Government Gun Free Zones

[jcwit]

Being as this killing happened at a recruitment center and 4 Marines were killed every one is saying why isn't the Military armed, I feel the same but what most are also missing this was a strip mall and anyone with a carry permit 2 doors down would of course be legally armed, Military or otherwise. No one brings up this point.

[DCP]

So do think it is a good Idea for the civilian to protect the Military?
Carry permit holders are not cops.

Did the shooter have a full Auto or Semi Auto?

I think the Military should be able to protect themselves.

[starmac]

Even if everyone was armed, most or a lot of the damage would have been done by the time folks realized what was happening, and surely before they knew where the shots were comeing from in a situation.

Always a lot of talk of what coulda or shoulda, but in real life these things are over before most would have time to react.
It is sad, but if a guy is intent on killing any and everybody, the element of suprize will always be in his favor.

[country gent]

One thing to remeber also is almost all goverment buildings federal state and local and such are excempt from conceal carry, Hence the recruiting centers, Military bases, along with post offices, court houses, and the madrid of goverment offices are also no carry zones. The military can be armed in these areas but normally civilians are banned from carrying weapons. I do believe they should be armed and able to protect themselves and in this setting possibly others. But as said above carry holders are not Police and neither are military personel, thier training is vastly diffrent than what police recieve normally. In the not so distant past military bases had armed gaurds at the entrances a MP force patroling and protection / security was a given. In the new politically correct society and its ways this happens very seldom any more. In these new "Safe" Gun Free zones that have been created for people to run to in emergencies who will be there to protect defend them??????? What is the pefered defense throwing rocks and sticks? Maybe some gun mandatory zones and see how many thugs chase thier prey into them????

[sixshot]

The bad guys love Gun Free Zones & Sanctuary Cities, they aren't stupid, just evil. If you choose to be a victim then put up a sign approving such BS!

Dick

[oneokie]

Remember the Marine barracks bombing in Beriut?

[jcwit]

Guess I didn't bring out my thoughts to well.

What I was trying to get across is even the Military can not be armed within their own office, but 2 doors down at the hamburger joint or whatever is there a civilian can be armed.

I'm not implying in the least that the civilians should be protecting anyone other than them selves.

Don't put words in my mouth or try to change my meaning, read the post for what it says and nothing more.

[jcwit]

So do think it is a good Idea for the civilian to protect the Military?
Carry permit holders are not cops.

Did the shooter have a full Auto or Semi Auto?

I think the Military should be able to protect themselves.

#1, where did I imply that???????????????

#2. I have no idea, do you?

#3. REALY, well how bout that, how did you arrive at that conclusion??????????

[gray wolf]

What people had two doors down in this case is meaningless, why ?
Because the incident happened within seconds,
+ from my point of view CCW people do not no squat about active shooter participation and
for the most part have not taken training for it or even done a single drill to practice for it.
Most CCW classes are an extreme minimum of training, sorry but 3 or 5 hours of training for a new gun owner is nothing
and does not prepare a person for the realities of what can happen, and how fast it can happen on the street.
People do not realize that what they think they can do, or what they have seen other people do many times differs from what they can do.
Men I could add pages to this.

Results would = a higher body count, and yes I know people can get lucky, but self defense or engaging an active shooter is not about luck.

My information tells me the shooter had a full auto AK, I counted at least 27 hits in the glass store front.
So like what ? people were posed to run in the street and engage an active shooter ?
No body armor, no training, and under gunned. I don't think so.

OK Sam, So how would you solve the problem ?

First off I would take notice of the stupid NO gun -- gun free zone singe in the winnow,
Then I would notice the bullet hole in it.

The next thing I would do is to recognize the fact that we live in a different world now,
for what ever reason, take your pick or make one up.
It's not your daddies world, and steps need to be taken to survive in it.

Screw PC, Screw peoples feelings, screw what they may think.

The glass should have been bullet proof,

The door needed to be a buzz you in only door,

The area occupied by the personnel should be off to one side, think (L) shape.
That area also hardened and the open area in the front monitored with a camera.

Sure there are many ways to do this, what I am saying is just a sample for thought.

But many thing prevent the correct approach, # 1 being the anti gun culture, add what you want to this.

Or how about this;
Wow, someone wants to join the military and say's to themselves:
holly cow is the military that dangerous that I need all this just to talk to someone or get a pamphlet ?

Um, Sir, we need to do this to keep you safe while you enjoy your stay at the recruiting station.
Sir in case you haven't noticed it's a different world we live in now, especially since we have let our Country go to pot.

But don't worry, once you enlist and get the proper training you will find life on the battle field much safer than your little short stay with us today.
Unless your shot during your training, after all your are not allowed to protect yourself on base.

But even at that you don't really have to worry.
Just follow this life saving tip.

If you here someone ----- YELL ALLAH AKBAR ----
Fall to the ground and cover your but.

Now let me tell you about the Collage benefits.

[jcwit]

Still not getting it are we??

At this office, No Weapons!! Heaven forbid!!

Two doors down, AOK, No Problem!

There is the foolishness!

[Omega]

I don't think he was in full auto, the sounds on the recording were not in full auto, in auto the cyclic rate is much faster. Maybe bump fire or just a fast trigger squeeze, but not auto. Either way, military needs to be armed when they are in locations that do not offer protection from armed guards at entrances such as a base. Signs only deter those lawfully carrying, of course the shooter was technically not on the premises when he fired into the recruiting station which some gun hating liberal will surely take it to mean the sign worked.

[jcwit]

[QUOTE=gray wolf;3315399]
My information tells me the shooter had a full auto AK, I counted at least 27 hits in the glass store front.
So like what ? people were posed to run in the street and engage an active shooter ?
No body armor, no training, and under gunned. I don't think so.
[QUOTE]

As far as I can tell it has not been released as to what kind or type of weapon was used.

[jcwit]

[QUOTE=Omega;3315413]I don't think he was in full auto, the sounds on the recording were not in full auto, in auto the cyclic rate is much faster. Maybe bump fire or just a fast trigger squeeze, but not auto. Either way, military needs to be armed when they are in locations that do not offer protection from armed guards at entrances such as a base. [QUOTE]

Right you are!

[gray wolf]

So I type for a 1/2 hour and that's all that you get out of it ?
the gun wasn't full Auto ?

Why do I bother ?

[Omega]

So I type for a 1/2 hour and that's all that you get out of it ?
the gun wasn't full Auto ?

Why do I bother ?
No, that was not all. But in 1 minute or less I can type the guys in the recruiting office should of been armed. If someone would of engaged him at the first location, maybe those few minutes or seconds could of resulted in saving the four at the second location.

[Char-Gar]

Nothing would change if the Marines inside had weapons. When a guy rolls up and unloads a 30 rn. mag from an AK through a window, everybody not hit is on the floor, not charging out to get him.

Nobody with any sense, is not going to run out of the hamburger joint two door town with a handgun and engage the guy.

The only real way to avoid this is to not put these places in shopping centers with plate glass windows where folks can stop a few feet away and unload their magazine.

[jcwit]

So I type for a 1/2 hour and that's all that you get out of it ?
the gun wasn't full Auto ?

Why do I bother ?

Dono!

Yes I read the whole post and got the whole post. I only replied to the part, no one, including both you and I, know.

[jcwit]

Nobody with any sense, is not going to run out of the hamburger joint two door town with a handgun and engage the guy.



Dang, I'm almost sorry I brought this up.

It has nothing to do with folks in a hamburger 2 doors down.

It has to do with Marines trained in the use of firearms not allowed to carry weapons, but anybody 2 doors down, heck 1 door down, the guy walking past all having the right to carry for protection but OH NOT THE TRAINED MARINES.

Think it's possible to understand now????????????????????????????

Or is the water still muddy????????????????????????

[BulletFactory]

Screams of warning are starting to echo through the halls of time

[Char-Gar]

Dang, I'm almost sorry I brought this up.

It has nothing to do with folks in a hamburger 2 doors down.

It has to do with Marines trained in the use of firearms not allowed to carry weapons, but anybody 2 doors down, heck 1 door down, the guy walking past all having the right to carry for protection but OH NOT THE TRAINED MARINES.

Think it's possible to understand now????????????????????????????

Or is the water still muddy????????????????????????

No, the water is not muddy nor is your post unclear. However, questions asked, often produce answers that are not always strictly in line with the question.

I don't believe the situation is anything new. Unless part of a guard or security detail, military people are not allowed to have weapons and ammo with them. It has been this way since the mind of man remembereth not. They have no "rights" as you put it. They can only do what the military allows them to do. There are plenty of negligent discharges on the range or by guards, to allow hundreds of thousands of military people to wander through their day wagging loaded weapons with them wherever they go.

Back in the day, cavalry sabers were made and issued blunt with a "U" shaped edge. Some officers thought the sabers should be sharp, but the Army decided the average trooper with a razor sharp sabers was a danger to himself, his fellow troopers and the horse. More damage would be inflicted on the innocent than on the enemy.

Posting an armed guard at these places might be a good idea, but just filling military building with armed soldiers might not be a swift idea.

[jcwit]

No, the water is not muddy nor is your post unclear. However, questions asked, often produce answers that are not always strictly in line with the question.

LOL Well that's sure true here!

[Rick Hodges]

Its a little off topic but: No one was killed at the recruiting office...where the 27 rds were counted in the front glass. It was the Reserve center some 7 miles down the road where the Jihadi was killed after driving through a chicane, a chain link fence and killing 4 Marines.
I believe the female sailor was shot in the back and a police officer in the ankle as he responded to the recruiting office.

Yes, they should allow arming of military personnel where ever they are under threat of attack.

Gray Wolf, the point is if they wait for the trained response team, and the shooter decides to enter and finish them, you would have them lay on the ground and pray...???? The fact is first response is some minutes away and that is likely to be a patrolman or two armed with sidearms and perhaps a shotgun. Their body armor would be next to useless against an AK so maybe they shouldn't bother coming either? A properly trained armed and equipped reaction team is likely HOURS away in almost any area in this country.

I suggest that to put them in glass front offices, unarmed, while known and proven threats to them exist is worse than foolish.

My military duty was stateside....during the VN era. When we got word of a potential arms room raid being planned by antiwar elements...we were issued weapons and ammo, given instructions and stood guard duty. They never tried to take an arms room on the post. Was it because the threat was all talk or was it because there were armed men to oppose them? I don't think we will ever know.

[Uncle Jimbo]

Even if everyone was armed, most or a lot of the damage would have been done by the time folks realized what was happening, and surely before they knew where the shots were comeing from in a situation.

Always a lot of talk of what coulda or shoulda, but in real life these things are over before most would have time to react.
It is sad, but if a guy is intent on killing any and everybody, the element of suprize will always be in his favor.

I agree with starmac on this post. Well said.

[JFrench]

jcwit I read your post and I got your meaning the first time. Thank you for a good post.
James

[jcwit]

Its a little off topic but: No one was killed at the recruiting office...where the 27 rds were counted in the front glass. It was the Reserve center some 7 miles down the road where the Jihadi was killed after driving through a chicane, a chain link fence and killing 4 Marines.
I believe the female sailor was shot in the back and a police officer in the ankle as he responded to the recruiting office.

Yes, they should allow arming of military personnel where ever they are under threat of attack.

Gray Wolf, the point is if they wait for the trained response team, and the shooter decides to enter and finish them, you would have them lay on the ground and pray...???? The fact is first response is some minutes away and that is likely to be a patrolman or two armed with sidearms and perhaps a shotgun. Their body armor would be next to useless against an AK so maybe they shouldn't bother coming either? A properly trained armed and equipped reaction team is likely HOURS away in almost any area in this country.

I suggest that to put them in glass front offices, unarmed, while known and proven threats to them exist is worse than foolish.

My military duty was stateside....during the VN era. When we got word of a potential arms room raid being planned by antiwar elements...we were issued weapons and ammo, given instructions and stood guard duty. They never tried to take an arms room on the post. Was it because the threat was all talk or was it because there were armed men to oppose them? I don't think we will ever know.

Rick, I think you and I pretty much see eye to eye.

I also think Military Personnel should be able to arm themselves with their personal weapons if so desired, same as civilian are allowed to do.

[DCP]

Being as this killing happened at a recruitment center and 4 Marines were killed every one is saying why isn't the Military armed, I feel the same but what most are also missing this was a strip mall and anyone with a carry permit 2 doors down would of course be legally armed, Military or otherwise. No one brings up this point.

Well this post may be needed to be award the (One of the most confusing post of the year)
But then everyone has a bad day even myself.

[jcwit]

I understand your confusion.

[lreed]

Me thinks the problem could have been solved in its infancy by letting the little bar-steed who did this deed live out his days in the land of his birth! Why are they here?

[Omega]

No, the water is not muddy nor is your post unclear. However, questions asked, often produce answers that are not always strictly in line with the question.

I don't believe the situation is anything new. Unless part of a guard or security detail, military people are not allowed to have weapons and ammo with them. It has been this way since the mind of man remembereth not. They have no "rights" as you put it. They can only do what the military allows them to do. There are plenty of negligent discharges on the range or by guards, to allow hundreds of thousands of military people to wander through their day wagging loaded weapons with them wherever they go.

Back in the day, cavalry sabers were made and issued blunt with a "U" shaped edge. Some officers thought the sabers should be sharp, but the Army decided the average trooper with a razor sharp sabers was a danger to himself, his fellow troopers and the horse. More damage would be inflicted on the innocent than on the enemy.

Posting an armed guard at these places might be a good idea, but just filling military building with armed soldiers might not be a swift idea.
At most of the FOBs overseas everyone is carrying a weapon, many locked and loaded, and though it happens it's rare to have a negligent discharge. When trained soldiers are given weapons it is much different than a civilian that gets a CC permit with little to no knowledge of how to operate a gun, and most here will support allowing anyone to exercise their 2A rights. So why not a trained soldier?

[NavyVet1959]

It never made sense to me that we should check our 2nd Amendment rights at the door to a *government* building.

[Plate plinker]

It never made sense to me that we should check our 2nd Amendment rights at the door to a *government* building.
Right and if we must check in with no weapons there should be armed personnel on duty. And not some old goat with a .38 wheel gun.

[gray wolf]

Gray Wolf, the point is if they wait for the trained response team, and the shooter decides to enter and finish them, you would have them lay on the ground and pray...????

excuse me but when did I imply such a thing ??
I agree 100% they need to be armed.

[sixshot]

If a soldier is on duty he's in uniform & if he's in uniform he is now a target, they've already told us that, do we need to hear it again! Being on duty without being armed is now out of the question because the rules just changed boys! Would anyone out there go into a war zone without being armed, well guess what, we're all in one, like it or not.

Dick

[blackthorn]

Quote "At most of the FOBs overseas everyone is carrying a weapon, many locked and loaded, and though it happens it's rare to have a negligent discharge. When trained soldiers are given weapons it is much different than a civilian that gets a CC permit with little to no knowledge of how to operate a gun, and most here will support allowing anyone to exercise their 2A rights. So why not a trained soldier?"

Coming from a country that has had so many years of idiot Liberal governments that if we want the protection of the law --- we have to break it first, I would suggest that the answer to your question just might be that your government is well aware that if they tick -off enough military personnel, unlike a few thousand civilians, the military is really capable of working in concert. If they did it might not bode well for the idiot politicians! Whether that would be good or bad, depends on where your philosophy resides.

Jcwit---I got your meaning on the first read.

[garym1a2]

Basic question starts wrong as no-one was hit or killed at the recruitment center. The gun man never left his car. Just a quick drive by. The rest was at a Military base where no Civies would have a gun.

That said, most people with a CCW are not capable in skills nor equipment to take on a shooter with a rifle if they only have a pistoel. [


QUOTE=jcwit;3315267]Being as this killing happened at a recruitment center and 4 Marines were killed every one is saying why isn't the Military armed, I feel the same but what most are also missing this was a strip mall and anyone with a carry permit 2 doors down would of course be legally armed, Military or otherwise. No one brings up this point.[/QUOTE]

[Fishman]

You guys are all wrong. The news this morning said it was an "m4 automatic rifle" and I'm sure the cbs newsman was accurate.

[9.3X62AL]

It is and always has been an uncertain world. It is unfortunate that politicians have chosen to restrict citizens or service personnel in the manners they can defend themselves, but restrict us they certainly have. The power people are truly all about control, make no mistake on that score. The 2nd Amendment exists as a check against governmental oppression, but has been hamstrung by parasites and viruses preying upon it for decades. Gun-free zones = pre-plowed killing fields, ripe for harvest at the discretion of psychopaths.

[Omega]

Basic question starts wrong as no-one was hit or killed at the recruitment center. The gun man never left his car. Just a quick drive by. The rest was at a Military base where no Civies would have a gun.

That said, most people with a CCW are not capable in skills nor equipment to take on a shooter with a rifle if they only have a pistoel.
Being as this killing happened at a recruitment center and 4 Marines were killed every one is saying why isn't the Military armed, I feel the same but what most are also missing this was a strip mall and anyone with a carry permit 2 doors down would of course be legally armed, Military or otherwise. No one brings up this point.Maybe nothing would of changed if the marines, or anyone else for that matter were armed at the time, but as for me I would rather be armed and at least have the option to engage or not. A couple things to consider, first if military guys were armed, they would not present as a soft target, and again, I say that if a perp is engaged, lives are saved. It's easy to do a drive by or mass shooting when nobody is shooting back.

[wills]

Right and if we must check in with no weapons there should be armed personnel on duty. And not some old goat with a .38 wheel gun.

Yes, God Forbid some old goat like Ed McGivern should be standing guard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u97RJQYuiBA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u97RJQYuiBA)

[wills]

You guys are all wrong. The news this morning said it was an "m4 automatic rifle" and I'm sure the cbs newsman was accurate.

The press, particularly cBS is always careful to insure the accuracy of its reporting. To that end, it makes extensive use of reference works.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/image001-2.jpg

[Duckiller]

Don't know about other States but in California our LEOs have CCW permits. I am sure that some people with CCW permits just bought their gun ,but several CCW holders have been shooting for some time. Just because you have a handgun doesn't mean you are going to successfully take on someone with a long gun.

[Char-Gar]

At most of the FOBs overseas everyone is carrying a weapon, many locked and loaded, and though it happens it's rare to have a negligent discharge. When trained soldiers are given weapons it is much different than a civilian that gets a CC permit with little to no knowledge of how to operate a gun, and most here will support allowing anyone to exercise their 2A rights. So why not a trained soldier?

actually I agree with you, but apparently the US military dies not and this is nothing new which was the point of my post. I have been to Israel three times and every IDF soldier you see, male or female, on duty, or off duty, has their rifle with a loaded mag at all times. They seem to make it work, so why can't we. I think it is a generations old fear of the average soldier by the leaders of the military. I guess that is because up to know they have been safe on American soil. The IDF knows the battlefield is where ever they are standing at any given moment.

[sparky45]

actually I agree with you, but apparently the US military dies not and this is nothing new which was the point of my post. I have been to Israel three times and every IDF soldier you see, male or female, on duty, or off duty, has their rifle with a loaded mag at all times. They seem to make it work, so why can't we. I think it is a generations old fear of the average soldier by the leaders of the military. I guess that is because up to know they have been safe on American soil. The IDF knows the battlefield is where ever they are standing at any given moment.

And that's just one more thing BeBe could teach POTUS.

[Omega]

actually I agree with you, but apparently the US military dies not and this is nothing new which was the point of my post. I have been to Israel three times and every IDF soldier you see, male or female, on duty, or off duty, has their rifle with a loaded mag at all times. They seem to make it work, so why can't we. I think it is a generations old fear of the average soldier by the leaders of the military. I guess that is because up to know they have been safe on American soil. The IDF knows the battlefield is where ever they are standing at any given moment.
I guess if we keep going down this road with these terrorists, we can look forward to a well armed society.

[NavyVet1959]

Obviously we just need another new law... Maybe something along the line of it being illegal to shoot military personnel?

With respect to arming all of the military personnel, you have to remember that not every member of the military gets training in firearms. Some get a small amount of time at the range in boot camp and some don't even get that. The people who are in the recruitment centers are not necessarily even combat vets or even from MOSs / ratings that are combat related.

There is also the hesitation of the American populace to have all of the military personnel armed since it gives the appearance of an of an occupying / oppressive force. Just look at the opposition to the Jade Helm operation...

[Omega]

Obviously we just need another new law... Maybe something along the line of it being illegal to shoot military personnel?

With respect to arming all of the military personnel, you have to remember that not every member of the military gets training in firearms. Some get a small amount of time at the range in boot camp and some don't even get that. The people who are in the recruitment centers are not necessarily even combat vets or even from MOSs / ratings that are combat related.

There is also the hesitation of the American populace to have all of the military personnel armed since it gives the appearance of an of an occupying / oppressive force. Just look at the opposition to the Jade Helm operation...
Yea, that's the ticket; deny them their second amendment rights because of the fear of those around them. Where have we heard that before? Oh yea, all the gun grabbers trying to disarm us all.

[NavyVet1959]

Yea, that's the ticket; deny them their second amendment rights because of the fear of those around them. Where have we heard that before? Oh yea, all the gun grabbers trying to disarm us all.

Oh, we were denied quite a few of our rights when we were in the military.

I'm not saying that I agree with the reasoning, but I'm just pointing out the concern that some people have. Personally, I think that they should have the same rights as everyone else with respect to carrying of firearms. If the military has access to $1000 fully automatic M4s, then WE should also be able to buy them for the same price and carry them. Actually, I read that with one of the latest bids for a M4 contract, the price was below $600.

If a state does not allow the citizens to open carry a rifle, shotgun, or handgun, then the military should also not be allowed to do it. Fair is fair.

[Omega]

Oh, we were denied quite a few of our rights when we were in the military.

I'm not saying that I agree with the reasoning, but I'm just pointing out the concern that some people have. Personally, I think that they should have the same rights as everyone else with respect to carrying of firearms. If the military has access to $1000 fully automatic M4s, then WE should also be able to buy them for the same price and carry them. Actually, I read that with one of the latest bids for a M4 contract, the price was below $600.

If a state does not allow the citizens to open carry a rifle, shotgun, or handgun, then the military should also not be allowed to do it. Fair is fair.
Well, call me a glass half full kind of guy, but I believe if the state allows its citizens to carry then the military should also be allowed. And while I disagree about the price due to bulk buys, we should be allowed any small arms we can afford.

[smokeywolf]

One of the reasons the majority of military personnel can't get the permission or the resources needed to protect themselves is because those with the authority to change military policy lack the motivation to do so because they themselves have round the clock protection.
Too bad that the lives of lower ranking military personnel are not seen as deserving of the same protections as those of higher ranking officers.

[Echo]

No, the water is not muddy nor is your post unclear. However, questions asked, often produce answers that are not always strictly in line with the question.

I don't believe the situation is anything new. Unless part of a guard or security detail, military people are not allowed to have weapons and ammo with them. It has been this way since the mind of man remembereth not. They have no "rights" as you put it. They can only do what the military allows them to do. There are plenty of negligent discharges on the range or by guards, to allow hundreds of thousands of military people to wander through their day wagging loaded weapons with them wherever they go.

Back in the day, cavalry sabers were made and issued blunt with a "U" shaped edge. Some officers thought the sabers should be sharp, but the Army decided the average trooper with a razor sharp sabers was a danger to himself, his fellow troopers and the horse. More damage would be inflicted on the innocent than on the enemy.

Posting an armed guard at these places might be a good idea, but just filling military building with armed soldiers might not be a swift idea.

Plus One, Mate. Accidental discharges would kill or injure more people than insurgent terrorists. Senior NCO's should have firearms available, but all personnel should not be armed.

[NavyVet1959]

Well, call me a glass half full kind of guy, but I believe if the state allows its citizens to carry then the military should also be allowed. And while I disagree about the price due to bulk buys, we should be allowed any small arms we can afford.

The thing is, a fully automatic M4 or M16 is not any more expensive than a semi-auto AR15 once you take away the supply restrictions that the NFA and FOPA create. I don't have any particular desire to have a fully auto rifle since that would just mean that I would spend even more hours reloading for each actual *minute* of shooting, but I find it offensive that an unconstitutional government "law" would artificially inflate prices as much as it has.

[762 shooter]

How is the argument that some people/personnel should be allowed to carry weapons and some should not any different than only LEOS and Military should be allowed and civilians not?

That is the slippery slope my friend. Once you agree that not all sane, law abiding citizens should have 2A rights you've fallen into the rabbit's hole. The rights should be for all, whether trained or idiots or trained to be idiots. I'll take my chances.

762

[Omega]

The thing is, a fully automatic M4 or M16 is not any more expensive than a semi-auto AR15 once you take away the supply restrictions that the NFA and FOPA create. I don't have any particular desire to have a fully auto rifle since that would just mean that I would spend even more hours reloading for each actual *minute* of shooting, but I find it offensive that an unconstitutional government "law" would artificially inflate prices as much as it has.
Oh, I agree about the NFA, but I doubt you can buy say an M9/Beretta 92 for the same price the military buys them for, heck most police departments get a better deal than the general public. No, the NFA adds $ restrictions but I highly doubt we would see any fast reduction in the price if the NFA would be gone tomorrow. What would silencers sell for tomorrow if that were to happen? How about RDIAS? At least with RDIAS I would understand that manufacturing would have to catch up, but silencers are all over the place, yet it would take awhile for that price to be reduced.

[Roosters]

This happened yesterday in Georgia
GAINESVILLE, Ga. —
A Navy recruiter is recovering after he accidentally shot himself in the leg at the Armed Forces Recruiting Center in Gainesville.
Gainesville police say the shooting happened around 11 a.m. at the location on Dawsonville Highway.
The man was taken to the Northeast Georgia Medical Center in Gainesville and listed in stable condition Friday afternoon.
Soldiers are not allowed to bring guns inside the center, but Channel 2 Action News confirmed the gun was the recruiter's personal weapon.The shooting came about 24 hours after a gunman targeted a recruitment center in Tennessee, killing four service members.
A link to the story---- http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/army-recruiter-accidentally-shoots-self-leg-gaines/nm2Tp/

[quilbilly]

I just think it is a bit ironic but not surprising that in many states the only people not allowed to carry concealed or otherwise are criminals and military personnel.

[DCP]

This happened yesterday in Georgia
GAINESVILLE, Ga. —
A Navy recruiter is recovering after he accidentally shot himself in the leg at the Armed Forces Recruiting Center in Gainesville.
Gainesville police say the shooting happened around 11 a.m. at the location on Dawsonville Highway.
The man was taken to the Northeast Georgia Medical Center in Gainesville and listed in stable condition Friday afternoon.
Soldiers are not allowed to bring guns inside the center, but Channel 2 Action News confirmed the gun was the recruiter's personal weapon.The shooting came about 24 hours after a gunman targeted a recruitment center in Tennessee, killing four service members.
A link to the story---- http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/army-recruiter-accidentally-shoots-self-leg-gaines/nm2Tp/

This is why you don't carry a weapon with 1 in the chamber. in a gun free zone

[Garyshome]

Another bang up job by .Gov of protecting it's citizens

[sixshot]

The same people that have gun accidents are the same people that have car accidents or boating accidents. I've been a range officer for many years & have to warn the same people all the time, they never learn, even after years of shooting competition. I also teach a ladies handgun class & one of the things I ask them is, would you make a long trip without your spare tire. I get several different answers, most tell me that they would not make a long trip although they seldom if ever need it. Then I ask them if they would make a long trip without a handgun, it really gets them thinking when I compare the two questions. If you choose to be a victim, its your choice. No soldier, when in uniform should be on duty with out being armed, my opinion anyway.

Dick

[9.3X62AL]

This is why you don't carry a weapon with 1 in the chamber. in a gun free zone

Huh? I have done so for 38 years safely. It is no huge burden to keep a finger off the trigger until you have target acquisition. To paraphrase a Sturm-Ruger ad from some years back--there has never been a foolproof firearm. So--FOOLS SHOULD LEAVE THE THINGS ALONE.

[country gent]

Be interesting to know the angle the shot went in at least was he playing with te gun and it went off? Did the gun fall from carry and fire? or was he shoing it to coworker friend and it went off. In a desk drawer and slamed bumped and fired? All are possibilities here. Not enough given info to know what actually happened. Most factories, places of buisness dont allow employes to carry on the job or on premisis. Some dont even want them in parking lots. Interestingly when I went for Social Security hearing on disability We went thru 3 diffrent metal detectors and were "wanded" at the court rooms lobby. Had to empty pockets also. Think about it this level of protection for a court room but all others are left hanging in the wind?

[NavyVet1959]

Oh, I agree about the NFA, but I doubt you can buy say an M9/Beretta 92 for the same price the military buys them for, heck most police departments get a better deal than the general public. No, the NFA adds $ restrictions but I highly doubt we would see any fast reduction in the price if the NFA would be gone tomorrow. What would silencers sell for tomorrow if that were to happen? How about RDIAS? At least with RDIAS I would understand that manufacturing would have to catch up, but silencers are all over the place, yet it would take awhile for that price to be reduced.

http://www.guns.com/2013/02/26/fn-lands-army-m4-contract-underbids-colt-remington/

$642 per M4A1...

The cost to make a full-auto / selective-fire M4A1 / M16 is basically the same as it would be to make a semi-auto AR15. A couple of the parts are slightly different, but it is unlikely they add more than a couple of bucks (if any) to the total cost.

[Col4570]

They use the same tactics that the IRA use.Cowardly shooting at random,but in Jehadist atrocities the fanatics do not care about their own demise.Extra ordinary Laws must be passed to stamp out this infestation.Zero Tolerance is the answer.

[NavyVet1959]

They use the same tactics that the IRA use.Cowardly shooting at random,but in Jehadist atrocities the fanatics do not care about their own demise.Extra ordinary Laws must be passed to stamp out this infestation.Zero Tolerance is the answer.

Short of having an open season on all Muslims (or deporting the entire batch), I don't really see a solution that would not be a case of giving up freedom for just the *promise* of a bit more security. :(

[perotter]

They use the same tactics that the IRA use.Cowardly shooting at random,but in Jehadist atrocities the fanatics do not care about their own demise.Extra ordinary Laws must be passed to stamp out this infestation.Zero Tolerance is the answer.

Members of the US military were specifically targeted, so it wasn't random shooting. Certain people have declared war on the US. For many years(if ever) war hasn't been about a 'fair fight'. It's now a 24/7, 365 days of the year and destroy the enemy whenever/wherever. Wishing it to be different doesn't change this fact.

As all the laws that England has had over the years to stop the Irish haven't worked, additional laws won't work in this case.

[DCP]

Huh? I have done so for 38 years safely. It is no huge burden to keep a finger off the trigger until you have target acquisition. To paraphrase a Sturm-Ruger ad from some years back--there has never been a foolproof firearm. So--FOOLS SHOULD LEAVE THE THINGS ALONE.

To imply those who have a AD are fools isn't fair.
Lots of officers, soldiers and civilians have had a AD. When you have a AD you did something wrong.
In most police ranges they have a clearing station to clear there firearms because they had so many AD before cleaning there weapon.

The Israelis don't carry with one in the camber.

This soldier was carrying in a gun free zone. If he didn't have a load weapon he would be in the Hospital and then more trouble, and been just as safe

[hutch18414]

As with all things training is the key. Have a week or two week course for all non combat ratings that wish to carry. I know one of the first things most people will say is the cost would be prohibitive. But make the participants pay for their own ammo, just give it to them at .gov prices. If they based the course on something like Front Site it would make for an incredibly well trained and more lethal military. Provide for a 6 month suspension of carry privileges for an AD. Nobody wants to be that guy!

[9.3X62AL]

DCP--

^%$# fairness--when ADs are PROPERLY investigated, the bottom line is ALWAYS operator headspace. Inattention, boredom, fooling around with the arm. ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED. IF NOT CASED OR HOLSTERED, POINT THEM ONLY AT THINGS YOU WISH TO DESTROY OR IN A SAFE DIRECTION. The annals of AD investigation are filled with lame excuses--"dog ate my homework" accounts of conduct--and outright falsehoods and misrepresentations.

[dtknowles]

The same people that have gun accidents are the same people that have car accidents or boating accidents. I've been a range officer for many years & have to warn the same people all the time, they never learn, even after years of shooting competition. I also teach a ladies handgun class & one of the things I ask them is, would you make a long trip without your spare tire. I get several different answers, most tell me that they would not make a long trip although they seldom if ever need it. Then I ask them if they would make a long trip without a handgun, it really gets them thinking when I compare the two questions. If you choose to be a victim, its your choice. No soldier, when in uniform should be on duty with out being armed, my opinion anyway.

Dick

I think blanket rules are stupid unless the rule is no rules, use common sense. I don't know if you would count them as soldiers but I see no reason to arm everyone on a Submarine. Being armed when doing aircraft maintenance would make some tasks more difficult. It would mean the services would need a lot more handguns and a lot more training with handguns and handguns are not very effective in combat. There are just too many jobs in the service that a rifle would be an impediment.

I think off base/off duty they should have the same rights as the rest of us. On duty their officer should decide who gets to do what.

Tim

[sparky45]

I believe all AD's are actually ND's by definition.

[dtknowles]

I believe all AD's are actually ND's by definition.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I agree that most AD's are ND but I might add not all. My brother was sighting in his Carcano and while closing the bolt on a round for the next shot the gun went off. I don't think he hit the trigger, it had never done that before. Inspection of the gun did not reveal any problems. The sear was not damaged or modified at least in any noticeable way. I guess my point is I think your blanket statement is flawed.

Tim

[sixshot]

Tim, you're right, arming everyone on a submarine probably isn't necessary. Except for Ft. Hood it hasn't been soldiers killing other soldiers, but the rules HAVE changed & if you are wearing a uniform you are now a target, thats a fact. Also, saying a handgun isn't very effective in combat is a joke, it wouldn't be my first choice but those 2 Arizona guys that drove to Texas recently with rifles got mowed down by a good cop with a handgun, re read that, a handgun, probably wouldn't have been his gun of choice either but at least he was armed & trained. We need to get out of this mind set that we are safe because we are in America, thats not the case anymore.
Everyone would benefit from some type of gun training, it builds confidence & teaches you how to function under pressure. Shooting in competition over the last decade has taught me a great deal about what to do but also a great deal about what not to deal while moving, loading, unloading, changing direction, engaging threats or non threats, keeping the handgun pointed in a sage direction at all times while being timed, how to clear a jam, etc. In all those years I've never been DQ'ed. It takes practice, focus & lots of concentration, plus thousands of rounds to reach a certain level but you can never let your guard down or as mentioned you can have an AD or point you gun at another competitor & it happens in a split second. Lots of things to think about but again, only you can decide if you choose to be a victim or not.

Dick

Dick