Disarming didn't work, maybe we should try something else...

[PavePusher]

"Shouldn't an army base be the last place where a terrorist should be able to shoot at people uninterrupted for 10 minutes? After all, an army base is filled with soldiers who carry guns, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against personnel in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The unarmed soldiers could do little more than cower as Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a desk and shot down into the cubicles in which his victims were trapped. Some behaved heroically, such as private first class Marquest Smith who repeatedly risked his life removing five soldiers and a civilian from the carnage. But, being unarmed, these soldiers were unable to stop Hasan's attack."

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime."

More at the link:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/10/john-lott-ft-hood-end-gun-free-zone/



And don't give me any bovine excrement about the source. Debate on the content or leave.

[depakid]

1. Fox "news" says more guns- MORE MORE MORE!

:rofl:

You really have to be an idiot to believe or post that....

[PavePusher]

2. Well, so much for "debate the content"... Sigh. n/t

[rd_kent]

30. Wow, didn't take long for someone to ignore what you said, huh?

[PavePusher]

37. Yeah, winner on the first post... Sigh. n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

50. Shouldn't you and your pal be on free-press, I'm sure you know the way

back.

[PavePusher]

66. Accusations. Nice.

I offer you an invitation to the world.

[Merchant Marine]

20. Ignorance and Drivel? In MY DU?

It's more likely than you think. Debate the content or bugger off you Australian person you.

[rl6214]

27. Please show us where

"Fox news says more guns, more, more, more"

[rd_kent]

31. Reading through your previous posts, finding the idiot is not difficult.....

[orpupilofnature57]

49. What are you his watch pooch ???

[rd_kent]

76. You seem to never have anything to say.....

that is relevant. Very telling....

[divideandconquer]

3. The source is a proven fraud

For three years, John Lott pretended to be a young woman.

Her name was Mary Rosh.

Mary Rosh often spoke sweetly of her days as a student of John's, she gave a glowing Amazon.com review of his book "More Guns, Less Crime," she criticized anyone who questioned John's research or his conclusions, and she attacked other researchers in her ardent defense of Lott's idea that more guns on the streets leads to less crime.

She was also a petite defenseless creature. We know this because John, we mean, she said:

"Do you really think that most women can out run your typical criminal?…Even if I am not wearing heels, I don’t think that there are many men that I could outrun.

"As a woman, who weighs 114 lbs, what am I supposed to do if I am confronted by a 200 lbs. man?"

Then a researcher at the conservative think tank CATO Institute discovered the truth about Mary Rosh and undressed John Lott for all the world to see.

Currently, Lott is a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
==============================
<http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/>

[orpupilofnature57]

4. Sgt. Amy Seyboth-Tiador

http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S1246776.shtml?cat=10114

[orpupilofnature57]

5. How many instances have the presence of guns saved more lives than their...

Absence ,Thats my debate ,sigh.

[PavePusher]

7. Hard to tell. How do YOU prove a negative?

Prove to me that you aren't posting drunk right now.

Better yet, prove you're not posting stupid...


As a starting point, can you defend yourself more effectively if you are armed or unarmed?



Edited 20 minutes later to add: How do I prove that a nut-job would have shot 20-30 people, except that s/he was stopped by a legally armed person after shooting only 2?

[orpupilofnature57]

10. In a perfectly safe environment , being armed would be the only Effective danger

I smoke, I cant prove it ,but I'm not ta gun kook.See ya

[PavePusher]

15. Here. You need this.

http://www.facepalm.org/

[orpupilofnature57]

16. Who taught you that ,Blabba O'wiley ?

[PavePusher]

17. One more time, would you care to address the content of the linked article? n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

18. No!!!!obviously ,lighten up Bedford.

Warped exceptions are not an argument ,content pshh

[PavePusher]

19. Then good day to you sir or madam. n/t

[rd_kent]

32. You have made ZERO sense so far....

Do you have a point?

[orpupilofnature57]

41. Fu*k the NRA

Ergo when ever someone advocates being armed I GET STUPID ,sorry thats no point.

[PavePusher]

42. I'll request that you refrain from profanity...

and address the content of the article. Otherwise, please leave. Thank you.

[orpupilofnature57]

48. Advocating guns is Freeper . I noticed my only response that you and your

only alli haven't touched was the story of Sgt.Amy Seyboth-Tirodor.

[PavePusher]

67. I advocate only freedom of choice.

Unless you have proof otherwise?

Why is it that actually advocating adherance to the Constitution causes so many Prog's to go into "Freeper Accusation Mode"? If you think 'freedom' is a pejorative, I suggest that you may be in the wrong place.

I looked at your link, it seems to have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Care to expound?


I have answered several of your questions directly, will you return the courtesy?

[rd_kent]

44. I will agree with you...you are stupid.

[orpupilofnature57]

46. Sorry ,besides disparaging remarks, your a gun Zealot , Harmless

Which is why I offend you and your brothers whenever I can.

[PavePusher]

62. Very Progressive of you. n/t

[rd_kent]

75. No, I am a Constututional Rights zealot. All of them, not just the ones I like....

[slackmaster]

26. Fort Hood was not a perfectly save environment, because guns were not kept out

If you make a rule against having weapons, the people who are most likely to obey it are not the ones you should be concerned about bringing in weapons, and vice-versa.

[orpupilofnature57]

47. Which was my original statement that flushed the Gun Kooks out,,,

Less guns ,Less deaths.

[slackmaster]

55. The only way to ensure "less guns" in a particular place is to implement authoritarian measures

To subject everyone to searches.

Feel free to implement that kind of thing in your home or place of business, and stay out of mine.

[orpupilofnature57]

59. Did you agree to suspend certain constitutional rights when you joined?

Your business has more effect on my home than any other business in existence.

[slackmaster]

61. When I joined what?

Your business has more effect on my home than any other business in existence.

You have no idea what kind of business I work for.

:crazy:

[orpupilofnature57]

69. I'm sorry I thought you were in the military ,sorry.

If your a contractor of any type ,you are.

[slackmaster]

73. I have worked as a contractor on military bases, more importantly I come from a military family

I would have applied to the Naval Academy, but am disqualified from serving due to my vision problems. My brother is a Naval officer. Our stepfather, an uncle, and a grandfather served in World War II.

[rl6214]

28. No

Just a kook?

[orpupilofnature57]

60. On this subject, yes.

[slackmaster]

24. The question is irrelevant because the "absence" of guns at Ft. Hood was a fraud

I'm fine with gun-free zones as long as they are strictly enforced with real security measures to ensure that guns are physically excluded. For example, in courthouses and the secured areas of airports; you have to go through a metal detector and are subject to search at every point of ingress.

A bullshit, in-name-only gun-free zone is a farce, and creates an ideal environment for exactly the kind of thing that happened at Fort Hood last week.

[orpupilofnature57]

52. Lame security could allow a hijacker to set off an alarm 3 times

and still hit this mark ,Police should be the only people on a Military base with weapons ,this is all happening as a result of turning the military in to the worlds police.

[slackmaster]

56. I've got news for you

Police and sentries on guard duty ARE the only people who are allowed to have weapons on military bases.

[orpupilofnature57]

58. I've never served ,I believe you.

[Trajan]

6. Posting FAUXNEWS in DU ....

sigh ....

Tell you what: Let me know when the real 'disarming' begins ....

THEN you will get the craven go-back-to-the-hole-you-crawled-out-of debate you so desire ....

sigh ....

[PavePusher]

8. About the content.....? n/t

[Trajan]

9. Regarding the content

You assert that some sort of 'disarmament' occurred at some time in the past .... yet folks are armed to the teeth, and always have been ...

False premise ... Didn't happen ....

debate over ....

sigh ....

Now ... about that hole .....

Others have gotten WAY more posts than you ....

(EDIT: minor changes for grammar)

[PavePusher]

11. Wow. So you didn't actually read it. Thanks for your time, G'nite now. n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

13. But it was a FOX News post !

Wanna listen to it on Liddy ? LOL .

http://www.liddyshow.com/show.php Top two 11/12/h3

[orpupilofnature57]

14. Ya ,you should rest.

[slackmaster]

25. The victims at Fort Hood were unarmed

And you try to make a point about a false premise.

:rofl:

[rd_kent]

33. As a 21 year veteran, I can tell you, that on every base, there are only a few people armed.

Everyone else HAS NO WEAPON. Not even a knife.....

[PavePusher]

38. Actually, scratch just about any USAF maintenance troop...

and you'll end up with about 3 knive in you. They keep the other 2 as backups...

[orpupilofnature57]

53. Sgt. Amy Seyboth-Tiador

[PavePusher]

63. You seem to be trying to make some point here...

but unless you you provide some information or explanation, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Please expound.

[orpupilofnature57]

70. Sorry it was in post 4 ,but here it is again.

http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S1246776.shtml?cat=10114

[PavePusher]

72. I'm not trying to be obtuse...

but I'm missing the relavance here. A little help please? Thanks.

[slackmaster]

74. Let me echo that - Someone got murdered. What's the point?

:shrug:

[orpupilofnature57]

54. Sgt. Amy Seyboth-Tiador

[rrneck]

12. I pointed this out in another thread

and I think I'll throw it in here too.

"Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Didn't we hear a lot about "force protection" in Iraq a few years ago? It seems to be lacking here. Of course that writer tries to blame it all on Bill Clinton, but the above quote reminds us of why we need force protection right here at home.

Anyone considering a mass shooting at a military base should have to contend with this guy:

[spin]

21. I may have a poor memory...

but as I remember the stateside Air Force base I served on in the the late sixties did not allow military personnel outside of the Air Police to carry firearms.

But at that time I had little interest in shooting and regarded my yearly qualification as a pain in the ass. Why wife at the time would listen to my constant bitching prior to the qualification and would ask me when I returned how bad my day went. She later pointed out, after I had left the service, that I always said that I had enjoyed the day.

[rrneck]

29. That sounds right.

I think the various services guard their turf rather jealousy. That attitude likely causes a fair bit of expensive redundancy. Why do the marines have airplanes and all that. I'm sure the Air Police can take care of business. They probably just need more of them.

Found this in Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_Security_Forces

In November 2007, it was announced that the Air Force was going to triple the number of Security Forces personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan to back-fill Army and Marines Corps mission tasks

Every time I look at this thing the same problem seems to pop up. The members of our armed services are waaay overworked. And they don't enjoy the luxury of being able to say, "Take this job and shove it".

Everything else in this country has been corporatized, monetized and designed to pay the few at the expense of the many. I wonder if the military is the same way.

[spin]

36. I understand from the latest news that morale is down in Afgansitan...

I know a young marine who just went over there.

I'm not quite sure what we hope to accomplish in that country. Our enemy, Al Qaeda seems to operate out of a sanctuary in Pakistan. The government in Afghanistan is corrupt and doesn't seem to have the support of the people. Shades of Viet Nam.

But your point is very valid. The stress on our military is taking its toll. There's a limit to how many tours of duty you can expect a person in the military to endure before they reach a breaking point.

If we ignore base security in the United States in order to increase it in the war zones, we could pay a high price. Hopefully, the Foot Hood massacre will be an isolated incident.

[notesdev]

22. The record is pretty clear

These mass murdering sprees are far more successful when no one is able to shoot back. Who knows how many of these incidents never got up to full speed, the perp having been shot by an armed civilian before ramping up the rampage? IIRC Switzerland is both the safest and the most heavily armed (small arms per capita) nation in the world.

[taurus145]

23. It's fairly simple

The best and quickest way to stop s hooter is by shooting him. One cannot shoot if one does not have a firearm.

Hollywood be damned. No martial artist or kid throwing a stick can expect to stop a shooter from across the room, lawn, parking lot, etc.

[gorfle]

34. Please do all of us pro-gun folks a favor on DU.

1) Don't quote Fox News. I don't care if people are supposed to debate the content. You have already lost the debate if you quote Fox News.

2) Don't quote John Lott. He blew his credibility.

Quoting Fox News or John Lott is not helpful in a Democratic firearm discussion.

[PavePusher]

39. Sorry, I have to disagree.

Truth is Truth, no matter what the source. (I'm not claiming the article is Truth, that's the basis for the debate...)

2+2=4, no matter if it's being pronounced by Stephen Hawking or Playmate of the Month.

Refusal to discuss an idea simply because of its source, without actually examining the idea, is intellectual suicide, and destroys all of the refuser's credibility.

P.S. What is up with everyone bashing Lott? What did he do?

[rrneck]

43. It's kinda hard

to use a piece from any distinctly partisan source. It's hard to untangle the real point being made from the reason the writer is making it. I've seen a couple of these so far and they are another effort to find some bullshit to blame on Bill Clinton and the Democratic party.

You could have written that piece better than that yahoo and left out the right wing agenda.

[gorfle]

45. The problem is....

The problem is, some sources have such a history of obvious bias that their credibility for delivering "truth" is immediately suspect. Fox News is one such source.

P.S. What is up with everyone bashing Lott? What did he do?

He pretended to be a woman agreeing with John Lott (himself) on self-defense issues.

[PavePusher]

65. "He pretended to be a woman agreeing with John Lott (himself) on self-defense issues."

Cite? I seem to have missed that.


Edit: O.K., I looked at the link provided in post #3 by D&C. (If there ever was a person to be suspicious of the motives of...;-) ) I didn't see anything but a bunch of rantings and accusations. Please let me know if I missed something substantial, I admittedly did not put in a full day researching this.

[gorfle]

77. It's very old news.

Lott's background has been pilloried here many times in the past.

[pipoman]

51. So you don't automatically suspect a contrary

modus operandi when Brady sources are cited?...I do...in fact I usually completely discount any point they are trying to make and almost never will click a link to their site. I agree that links to opinion pieces on Faux is not helpful to our position on this issue.

[PavePusher]

64. Suspect, yes.

But I read what they have to say, to make sure they haven't actually struck gold. Usually comedy gold, but the point is I don't usually do an automatic dismissal. That's the Anti's job.

I will point out that using the dismissive technique will get you quickly removed from any scientific endevour.

[pipoman]

71. So will citing those who appear to be charlatans

while trying to make a scientific finding. In fairness, it appears you didn't realize Lott's nutty activities prior to posting. I am not saying that much of what I have seen of Lott's studies don't appear to be meritorious...there is no discounting the transgression of wacky, cartoon like, conduct, especially when effecting the credibility of the study, as opposed to silly behavior in the person's personal life.

[orpupilofnature57]

57. Fox ,truth?

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/generalities/daily_show_producer_who_spotted_hannity_video_take_that_media_matters_143221.asp?c=rss

[PavePusher]

68. Yep. They bit into a feces sandwich of their own making.

And does that invalidate everything else they say?

When the entire MSM repeats the lie about the quantity/numbers of U.S. guns seized in Mexico, does that invalidate their coverage of every/any other story?

I note that we frequently chide each other here to not stereotype, broad-brush or rush to judgement... unless, of course, the opinion being presented matches our own preconceived biases.

And yes, I've been guilty of that a few times myself, and been called on it. Being demonstrateably in the wrong does help to expand your horizons.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Sorry, I don't buy the attempt to pin this on the Clinton Admin.

Got a better source?

Firearms have been heavily controlled on military bases for a very long time. If nothing else, it reduces negligent discharges, and even fratricide.

[PavePusher]

40. I agree on the Clinton part.

This started well prior to him. But I still think that creating a huge Victim Disarmament Zone is a bad idea, no matter who came up with it.