School Shooting

[DinoDoc]

At least moat of those have perfectly legit purposes. But please go on about the danger of pencils you ****wit

Well now we seem to be moving goal posts away from your original claim. Define legitimate purpose then.

[regexcellent]

Other people having weapons didn't deter him from attempting to kill people. As reg said, I think MPs normally carry weapons (I'm pretty sure it's the same over here FWIW).

There aren't MPs standing around pulling security all the time; they're basically the police for the base and they spend a lot of time ticketing speeders and stuff on post. I think it was actually the local PD that responded. Also, unlike normal cops, MPs don't carry off duty.

Military bases, ironically, are essentially gun free zones.

[Krill]

I know this is a tangent, but...that's pretty surreal. Are the soldiers kept unarmed because they belong to the government and there is a fear that having them armed will make it easier for the government to take control of the country?

[regexcellent]

Honestly, I have no idea. There's no law about it I believe. The military has a lot of byzantine regulations. To be quite honest, if there's any group of people who we would normally assume to be competent and trustworthy with firearms it's the people we actually hire to carry them around and shoot them.

In any case, unless the soldiers are using the weapons (and most of the time they aren't) they don't get to hold onto them. They're stored in the armory. I believe privately owned guns of soldiers who live in the barracks (on base dorms basically) have to be kept in the armory too.

[MrFun]

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

[ColdWizard]

Target shooting is a useless hobby, you can't use it to justify owning a gun.

Um... no. No I don't. Isn't that their sole purpose?

So the biathlon and the summer olympic shooting events are what? Internationally sponsored killing practice?

[SlowwHand]

There aren't MPs standing around pulling security all the time; they're basically the police for the base and they spend a lot of time ticketing speeders and stuff on post. I think it was actually the local PD that responded. Also, unlike normal cops, MPs don't carry off duty.

Military bases, ironically, are essentially gun free zones.

I can't speak for all branches, but this isn't true in regard to the Air Force. Law Enforcement are like standard cops and security police man the front gate, flight line and all.

[Guynemer]

So the biathlon and the summer olympic shooting events are what? Internationally sponsored killing practice?

Yes. Of course they are.

Look, I'm not passing judgment here. I'm not saying HURRDURR GUNS ARE EVIL. I'm saying they are designed for one purpose, and one purpose only. Other uses are just ways to practice/improve one's skill. They have a use, a hopefully-legitimately-rare use.

[DaShi]

Why not? How is PPP adjusted GDP inherently more meaningful?

HC will need to either refer to KH, Kuci, or that poster whose handle I forgot to get you this answer. He just remembers reading somewhere here that it was bad and feels he can now ridicule you for it, despite showing no further understanding of economics beyond parroting the aforementioned posters. Also, reg will likely get indignant about this post.

[Kidlicious]

[Elok]

If it were not for the absolute army of camo-jacketed good-ole-boys who swarm the woods around here every fall, the Eastern Shore would be a very dangerous place to drive. Also crop yields would plummet and we'd be infested with disease. You could have the government hire sharpshooters to cull the deer, I suppose, but it seems silly to spend money on it when there are just scads of people willing to pay for the privilege. Other parts of the country have similar problems with deer, or (far worse) feral pigs, or other ridiculously-fecund pests. That's one legitimate use for firearms right there.

Our problem, as I see it, is that we take an absolutist stand on the matter. I'm inclined to favor gun ownership as a privilege, closely regulated at a local level based on local needs. Not that it matters, as nobody asked me, but still...

[regexcellent]

I can't speak for all branches, but this isn't true in regard to the Air Force. Law Enforcement are like standard cops and security police man the front gate, flight line and all.

Yeah I mean MPs are legit police officers but as far as I know the Army doesn't have people like the Security Forces all over the place, it just has MPs and they're the only ones who are armed. And they mostly hang around doing routine law enforcement like traffic and such.

Someone who's actually been on active or reserve duty in the army ought to correct my mistakes but this is what we were told in my Military Science (required for ROTC) class when different branches of the army were covered.

[MichaeltheGreat]

You're right about how creepy, weird, and unlikeable he is. AKs are ugly, heavy, and Russian. Real Americans stockpile ARs.

And old school 7.62 Kalashnikovs are far. far more reliable under sustained primitive conditions in the field. They definitely have their uses.

[MichaeltheGreat]

...soldiers are excluded from many Constitutional protections.

This is more of a myth than reality. Constitututional protections apply, but may be modified consistent with the specific requirements of the military environment.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I know this is a tangent, but...that's pretty surreal. Are the soldiers kept unarmed because they belong to the government and there is a fear that having them armed will make it easier for the government to take control of the country?

No, it's for work and training efficiency, weapon maintenance, inventory control, quality control, etc. On base, there's no need, and securing weapons every time you take a crap or slide under a HMMWV for maintenance ends up wasting a lot of time. Then having the weapon out in the environment necessitates cleaning, there's no point having the weapon if you have no ammo, so then there's accounting for ammo and more dead weight to drag around all day. Depending on your MOS, a majority of troops don't need weapons, except for personal defense and emergency base defense, etc. when deployed to combat zones. Deployed in a combat zone, you eat, sleep and **** with your weapon, but there's no need and its counterproductive when not deployed.