Only "good" thing that may come from chattanooga terror attack

[CitizenBBN]

It cost four Marines their lives, but maybe just maybe this will get the insane unilateral disarmament of our military (thanks to the Clinton administration) lifted once and for all.

Most people dont' even know that it's been a standing policy that military personnel not be armed unless in training or combat situations or are MPs, etc., i.e. you can't just walk around the base or the office with your sidearm unless your job requires it.

In fact, the recruitment office that was targeted is a "gun free zone", as the picture shows. Not just for civilians, but for the military staff as well. Folks, the average 7-11 with random customers in a carry state was more able to defend itself than a military post that we KNOW are the targets of these terrorists. At least in the gas station there's some chance of someone in there being able to shoot back.

We need to immediately lift the ban on military personnel being armed, and should have done so no later than the first time ISIS announced they were targets here in the US. That's the bare minimum, but since terror is about spreading fear it won't be long till they move down to the next softest target, i.e. the gun free zone at the local college or school, in order to make their attack achieve maximum impact.

The two who attacked the Muhammad cartoon thing were killed before they could do more than wound one person who will recover. Interesting that private function had far better security than a military facility, but maybe the sacrifice of these four brave Marines won't be in vain, and it can save lives elsewhere when our forces are able to defend themselves whereever they may be.

http://proteinwisdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/chattanoogashooting2.jpg

[CitizenBBN]

And here's a general who is clearly wearing his Obama butt hat on his nose:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/17/army-chief-urges-caution-on-calls-to-arm-more-us-soldiers-in-wake-fatal/

"I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I'm not talking about where you end up attacking each other," Odierno said during a morning breakfast. Instead, he said, it's more about "accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries."

Sorry, but that's beyond idiotic. There are MILLIONS of civilians in the US who regularly carry. They carry concealed, which is often more awkward than carrying open in a sidearm holster. Further, most have little or no formal training in handgun handling.

Yet, despite all that, and there are no good stats on this, it seems to be a near non-issue. Of the few cases I know of anecdotally almost all are due to the concealed nature of the gun and many involve carrying in a purse where a child or adult gets in the purse not knowing about the gun. Of course any injury due to a discharge is bad, but there are very very few despite there being about 11 million or so CCDW carriers (probably low, those are the formal permits I think).

And that's for often awkwardly carried guns by civilians. Now we're talking about trained military soldiers who have qualified with their sidearms, guns they know, carried in proper holsters.

They are more like LEOs in every regard. There are about 750,000 or so LEOs in the US, FAR more than the total active duty military across the world (about 450K), so say at least 2-3 times the number of military in the US we're discussing. I'm sure someone will manage to have a negligent discharge, but the numbers will be very low.

Now imagine the crimes they can stop. Obviously defend themselves against terror attacks, but who here would feel good with a soldier in their Starbucks sipping their coffee with their sidearm there? To me that's just as warm and fuzzy as having a LEO there having a latte.

Arming the police leads to negligent discharges, but it's worth it. It's worth it for our military to be able to defend themselves when WAR has been declared against them and bounties put in their heads and the heads of their families. For God's sake, they are in the line of fire and we're making them stand there and take it and not fire back?

[Darrell KSR]

I had no idea about that rule or law, CitizenBBN. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[Catonahottinroof]

It cost four Marines their lives, but maybe just maybe this will get the insane unilateral disarmament of our military (thanks to the Clinton administration) lifted once and for all.


It wasn't Clinton's doing, it started under Bush 1 in February of 1992.


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf

[CitizenBBN]

It wasn't Clinton's doing, it started under Bush 1 in February of 1992.


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf

I wasn't trying to lay it on Clinton per se, should have said Bush I and Clinton though and didn't, so I apologize for that. it was proposed under Bush I, implemented under Clinton. I do think whoever is President when the order is handed down is primarily responsible, even if the policy was being considered under another administration, but it's beside the point, it was never a brilliant regulation and post 9/11 was just a dumb one.

Now, with a vicious enemy recruiting lunatics to attack any military personnel, facilities and families wherever they can be found, it's flat asinine.

PS - Don't get me started on the failings of Bush I and Bush II, and just how non Republican I consider them to be in so many ways. It's not about party lines to me, by and large I think Clinton had a more successful Presidency than either Bush. But he did allow this regulation to be handed down, and both he and Bush II continued it despite both being in a period when it was increasingly unwise, esp. Bush II.

Obama continuing it now is insane. Bush II continuing it after 9/11 was dumb. Bush I and Clinton are both below those two in how bad it was to stick with this policy.

[CitizenBBN]

I had no idea about that rule or law, CitizenBBN. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Military reg, and a classic example of the type of snafu created by the brass hats from time to time. It wasn't a big risk when it was done, but post 9/11 when we were trying to harden every target we could, it was dumb to continue. Now it's just insane.

But IMO it was never smart, b/c the effect was to do just what we saw in this case: turning a military facility (albeit in a strip mall) into a true gun free zone. That can never have been smart, b/c "gun free zones" are never smart, and esp. not in places that may attract lunatics. But now that they are definitive targets of a capable enemy it's beyond comprehension.

[Catonahottinroof]

I was 25 then, and thought how stupid it was to disarm them unless it was in a law enforcement capacity. Now it's the government that has gone stupid that won't fix the issue.

[jazyd]

Dumb rule. Even dumber now

[KeithKSR]

Times have changed, laws need to change in order to keep up.

[suncat05]

Obama IS NOT going to change this. He doesn't care whether our military is in harm's way or not. he doesn't acknowledge that we are at war with these terrorists, and we are their targets. He doesn't give two hot squats.

I believe we'll also see that in the end, his lapdogs in the DOJ & the FBI will declare this just another gun related shooting violence incident in order to call for more gun control. Calling it a terror attack does not fit this administration's political agenda.

[Doc]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Hasan_nidal.jpg

أنا موافق الله أكبر


Like any issue, it depends on how you look at it, huh? I'm not saying it wouldn't have made a difference. These guys knew they were going to die, or at least were willing to die. Having armed guards in the streets didn't stop the attack on Charlie Hebdo, did it? I was in Paris 1 week prior to that attack and there was an incredible armed presence in the streets. You couldn't walk a block without encountering a group of 5 armed military patrolmen. They still shot up and killed a bunch of people because it doesn't matter to a bunch of nut cases. Nut cases don't care.

[suncat05]

Still, our troops should be armed, even on post or base. My God, we spend how much money training these troops to be proficient with firearms so that they can protect us? And ultimately, in the big picture here, those troops being armed protects them AND us.

Of course, the liberals want to see ALL OF US DISARMED but wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. BRILLIANT!!

[suncat05]

As much as I don't like the guy, our Governor here in Florida, Rick Scott, has ordered ALL Florida National Guard recruiters to now be armed while on duty. Kudos to the Governor (a veteran of the USAF) for allowing his troops to be able to protect themselves.
I have also seen several Governors in other states give the same order for their respective state Guard commands as well.

[Darrell KSR]

We used to have this debate about capital punishment. Some suggested it was done for the deterrence effect. I maintained that whether someone got life in prison, or the death penalty, wasn't a determining factor on whether they were going to stab someone, choke someone to death, or shoot them, and still maintain that.

There are two reasons to have people armed in a situation like Chattanooga.

1) To act as a deterrent. Effectiveness? Minimal to non-existent in cases like this.

2) To stop the bleeding (so to speak). Would/could someone have shot the shooter earlier, had there been armed individuals there? No way to know, I guess.

I still think it's a stupid rule to have them unarmed, but it's sad to say, there are things that simply cannot be prevented no matter what we do. And this probably falls in that category, more or less.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Hasan_nidal.jpg

أنا موافق الله أكبر


Like any issue, it depends on how you look at it, huh? I'm not saying it wouldn't have made a difference. These guys knew they were going to die, or at least were willing to die. Having armed guards in the streets didn't stop the attack on Charlie Hebdo, did it? I was in Paris 1 week prior to that attack and there was an incredible armed presence in the streets. You couldn't walk a block without encountering a group of 5 armed military patrolmen. They still shot up and killed a bunch of people because it doesn't matter to a bunch of nut cases. Nut cases don't care.

[Doc]

Still, our troops should be armed, even on post or base. My God, we spend how much money training these troops to be proficient with firearms so that they can protect us? And ultimately, in the big picture here, those troops being armed protects them AND us.

Of course, the liberals want to see ALL OF US DISARMED but wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. BRILLIANT!!

Nidal Hasan was one of our troops and was one I was glad he wasn't walking around town with an M16. Clearly he was the exception, but then I suspect the shooters in Chatanooga were exceptions as well

[Doc]

We used to have this debate about capital punishment. Some suggested it was done for the deterrence effect. I maintained that whether someone got life in prison, or the death penalty, wasn't a determining factor on whether they were going to stab someone, choke someone to death, or shoot them, and still maintain that.

There are two reasons to have people armed in a situation like Chattanooga.

1) To act as a deterrent. Effectiveness? Minimal to non-existent in cases like this.

2) To stop the bleeding (so to speak). Would/could someone have shot the shooter earlier, had there been armed individuals there? No way to know, I guess.

I still think it's a stupid rule to have them unarmed, but it's sad to say, there are things that simply cannot be prevented no matter what we do. And this probably falls in that category, more or less.

I don't believe in either scenario (capital punishment or this shooting) it makes a hill of beans difference. I don't believe capital punishment is a deterrence. I believe its vengeance but I see nothing wrong with vengeance. I also maintain that 4 marines would likely have been killed regardless of if they had been armed or not. Had they been armed there is also a likelihood that there could have been more bullets flying and thus a greater likelihood of collateral casualties. Not being Nostradamus I can't say for sure by seeing the future, I can only guess. So on your point two, I agree as well. Granted, the military are trained and I'd much prefer them protecting me than Billy Bob. But I don't believe returning to the ways of the 1850's wild west is where we need to be (yes, that is an exaggeration). I think we have evolved from that.

My point is to only present the other side. These gun discussion seldom have that. Easy to have a pep rally and shout we need more guns, yehaw
http://yosemitesamquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/Yosemite-Sam-Quotes-300x281.png

[CitizenBBN]

Can I guarantee that them being armed would have saved any of them? Nope.

Can I guarantee that having our military unarmed insures they are going to mostly die when attacked? Yes.

Can I say emphatically that it is unjust that well trained servicemen have no option of self defense when I do in my place of work? Yes.

There are no guarantees that arming these men and women will prevent all attacks or stop them short, but there is an iron clad guarantee that as long as we make them all gun free zones with no defensive capabilities whatsoever that they will be target #1 for these lunatics.

As for Charlie Hebdo, I don't think the French situation applies here very well. First, the french have only armed security, no private individuals with guns, so they don't have "gun free zones" at all, it's a very different dynamic.

Second, Hebdo was a specific, high priority target, like the White House (not that high, but still very singular in its nature in Paris and France). In this case we're talking about a military office of which there are literally THOUSANDS in the US. They were willing to take on the armed security at Hebdo due to its value, and the security was VERY LOW for the value of the target with I believe just one armed guy at the door.

Third, the Hebdo attack was a high level, military style attack authorized, trained and backed at the highest levels of our enemies. What we are facing here is a social media inspired lunatic with mental issues lashing out, that's our most likely scenario versus a high level assault. That may happen too, but letting our people be armed to defend themselves isn't to prevent or degrade that kind of attack.

The data in the US shows that so far all of these attacks for decades, both of domestic terror, foreign inspired terror, and the every day loser lunatic attack, have all been on gun free zone targets that are soft. MANY of them have explicitly left records of some kind indicating that the gun free nature of the target was a factor in their decision, most notably the Sandy Hook killer.

That's hard US data, not foreign extrapolation of a security situation very unlike ours. Yes, in Europe and Israel etc. the police are far heavier armed than here, but they still live with the maxim that "when seconds count, the police are just minutes away", and that doesn't change b/c they have bigger guns.

We're not France, or Paris. We are far more vast, with far more targets to cover, and we're talking about arming people TRAINED in security and defense and target engagement, not just handing out guns to anyone. The people we are preventing from being armed in these military offices and posts are the very people we'd turn to to go protect us were we to need protection.

What we're doing now is like a city banning off duty officers from being armed. Why wouldn't you want your police able to respond instantly to a security situation if they happen to be in the store or restaurant or parking lot and a crime happens? OK, then why wouldn't we want the finest trained military personnel on Earth able to engage a terrorist target if they happen to be there and one shows up? Why do we have trained, highly professional military relying on a call to 911 to defend a target that we have been told is the #1 priority target of our enemies?

Will it stop the attacks? Hell no it won't, this is a war we're in and they dont' stop b/c the other side arms itself for defense.

Will there be collateral damage? Yes, probably so. that's also a truism of war no matter how careful we may be. This won't be effective in all cases nor will it be clean and easy in all cases.

But I'll guarantee this: you dont' win a war if you don't arm yourself for defense. You just get dead if you stand there like a log and take it.

Given the choice of leaving a couple hundred thousand servicemen and women defenseless at the mercy of these nuts or having them as able to defend themselves as I am when I carry, I vote let them carry the same way I do.

[CitizenBBN]

One other note re Hebdo, they needed security like what the cartoon thing did in Texas. They had a LOT of security b/c they knew how hard they were poking the terror community, Hebdo had a guard or two, the cartoon convention had outside security and then had all kinds of undercover security.

Those punks never had a chance in Texas. Hebdo should have had at least 3-4 heavily armed guards in place at all times, they had I think one armed guard that these guys got past without notice and then one who was assigned as security for the editor.

Hebdo was a very high priority target, and was way too soft. Every US military office and outpost as well as every school should have more security than was at Hebdo. In fact many churches do have more security during services, with multiple people armed and able to engage a threat.

We're at war. I don't like it, don't want it, and it won't be clean or perfect, but I am fully committed that we win it, and win it decisively through use of force. Engage and kill any target here in the US, and then go engage and kill every target abroad till the few left surrender. That's how you win a war.

[Doc]

The security on the streets of downtown Paris at that time was as militarized as you will see in any free world city, period. I was there. I've been to Paris many times and have never seen it as batten down. As I stated, you could not walk a block and not pass a group of 5 HEAVILY ARMED UNIFORMED MILITARY personel and it wasn't just at the offices of the paper. They were patrolling the entire downtown area period. So it actually is an ideal comparison. It didn't matter if it was a bakery, a cafe or a publisher. The armed presence likely made no difference. To terrorist, to suicide bombers and the likes, it does not matter. Its why they call them "suicide bombers". The Chatanooga attack was a recruiting office, hardly a high priority target. In fact I'd suggest the exact opposite from the military point of view. A recruiting office is something that would want to have minimal security because you actually want traffic. Most are in shopping centers because they are not high security/high risk/high priority type targets.

I should note that having it militarized didn't bother me one way or the other. I didn't feel safer because there were a bunch of armed individuals around or threatened because there were armed individuals around. The point is that there were armed military individuals there and it did not stop a shoot out so the suggetion (if that is the suggestion) that it would have is not necessarily correct. Some might feel safer, if so fine however that doesn't mean that it is so.

[Doc]

One other note re Hebdo, they needed security like what the cartoon thing did in Texas. They had a LOT of security b/c they knew how hard they were poking the terror community, Hebdo had a guard or two, the cartoon convention had outside security and then had all kinds of undercover security.

Those punks never had a chance in Texas. Hebdo should have had at least 3-4 heavily armed guards in place at all times, they had I think one armed guard that these guys got past without notice and then one who was assigned as security for the editor.

Hebdo was a very high priority target, and was way too soft. Every US military office and outpost as well as every school should have more security than was at Hebdo. In fact many churches do have more security during services, with multiple people armed and able to engage a threat.

We're at war. I don't like it, don't want it, and it won't be clean or perfect, but I am fully committed that we win it, and win it decisively through use of force. Engage and kill any target here in the US, and then go engage and kill every target abroad till the few left surrender. That's how you win a war.


You have gone from apples to oranges. The OP was about armed military. In France the people are not allowed to carry guns but the military is (hence apples). In Texas the people are allowed to carry guns. The added security in Texas was not the miliary, it was private (and we have gone to oranges). It would not have been possible to provide the security in France like they had in Texas due to the laws of France. Kudos to Texas for being smart.

[Darrell KSR]

Alabama citizens volunteer to protect their military in Huntsville.

http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/07/armed_civilians_guard_military.html

[dan_bgblue]

While that is very self sacrificing of those civilians who choose to stand guard, and I applaud them for offering to do so, in my simple mind that is a much worse scenario than arming those who are being targeted for execution and are trained to handle weapons and recognize threats.

[suncat05]

I'm not sure that I can totally agree with that assessment, dan. True, the degree of their armed training/experience would be in question, certainly. And their level of training would certainly be important. I see no harm here no matter which. Better trained with experience is, of course, optimal.
However, the point that is not being made is this: 1)these citizens stepping forward to help protect our troops are doing so because they realize that we are at war with terrorists, and they're not taking any crap from these scumbags, and 2) they're actions are unabashedly AMERICAN in nature, as they are openly exercising their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms as guarenteed by our Constitution.
So dan, in a minor manner, I have to respectfully disagree with you.
I never go anywhere without my gun. Anywhere. Period. I have even taken to carrying not only extra ammunition for my primary weapon, but I also carry a back-up gun and a couple of knives too. You can never be too careful or too prepared. I even go to Mass armed. And all of this is not just because I am a LEO and it's part of the regular requirements of my agency, I would do this anyway given the potential security situation we find ourselves in now because of these damnedest terrorists.
We are at war. No matter how ineptly he acts, or how cowardly he truly is, or how truly traitorous he is and how much he wants to soft-sell or tap dance around this issue, we are at war with these terrorists whether the current POTUS wants to admit it or not. And what you see is Americans rising to the challenge facing us.
This is just how I see this and my opinion. If we disagree, I do so respectfully and am willing to hear your point of view.

[CitizenBBN]

This is about to get more interesting regarding this part of the tragedy. Navy reports are that one and maybe two of the men were in fact armed with their personal handguns and may have returned fire and engaged the enemy. They may have been the ones to kill him.

They're doing ballistics and autopsy, I'm very curious to see the result. Also curious to see how the Navy handles the violation of the no-gun policy, b/c if they were carrying it was absolutely in violation of the regs we're discussing.

[suncat05]

Yes, it will be interesting to see what happens.
Knowing military thinking, the Navy will probably give them commendations for shooting the guy, and then turn around and Article 15 them for having violated regulations. At least that would be normal military rationale. Now, there have been times in the past where troops were legally armed and had to use their firearms in self-defense and the Army gave them commendations for defending themselves but gave the trooper an Article 15 for expending a round. CYA stuff there, that's all that is. I saw it several times when I was in the Army as an MP.
Of course, our "Dear Leader" hates our troops and hates our guns, so I have a feeling that if any of our troops actually connected with any rounds from personal firearms that he will want to do everything possible to ruin their lives and their military careers. He may even have his DOJ people try to get creative and charge the military personnel with a crime..........even though they were the ones attacked to begin with.
And if he decides to play it like that, all he'll do is earn more emnity than he already has.

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/25/pentagon-wants-individuals-to-stop-guarding-recruiting-stations/?intcmp=hpbt3

[Doc]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/25/pentagon-wants-individuals-to-stop-guarding-recruiting-stations/?intcmp=hpbt3

It does illustrate the ineptness or perception of ineptness that the country has in the governments ability to defend us when citizens feel the need to protect the body that is charged with protecting us. What a screwed up situation!

[CitizenBBN]

I can see why the Pentagon doesn't want Joe Civilian out in front of the recruiting office open carrying an AR-15. Liability, etc. with someone over which they have no review. But the answer is to arm the people they know are trained. Random patrols of police or whatever won't be enough.

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/03/navy-official-not-ruling-out-charging-service-member-who-fired-on-chattanooga/?intcmp=hpbt3

[Doc]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/03/navy-official-not-ruling-out-charging-service-member-who-fired-on-chattanooga/?intcmp=hpbt3

Classic question of do the ends justify the means?

[suncat05]

Those servicemembers still have a Constitutional right to protect themselves, and in that kind of circumstance, orders be damned. They should not have to die at the disadvantage because their commanders are too chicken$it to make the right decision.
But then, given all that has transpired with our warfighters over the last 7+ years and with the way this moron has decimated the command structures of each of the services, I'm surprised that EVERY 4 or 5 star isn't just another politically inclined "do-boy" serving his master's will.

[CitizenBBN]

Classic question of do the ends justify the means?

I see it as more of a question of the limits of military orders. There are limits, and times when a soldier of good conscience must refuse an order. The question is if this qualifies.