Skip to main content

View Diary: More Guns Didn't Stop This (108 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You are completely, totally, stupedously.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OMwordTHRUdaFOG, Tom Seaview


    Adults are talking here. Go educate yourself.

    Your hate-mail will be graded.

    by PavePusher on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 10:36:57 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Go spin your propaganda, lies, and namecalling (0+ / 0-)

      on an RKBA diary, or even an NRA forum, please.

      You are completely, totally, stupendously WRONG.

      And if you're talking, you must have a pretty loose definition of "adults". And obviously any effort on your part to "educate yourself" would result in failure.

      Please troll elsewhere.

      "Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from the rich. If he'd stolen from the poor he'd have a cabinet position." -OPOL

      by blue in NC on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 08:18:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A quick fisking: (6+ / 0-)
        "...their stupidity about how personnel on these bases are inadequately armed."
            We are inadequetely armed.  And yes, that's very stupid.  As the empirical evidence demonstrates.
        But these bases are not "soft targets", bereft of defensive firepower. They are guarded, and many of the personnel there are armed and trained.
            There may be 3-5 personnel at the main gate of most bases, 2-3 on secondary gates.... if they are gated/fenced at all (some still aren't).  They normally have sidearms only, M9 pistols and M16 or M4 rifles, and frequently not all of them are armed.  A few roving patrols around base and the flight line for air fields.  One or two secured facilities with armed guards (base command posts, the main armory, ammo facs).  And that's it.  Maybe 30-50 armed personnel at any given time on the entire base (depending on size and time of day), some in immobile positions, most spread widely over many square miles.
             As for "trained", unless one is infantry or a few other direct combat positions (armor, mobile artillery, aircrew), you might qualify once a year, 100 rounds average, on a static range at distances of only a few yards.  Frequently people qualify only every few years, right before deployments.  (Thanks, Congress and stupid wasteful spending.  Yeah, I'm looking at you, F-35 program...)  I've recently processed several people for deployments and PCS's that haven't fired in over 5 years....
             As I stated elsewhere, 95% of my firearms training has been paid for out of my own pocket, and it was all much higher quality than my military-provided training.
        You wouldn't know it from the gun-nut spin already out there, though. "MORE GUNZ!", they shriek...their insane and sociopathic answer to everything.
            "More guns" is actually a good answer to a specific, limited number of circumstance, namely defense against violence.  It's really quite effective.  The FBI/DoJ stats that prove this were even cited in the recent Presidentially-directed report on gun violence this summer.
             The only person "shrieking" here is you, displaying your ignorance to the world.  Carry on with that, let us know how it works out.

        My credentials: 23 years and counting in the USAF, stationed at 6 different bases on 3 continents, deployed to 2 more, encompassing approx. 25 countries.  Half my career in AFSOC.  Only an aircraft mechanic, but we still got to go to some... interesting places.  Worked with the Army, Navy and Marines.  Been to combat zones for 4 deployments, direct support of them in 3 more.  Repaired acft battle damage and was in the vicinity when some of it occured.  Lost one friend in combat ops, several more to simple accidents or illness, 1 to a shotgun suicide.

        I offer you an invitation to the world.

        Your hate-mail will be graded.

        by PavePusher on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 10:52:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site