NOSC Shooting

[Recovering LSO]

I'm not raising a flag. I'm just saying that the claim that SOME VERY SMALL GROUP OF FRINGE Christains have moved on from killing in the name of their faith is incorrect.

With the edits, I agree. And, if we're willing to call those despicable acts for what they are, then why do we shy away from calling equally despicable acts exactly what they are - becaues they're committed by another group (fringe as it may be as well) that is motivated/inspired by another religion? That's at the heart of my original statement and subsequent questions. The antagonistic stone throwing at anything "religoius" is unfortunate, but par for the course for some around here.

 

[Flash]

With the edits, I agree. And, if we're willing to call those despicable acts for what they are, then why do we shy away from calling equally despicable acts exactly what they are - becaues they're committed by another group (fringe as it may be as well) that is motivated/inspired by another religion? That's at the heart of my original statement and subsequent questions. The antagonistic stone throwing at anything "religoius" is unfortunate, but par for the course for some around here.

Why do we have to call them religiously motivated? Why is it not enough just to call them what they are, terrorism? Seriously, what do we gain?

As has been already argued in this thread several times it would likely needlessly inflame others who don't support the terrorist acts committed in the name of their religion.

 

[wink]

Uh yeah, quote your source please...

Just to clarify. Are you really arguing that as many Americans support westboro and abortion bombings as Muslims support terror tactics? I'll take a shot at the obvious anyway.

http://pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf
The title is Muslims in America. But if you get into it there is data from several Muslim countries ( not Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen Saudi Arabia, or the failed states of Libya and Syria) and some European as well. If you combine answers in the always support and sometimes support questions the number runs between 20% and 40+% , depending on country, of course. Have to admit that I don't have polling data on support of westboro or abortion bombings. Probably because you may be the only person to think there is enough support for them in the mainstream to warrant a poll. But we can use common sense. The westboro church is not gaining any affiliates nationwide and their numbers are less than 100 members. They have been disavowed by the Baptist Church and where ever they go there are huge counter protests. Abortion bombings, again, not a single institution, religious or otherwise, in this country that is pro life has promoted such actions. Americans don't line the street outside courthouses in support of bombing suspects and they don't have $100K dollars donated to them for their defense. Compare this to mass celebrations in several Muslim cities after 9/11, Muslim clerics preaching violence against non believers and the execution and imprisonment of homosexuals, something even westboro does not suggest.

 

[wink]

You're joking, right? Perhaps you missed it, but there were lots of Catholic "leaders" whose first instinct was to cover the whole thing up, hence the widespread scandal. Remember that inconvenient little detail? They were more interested in protecting the institution than doing the right thing. Another in a long list of religious hypocrites.

I didn't forget at all. I consider the leaders that transferred priests and out right covered up the crimes as coconspirators or accessories. John Gottie not condemning the Mafia did not subtract one bit from the lack of support for his organization across American. At no time could you say that Catholics not involved in the crimes or other Christians supported the abuses by priests by any margin. You simply can't say that about Muslims. Sure, in the US and some other western countries support of radical Islamists is thankfully very low. But it is higher and runs deeper than any similar support from Christians for violent extremists. Some will say the KKK is a Christian organization, but support among "fellow" Christians is almost non existent.

As to religious hypocrisy, Christianity, as with all religions are of man. The faithful as well as the people in leadership will make mistakes as that is the nature of man. That there is hypocrisy in religion is a dog bites man story. Religious people recognize those weaknesses and through their faith in religion strive to always avoid failings that might lead to hypocrisy. Heck, there is hypocrisy in government and all of our institutions. It is probably religious influence that abates it at all. Only way to avoid hypocrisy is to not set and teach any standards knowing that as mere men, we will occasionally act hypocritically. I'd prefer to strive for and promote high standards and follow the rules and fall short.

Sorry, the "religious war" aspect of this thread was certainly not meant in this way. End threadjack.

 

[Brett327]

Sorry, the "religious war" aspect of this thread was certainly not meant in this way. End threadjack.

Concur. In retrospect, my overarching point is to note how religions of all kinds can be hijacked by individuals or groups to their own ends. Let us... as they say... "go on with the chlorophyll."

 

[Recovering LSO]

Sun's out, guns out!

 

[nittany03]

View attachment 14823

Sun's out, guns out!

First, that guy is an idiot and deserves whatever punishment he gets. Second, Daily Kos? A warning would have been nice so I could hold my breath before plunging into the cloud of smug that surrounds that place. I'm choking to death here . . .

 

[Recovering LSO]

Meh.... They had the best accompanying photo.

 

[picklesuit]

Why the crappy mechanix gloves?

No feel on the trigger, no feel when reloading...

Sigh...

 

[insanebikerboy]

Why the crappy mechanix gloves?

No feel on the trigger, no feel when reloading...

Sigh...

Do you even militia bro? It's because of the thousands of rounds being blasted away that cause the barrel to heat up to to 5000 C. Those 'chanix gloves will save his hands for sure.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Guest post over at IDKATS. Well written, but I think he makes a better case for his opponents... Instead of offering counterarguments and then effectively dismantling them, he kind of leaves the question in the air about whether or not the opposing conerns aren't, in the end, valid. His answer to the counter is rules and regulations.

"More generally, some individuals posit that arming uniformed military personnel in public could lead to them becoming de facto law enforcement agents. This may sound crazy to you, but suppose a service member is armed and in uniform, and sees a crime being committed. It is not unreasonable to think that in that case, said service member may draw his weapon. In that case, you have an armed, agent of the government who happens to be in the military, basically acting in a law enforcement role. Could this eventually lead to a potential violation of Posse Comitatus? What if the servicemember takes a more active role in crime prevention? It becomes easy to imagine greyer situations where line between citizen, soldier, and law enforcement officer becomes even more blurred. Once more, rules, regulations, and training can help mitigate these concerns."

I think it would be helpful here for the author to explain how more rules, regulations, and training would mitigate the bolded concern. Do you "train" PO1 Jones to not draw his weapon if he walks upon a violent crime in progress? I would think the Sailor has the moral obligation to intervene, but where does he then stand in the eyes of the law under the provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act? Where does he stand, quite literally, when the proper police force show up and have to quickly determine which guy with a gun is the bad guy?

Last observation:

"It would be an absolute abdication of leadership to prohibit military personnel from possessing the tools and authority to guard against a similar future attack."

I'm still not convinced that arming uniformed personell INCONUS, specifically recruiters, is going to serve as a deterrent. Folks who are determined to strike, kill, and seek "martyrdom" are unlikely to be swayed by the presence of firearms. Look at green-on-blue attacks for evidence of this. Further, what will 9mm pistols do against the next asshole who drives up to the recruiting office in a VBIED?

Arming individuals at recruiting stations is not necessarily a terrible idea, but we need to have a very clear undertanding of what that choice will and will not accomplish. I believe the potential exists for armed inviduals to limit the amount of carnage inflicted by an attacker - and that is a very good thing - but I disagree with many in the media, congress, and the author of the linked essay that it will prevent future attacks.

 

[Gatordev]

Words.

I think it's something that should be seriously looked at. If a service member can carry out in town, why can't he carry at a NOSC or RC...which is often out in town. But in my opinion, the single biggest thing that should happen is a credible training plan for someone to do that while in uniform.

Why? Witnessed during a computerized Use of Force training session (with a reactive "firearm") a couple of commands ago: Virtual bad guy doesn't follow trainee's command, but isn't aggressive to anyone yet, so trainee figures it's a good idea to just start shooting in the air and telling the bad guy to stop. And he seriously thought that was a solid way to deal with the problem.

 

[Flash]

...I'm still not convinced that arming uniformed personell INCONUS, specifically recruiters, is going to serve as a deterrent. Folks who are determined to strike, kill, and seek "martyrdom" are unlikely to be swayed by the presence of firearms. Look at green-on-blue attacks for evidence of this. Further, what will 9mm pistols do against the next asshole who drives up to the recruiting office in a VBIED?

Arming individuals at recruiting stations is not necessarily a terrible idea, but we need to have a very clear understanding of what that choice will and will not accomplish. I believe the potential exists for armed individuals to limit the amount of carnage inflicted by an attacker - and that is a very good thing - but I disagree with many in the media, congress, and the author of the linked essay that it will prevent future attacks.

Some of my concerns about arming folks is also practical but from a different angle, namely training and the simple logistics. First, determining the amount of training then providing it to those personnel who are designated to carry would be quite daunting from a cost and time perspective. Simply allowing someone who has a CCW to carry I think is impractical, especially giving the wide variance of standards between the states of who can get a CCW and what training and/or quals one has to get to get one (in some cases none).

Then supplying them weapons would be another big challenge. If we don't supply them and allow personal weapons to be carried that brings on another host of challenges;
- Would the military have to track and approve who is armed and who isn't along with the weapons themselves?
- Certify the weapons were legal and serviceable?
- Who would be liable when someone is injured or killed accidentally, especially if a civilian is involved? Was it in the line of duty? There could be big legal repercussions for the servicemember and the military.
Most importantly....
- Have a BOL-approved CBT everyone has to do every FY?

While allowing military personnel to carry weapons for personal protection is appealing to in some ways I don't see a practical way to do it without causing huge issues. I think the only possible solution might be something along the lines of the FFDO program, a voluntary program that is a single federal/military standard on carrying weapons and only for a specific and limited purpose. Even then though there would be significant cost to set it up and maintain with the sheer numbers of folks who would want to take part, something that would likely come out of hide for the military.

Finally as RLSO points out it would not be a panacea by any means. As the 'green on blue' attacks have shown everyone being armed is not just a non-deterrent it doesn't even prevent mass casualties from taking place in many instances (a stark lesson from one instance is to make sure the guy is dead when you shot him).

 

[wink]

All good points on arming military INCONUS. As far as recruiters, keep in mind when considering the training and logistics of arming them, many are on independent duty over 100 miles from the nearest officer in their command , let alone any real command support. The obvious answer, and in keeping with Theodore Roosevelt's axiom, "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are", arm the MAs and USMC MPs at the NOSCs. They are trained and know how they fit in with civ law enforcement. In cases of non-specific elevated threats due to things such as key holidays or anniversaries, pony up some extra drill pay and send those guys to the NRSs that could use extra security.

 

[xj220]

Great discussion and I certainly agree with a lot of what's being said. I think if we're going to arm military personnel the above suggested ways are the best way to do it. There is a vocal crowd that says "arm everyone" or that everyone in the military should automatically be allowed to carry on base. I don't necessarily think that's the right answer for a multitude of reasons. First, let's be honest, we know those couple of people that shouldn't be in the same room as a firearm let alone be allowed to carry. I'm just imagining someone walking into work dressed like the guy in RLSO's post and doing something stupid. Also, everyone has this view that they're going to be able to save the day when an active shooter situation starts. If someone just runs up to you and starts shooting, there's not much you can do except for to try and get cover (assuming you weren't immediately shot). I'm not against the idea of allowing personnel to carry, but an opening of the flood gates may do more harm than good or result in unintended consequences.