Here we go again

[nate]

 

 

[arch stanton]

That's where Air Force One lives.

[Jason]

Military bases and facilities having active shooters makes zero sense. This is how conspiracy theories gain traction 

[Amazing Larry]

Looks like Nate "jumped the gun" on this story.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Joint-Base-Andrews-Under-Lockdown-385027091.html

[Brandon]

 

[nate]

20 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

Looks like Nate "jumped the gun" on this story.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Joint-Base-Andrews-Under-Lockdown-385027091.html

uh... no, just reporting that a military base on lockdown which it was.  Thankfully it was a false alarm.

[nate]

46 minutes ago, Angels N Skins said:

Military bases and facilities having active shooters makes zero sense. This is how conspiracy theories gain traction 

Tell that to the 19 people that got shot at Fort Hood in 2014.

[Jason]

41 minutes ago, nate said:

Tell that to the 19 people that got shot at Fort Hood in 2014.

That's kind of my point. How the hell can somebody shoot 19 people on a military base? Do they not have weapons on bases?

[nate]

They do, it is why the whole we need more guns so we can defend ourselves against bad guys with guns is such a stupid argument.

[Jason]

5 minutes ago, nate said:

They do, it is why the whole we need more guns so we can defend ourselves against bad guys with guns is such a stupid argument.

https://www.texastribune.org/2014/04/16/fort-hood-shooting-sparks-debate-soldiers-conceale/

Doesn't sound like there are many armed military personnel on these bases but I assume every base is different based on their security levels.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/17/this-is-why-most-military-personnel-are-disarmed-on-military-bases-and-its-not-clintons-fault/

[Amazing Larry]

Knock it off Angels N Skins. You're ruining the narrative!

[nate]

Not at all, there are armed guards there.  Most places in this world don't even have that.  The fact is that just because people have guns have no impact on people shooting other people.  The nature of a gun is that the person that shoots first has the advantage.

[Amazing Larry]

2 minutes ago, nate said:

Not at all, there are armed guards there.  Most places in this world don't even have that.  The fact is that just because people have guns have no impact on people shooting other people.  The nature of a gun is that the person that shoots first has the advantage.

I don't understand your point. He shot a bunch of unarmed people and was eventually taken down by someone who was armed.

[nate]

Yes, exactly.

[Thomas]

This happened at my work at the end of last year.

http://www.koat.com/news/kirtland-air-force-base-on-precautionary-lock-down/36762106

Quote

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. —It was a scary scene at Kirtland Air Force Base Wednesday afternoon. Men in tactical gear and Humvees could be seen after phone calls were made to base security officials regarding an active shooter.

...

Around 3:15 p.m. the base lifted the lockdown, saying security personnel found no threat to the base.

On Thursday, the base said the scare was sparked by someone popping heavy duty bubblewrap. Someone said they heard three loud pops.

Officials with the base say the person who reported the loud bangs did the right thing.

Yeah, I never see anyone on the base proper with armed. I've heard that that the SF worries about cars on our base because everyone assumes that they are super safe when they are really in this area of no one remotely watching them.

[Thomas]

So Nate's argument is that government officials and/or personal are unlikely to be able to protect you in the event of a crime. Duly noted.

[nate]

6 hours ago, Thomas said:

So Nate's argument is that government officials and/or personal are unlikely to be able to protect you in the event of a crime. Duly noted.

The hole in this argument begins when you want to explain how children will be kept safe.

Plus you can explain a situation to me where everyone in an area is armed and tell me it is reasonable and I will know for sure you are batshit crazy.

The focus should be on stopping people from getting guns, not making it easier for everyone (including the bad guys that shoot first).

[Thomas]

20 minutes ago, nate said:

The hole in this argument begins when you want to explain how children will be kept safe.

Plus you can explain a situation to me where everyone in an area is armed and tell me it is reasonable and I will know for sure you are batshit crazy.

The focus should be on stopping people from getting guns, not making it easier for everyone (including the bad guys that shoot first).

Funny we were taking about your argument. Please point out my argument.  But tis the season to deflect.

[nate]

My argument is that even with armed guards the bad guys kill people.  There were armed guards at that night club too.  That is my point.  Arming people does nothing but allow the bad people easy access to guns.

In fact it is even worse when everyone is armed.  If a soldier decided to lose it and shoot at his battalion, he would easily shoot a dozen of them before one killed him unless they were already at the ready to immediately defend themselves from a friendly.

[Thomas]

In a theoretical scenario where the availability of firearms remains constant but the likelihood of an armed response goes down, do you believe the frequency of violent actions with a firearm would remain the same, increase or decrease?

[UndertheHalo]

from what I understand, even on military bases personnel aren't necessarily allowed to just walk around armed.  That may seem strange, but its the way it is.  Just cause you're a marine, it doesn't mean you get to carry a gun around all the time.

Edited July 1, 2016 by UndertheHalo

[ten ocho recon scout]

11 hours ago, Angels N Skins said:

That's kind of my point. How the hell can somebody shoot 19 people on a military base? Do they not have weapons on bases?

The MPs do. Nobody else does. You chexk it out from the armory when you train with it. The ammo is handed out at the range. You get searched for ammo after shooting. And you turn the weapon back in 

This is also the answer to people wondering why we didnt shoot down the planes on 9/11. Here at home, especially during peace time, armed planes arent (werent) sitting on runways ready to scramble.

Same reason swat teams arent on scene when a call goes out. Outside of big agencies like lapd/lasd, nobody has full time swat teams.

[ten ocho recon scout]

8 hours ago, nate said:

Not at all, there are armed guards there.  Most places in this world don't even have that.  The fact is that just because people have guns have no impact on people shooting other people.  The nature of a gun is that the person that shoots first has the advantage.

Keep in mind the armed guards are pretty much just at the gates.

And driving around handing out tickets if you go a mile over the 20 mph speed limit

(Traffic cops suck whether federal or local)

[ten ocho recon scout]

Anyone remember when that guy stole a tank and went crazy in san diego? Thats why they dont keep anything loaded.

Dick Marcinko is a SEAL legend. Founded devgru. Also founded red cell. Red cell showed how laxed security is at our bases...which is scary.

He went to jail for going a little too far with red cell. If you can google some old footage it will probably blow you away with how simple their techniques were. For you locals, it was infiltrating and kidnapping someone at seal beach that he got in trouble for.

[nate]

1 hour ago, Thomas said:

In a theoretical scenario where the availability of firearms remains constant but the likelihood of an armed response goes down, do you believe the frequency of violent actions with a firearm would remain the same, increase or decrease?

Since they are correlated you can't have one without the other.

Also, since most of these people end up killing themselves anyway, the likelihood that they get shot doesn't mean shit to them.  And your failure to control the flow of guns has resulted in more innocent lives and one worthless one.