a university employee, I am unable to carry on campus. The Assistant Dean of Police and I have debated several times about whether or not staff should be allowed to carry. He's firmly against it,and I can see his point of it being confusing for officers on the scene to arrive to find several ununiformed people holding weapons. He's also not a fan of me telling him that should someone walk into my library and start firing, that I'll be doing my damnedest to distract/disable the shooter, even if I'm only armed with heavy stapler and my pocket knife (which they'd rather I don't have on campus either, for that matter...)

/born in Killeen

//not sure, but parent's may still have friends stationed at Ft. Hood

///never had problems with private firearms at Ft. Knox, and I know of at least one soldier who was allowed to carry concealed. Idiot accidently shot himself while arguing with his wife and banging the table too hard. Tore a nice line down his ribs and hip when the weapon discharged in his shoulder holster.

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 04:48 am (UTC)
tomcatshanger

I can't see the point of being confused for one of the bad guys.

Unless of coarse the cops just shoot everyone with a gun, which would most likley be illegal.

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 03:39 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Amen Brother

I have been at Ft. Campbell for 5 years....all the rapes assaults thefts and even murders few may they be all could have been prevented! how can they trust me with a rifle back in Afghanistan and Iraq but not back home! what did you do there?

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 05:34 am (UTC)
squidb0i: I was shocked to learn that so few of the soldiers were armed on base.

No wonder the body count was so high. =[

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 05:37 am (UTC)
olegvolk: Re: I was shocked to learn that so few of the soldiers were armed on base.

I asked Ft.Campbell commander for a variance on their no-carry policy. Was refused. That action put him in my the same category in my mind as any other enemy. I can at least understand that action in regard to a contractor. I cannot understand or condone it as applied to his own personnel. We have a professional, volunteer army and yet the soldiers are mistrusted by their own commanders. Pathetic!

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 02:20 pm (UTC)
dd_b

Yeah, that was one of the first things I thought of.

In particular, it struck me as a very clear example of how being young and healthy (and highly trained!) doesn't help that much when faced with an armed attacker.

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 02:56 pm (UTC)
wolfrick

This.
If even young, fit, highly trained and EXPERIENCED soldiers have little chance facing down a mad-dog killer while unarmed, what chance do the rest of us regular citizens have?
Guns are EQUALIZERS, not psychotic kill-robots.

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 02:54 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): I live nearby

They allow civilian usage of the Sportsman's Range, you have to check in your firearms with the Provost when you go on base. They also allow hunting on base at Ft. Hood. They should not allow hunting of soldiers by disarming them. That's sick.

--This travesty brought to you by the same military that had a acquaintance of mine's USMC Unit do a practice beach assault upon arriving off the VietNam coast without issuing anybody any ammo in a semi-secure area as a training exercise.

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 03:00 pm (UTC)
olegvolk: Re: I live nearby

"They allow civilian usage of the Sportsman's Range" -- no, they USED TO ALLOW civilian range use. When I worked there, I was told that such use is no longer available for the contractors.
Re: I live nearby - (Anonymous) - Expand
Re: I live nearby - (Anonymous) - Expand

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 07:39 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): The military simply doesn't trust soldiers, by and large

I understand the "no firearms in the barracks" policy. A building full of (mostly) drunken 18-20 years olds looking to be the biggest badass. (I used to be an 11B3X -- Infantry Drill Sergeant.)

What I do NOT understand is things like a few years ago in Alaska, where a general issued an order that military personnel, EVEN OFF DUTY, EVEN OFF BASE, were prohibited from carrying concealed, EVEN IF CARRYING IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. Even those soldiers who lived off post.

The military doesn't trust soldiers with guns. Not really.

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 07:39 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: The military simply doesn't trust soldiers, by and large

Sorry -- I forgot my name.

Rick R.

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 09:03 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous)

It may be hard for some to comprehend, but putting on ACUs doesn't make you a weapons proficient commando. If they let every cook, clerk, and nurse carry around loaded weapons 24/7 there would be many more "accidental" deaths than this per year. The average "soldier" doesn't shoot for a living and non-combat arms (the vast majority is support) troops are lucky to even see the range twice a year.

They would also have to lock the base down from un-verified (without prior clearance) civilian entry as weapons would be too easily accessed.

What kind of contracting did you do? 3D design? And you wanted to pack heat on a base?

Bwahahhahaha.

Fri, Nov. 6th, 2009 09:06 pm (UTC)
olegvolk

I've carried a gun everywhere else for about a dozen years now. Why not on base? It's not like I (or the cooks you mention) would ever draw it from the holster except in case of dire need. You think that carrying and using a gun is somehow super-complex? It isn't, just requires some common sense and a bit of training -- the latter the military provides. As for the former -- are you saying US troops have no common sense? If so, how do they get through the day?

Sat, Nov. 7th, 2009 12:12 am (UTC)
(Anonymous)



I wish it were simple to trust members of the military with a weapon but military training is not what most think it is. Sure, I suspect our infantry guys get a lot of good training and I suspect they, on average, are much better trained with weapons that our non infantry men and women.

Myself, I am an Avionics Marine. While I would put myself up against most infantry personnel, my confidence does not come from any training I have received from the USMC; it comes from training I have paid for or have been handed down from my dad.

Yes, all military members (Marines at least, I have no clue about other branches) are required to qualify with a weapon, that doesn't mean they are competent. In my few years I have seen many Marines who have qualified with the pistol yet have managed to shoot everything from the bench they are shooting behind to the concrete walkway they are standing on while firing.

If we were as competent as most people thing we (as a group) are, we would be in much better shape.

Sat, Nov. 7th, 2009 02:53 pm (UTC)
maineshark

Let's see...

Here in NH, anyone of any age (with parental consent, under 18) can carry firearms openly, with no training required.

Anyone, of any age (with parental consent, under 18), can carry firearms concealed and unloaded, with no training required.

Anyone, of any age (with parental consent, under 18), can carry firearms concealed and loaded, with a $10 license, which requires no fingerprints or photographs, and only a cursory check for criminal records, and no training required.

And we don't have folks being killed left and right due to all these un-trained, un-checked folks of varying ages walking around armed.

Are you saying that trained soldiers (even if they only get minimal formal training, that's still something) are somehow so incompetent that they will just negligently shoot each other left and right?
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand

Sat, Nov. 7th, 2009 12:31 am (UTC)
belyal

I have to agree, as a former grunt myself. I currently work on a DoD installation, and I can't carry there either... I hate it, but I understand the reason why. The PLAN is to create a secure zone. The problem in THIS case is that we assume that those we trust, our battle buddies, are NOT going to try to kill us. In this case, that wasn't so.