Home Main Category Personal Defense

Concealed Carry on Military Bases

2»

Replies

  • centermass556centermass556 Senior Member Posts: 3,534 Senior Member
    I don't know where the real number would be for the vets from Vietnam and current vets today that may have some type of mental or emotional scaring. I have done a lot of reading over the past two years about it. The one thing I have found is there a high concentration of Vietnam vets in low populated areas. one of the areas is Alaska. Now, they might not be dangerous and all jokes aside, if something makes you want to pack up all your crap and move into BFE...it mght have a little scaring.

    there are a number of vets living in the woods, homeless, and drifting becasue of the same thing. It is not that they don't want a job or couldn't get one, but having a life like that makes it easier.

    What I keep going back to is why am I allowed to carry enough ammo to lay waste to a villiage or blue force element when I am in some crap hole, but I can't have access to it in the rear? Stolen and misplaced weapons aside, why? You can mitigate Stolen weapons with Arms checks or turn ins and given periods. First without there asigned weapon gets made the example of...harshly. I am given round at a range, what keeps me from facing the tower and spraying then? Safeties aren't armed...
    "To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    jbp-ohio wrote: »
    I don't know Ned. I would bet against one out of six people everywhere having a mental problem....

    Doesn't mean they are dangerous or can't function normally in society

    Medical societies tend to skew statistics in favor of showing that we need more money spent in whichever that medical society represents. So we've got nutritionists blathering about 89% being obese, autism groups finding autism in 1/3 of kids (understand please I am NOT criticizing legitimate illnesses, but the seeming exaggeration of it).

    So now we've got 1 in 6 vets having emotional problems, and jbp, I think you're right, that if we let psychologists test the average joe, 1 in 6 might have "some sort" of emotional problem, but in truth very few of those would be needing any sort of treatment at all.

    Regardless, arming everyone at a base would not really be a reasonable idea, I think. Mebbe I'm wrong, often am.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,490 Senior Member
    Regarding the numbers of PTSD and whatnot... one other thing to consider is that you're beginning to see "spectrums" in certain medical problems whereby several conditions will fall in under an overarching umbrella. Autism in one example, so are some forms of mental disorder. When you start taking that approach, your numbers of people with X goes up greatly. Additionally, the medical community has gotten better at diagnosing these problems. I think that both aspects alone would lead to an increased number of documented instances of a problem.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,632 Senior Member
    I think a large number of guys carrying a weapon without any clear indication of who started a shooting is a recipe for mass casualties. If everyone opened up on the right guy, it would be fine, but I don't see how anyone could tell the bad guy, especially when everyone is dressed alike. The natural tendency is to shoot at who's shooting, but if several people are shooting without knowing who the culprit is, seems pretty disasterous to me.

    Not that it will ever happen. The Post Commander will never allow CCW. Ain't gonna happen, and while I'm all in favor of CCW, in any area where there are lots of people shooting and no one to direct the fire, the probability of taking casualties from friendly fire are overwhelming.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    I think a large number of guys carrying a weapon without any clear indication of who started a shooting is a recipe for mass casualties. If everyone opened up on the right guy, it would be fine, but I don't see how anyone could tell the bad guy, especially when everyone is dressed alike. The natural tendency is to shoot at who's shooting, but if several people are shooting without knowing who the culprit is, seems pretty disasterous to me.

    Not that it will ever happen. The Post Commander will never allow CCW. Ain't gonna happen, and while I'm all in favor of CCW, in any area where there are lots of people shooting and no one to direct the fire, the probability of taking casualties from friendly fire are overwhelming.

    You're like the media -always quick to reduce every question to an either-or choice. In this case, it's nobody carries or a large number of guys. That's why I suggested ordering only Officers and NCOs carry sidearms. In the latest Ft. Hood situation, both an unarmed and defenseless Major and a Sergeant were commended for their heroic actions trying to save their comrades from Lopez. If they had been armed with an issue sidearm, they might ended the crime right then, and saved a lot more.

    I have a lot more confidence in armed citizens and armed soldiers than you do. Your argument, focused entirely on unfounded supposition, is pure liberalism, and could be extrapolated to deny CCW to civilians as well. I believe that 1, 2 or even 20 armed soldiers in the midst of a situation like Major Hassan or Sergeant Lopez would have no trouble whatsoever in identifying the correct target and stopping the violence. I carry a concealed weapon. if a circumstance ever warrants my use of it, God forbid, the very last thing I will be worrying about is other law-abiding armed citizens mistaking me for the culprit. I am confident the bad guy will make himself instantly recognizable. But then, I'm an optimist, not a liberal.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,632 Senior Member
    Give me a break. You sound foolish and uninformed. You don't back up your opinions except with suppositions of our own. Do your ideas come from experience with armed people, say the military, or are you as I suspect, another mall ninja? I have ultimate confidence in soldiers, but only about 10% are trained beyond basic training to handle weapons. The shooter was a truck driver.

    I am not worried about armed citizens mistaking you as a culprit, I'm totally worried about you mistaking someone else as a culprit.

    You're not an optimist, you're a dumbass.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • centermass556centermass556 Senior Member Posts: 3,534 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Give me a break. You sound foolish and uninformed. You don't back up your opinions except with suppositions of our own. Do your ideas come from experience with armed people, say the military, or are you as I suspect, another mall ninja? I have ultimate confidence in soldiers, but only about 10% are trained beyond basic training to handle weapons. The shooter was a truck driver.

    I am not worried about armed citizens mistaking you as a culprit, I'm totally worried about you mistaking someone else as a culprit.

    You're not an optimist, you're a dumbass.

    You couldn't be more wrong with that percentage. Even as a support guy in a division, I went to the range at the very least every other month. When the berm was crossed in 03, Cooks from HHC were used to augment heavy weapon platoons and they had the training.

    The statistic is more like only 10% DON'T receive extra marksmenship training after basic.
    "To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,128 Senior Member
    NN wrote: »
    I've seen in writing that everyone that fought in Vietnam was mentally ill to the point of being dangerous, I don't buy that either, and I know you
    don't because you came to a S EAST shoot with such people and there were guns there, too. :drool2:

    Exactly. There are so many 'mental illnesses' being 'found' by some Phycologist who wants a paper published that nearly everyone probably has one.

    On a spring day like this, I would have been looking out the classroom window wishing I was fishing....... now-a-days they would call that ADD and give me drugs
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,635 Senior Member
    A lot of vets do not care about guns and relish having PTSD.

    PTSD can get you $2700 or more a month tax free, and if combat related and your retired Military, multiply that by 2.
    Shut up-----KAREN; OK Cynthia
  • centermass556centermass556 Senior Member Posts: 3,534 Senior Member
    NN wrote: »
    A lot of vets do not care about guns and relish having PTSD.

    PTSD can get you $2700 or more a month tax free, and if combat related and your retired Military, multiply that by 2.

    No crap ? I'm headed to Mental Health...
    "To have really lived, you must have almost died. To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,635 Senior Member
    That Marine shot at Camp Lejeune was shot by a ND and they had the incident on a security camera.
    Shut up-----KAREN; OK Cynthia
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,954 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    I think a large number of guys carrying a weapon without any clear indication of who started a shooting is a recipe for mass casualties. If everyone opened up on the right guy, it would be fine, but I don't see how anyone could tell the bad guy, especially when everyone is dressed alike. The natural tendency is to shoot at who's shooting, but if several people are shooting without knowing who the culprit is, seems pretty disasterous to me.

    Not that it will ever happen. The Post Commander will never allow CCW. Ain't gonna happen, and while I'm all in favor of CCW, in any area where there are lots of people shooting and no one to direct the fire, the probability of taking casualties from friendly fire are overwhelming.

    . You're describing any mall in Florida or Texas. Hasn't happened yet, and I bet won't ever happen. Anybody who isn't sure WHO to shoot just won't shoot.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 7,288 Senior Member
    Because when the shooting starts, the perp is easy to ID in a mall. Take the people out of civvies and make 400 wear the exact same green and one of the ones in green starts shooting, others in green start shooting back, which one is the green one that started the shooting? So you stop shooting, and one in green shoots another in green, is he the shooter or is he the first CCW to recognize the shooter as the bad guy? Since you dont know, to you shoot the guy with the gun you see, or just wait?
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement