TexasCHLforum.com

casingpoint wrote:I believe it has been firmly established on this board that gun control does not work.

I agree that gun control doesn't work in an uncontrolled area and in a free society. But I don't think an active duty military installation is uncontrolled area and I don't think the military is a free society. As previous posts have pointed out, some places do indeed tightly control the presence of guns (courts of law, airplanes, etc). And other posts have pointed out all the rights that our military volunteer to temporarily give up in order to serve.

Dudley wrote:

stroo wrote:I have no problem with gun free zones under certain conditions one being that the party responsible for the zone ensure that it is gun free.

The penalty should be an eye for an eye.

If someone is a theft victim in a gun free zone, the politicians who made the policy should reimburse them.

If someone is injured in a gun free zone, the politicians who made the policy should be injured in kind.

If someone is raped or murdered in a gun free zone...

They wouldnt pass another law in our lifetime

New challenger to Al Qaeda sets new rules for Jihad. Hasan suckered a week too soon.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/11 ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In my short 4 years of service in the USN there were several times that a gun could have been needed and once that a gun should have been required. As an aviation electronics tech on F-14's there just wasn't much need for one. I could see where NCO's on fire or security watches should have had one on them or at least quick access. One of the times I was in the Philippines and a couple of our planes were on the beach I pulled a fire watch from 0000-0400 and the only thing I was given was a stick. I had my own 6D cell maglight that was bigger and stronger than the stick. A couple days after my watch I found out that a couple of SEALs patrolling the night of my watch picked up a couple natives on the base attempting to sabotage one of the aircraft. I never found out if it was one of mine or not, but still. I thought, "And I was out there with a stick!!!" These fellows had guns and knives and explosives and I had a stick. Whose bright idea was this?

To my knowledge and from my limited experience, not a lot of Navy folks use guns on a regular basis. An Army Post or Marine Base, though, I don't know. I don't think CHL should be allowed. Open carry, though, in uniform, maybe for those issued pistols. However, as someone said a while back, it would be a hassle to check in and out. If there an easier way of doing that rather than at the armory it might make more sense. Too much youth and testosterone. These weren't a good combination for a bunch of sailors that don't use weapons.

It's very difficult for me to grasp the post 9/11 military world let alone the Army or Marines. Most sailors and airmen just don't use guns to perform their duties like the other two.

It has been a hard week at Fort Hood. Thank you all for the thoughts and prayers. Those big green trucks moving the big grey boxes on some of the news stations are my guys. They got called in Sunday to move them for the service, and they will be working on Veterans day to take them back to where the belong. Happy Birthday to my fellow Marines, Happy Veterans day to all that have served and are serving.

TRR

Purplehood wrote:I don't know how many times I needed to change into PT gear or get down and dirty.

If the armed forces are incapable of going for a run or digging a hole while armed, then the problem is worse that we've been discussing.

KD5NRH wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I don't know how many times I needed to change into PT gear or get down and dirty.

If the armed forces are incapable of going for a run or digging a hole while armed, then the problem is worse that we've been discussing.

If I'm reading the post correctly, we can send Marines and the Army to Iraq with Missiles, Tanks, Machine guns, and hand grenades, but we cant trust the same soldiers to protect themselves at home with Pistols, in the US.

Does not compute

casingpoint wrote:New challenger to Al Qaeda sets new rules for Jihad. Hasan suckered a week too soon.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/11 ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very interesting article casingpoint. Thanks for posting.

5thGenTexan said
"The news agencies must report Hasan as a "suspected" or "alleged" gunman because he hasn't yet been convicted of anything, and to do otherwise is to open themselves up to a huge libel lawsuit if, in fact, he was not the killer (not likely, but media has to cover themselves on this). Remember Richard Jewell? He was absolutely unequivocally the madman who tried to blow up the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta ... until he wasn't. Mr. Jewell will live comfortably the rest of his life off the libel and slander lawsuit settlements with the big media outlets."

Jewell died August 29, 2007, from natural causes at the age of 44. He was suffering from severe heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes, and obesity.[4]

Jewell's case became an example of the damage that can be done by reporting based on unreliable or incomplete information, and spurred the media to use "alleged" and "person of interest" (instead of "suspect") more frequently.[

The red quote was taken from the Wikipedia article. You can read the full story of Mr. Jewell's life at the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SIA

>If I'm reading the post correctly, we can send Marines and the Army to Iraq with Missiles, Tanks, Machine guns,
>and hand grenades, but we cant trust the same soldiers to protect themselves at home with Pistols, in the US.


This is kind of my view. While I can understand things are just 'different' in the military (I grew up an army brat, so I have some understanding) it just seems incredulous to me that the brave, dedicated people that fight to protect our freedoms, and our constitution do not get to enjoy those freedoms while on base.

I can appreciate there would be logistical issues on a base, but I still find it hard to comprehend that while Sgt Bob is off base we (the state) are happy to issue him a CHL and 'allow' him to protect himself, as soon as he is on a military facility we effectively disarm him and effectively make him a potential victim like a child at school or a university student.

There's something that seems fundamentally wrong with this. Is it really that different from those civilians who work at private companies that have 'no gun' signs or policies? Who does that really protect? I think we're generally in agreement that a 'gun free zone' is really a 'target-rich environment'. Why should our military people be expected to live and work under conditions that we generally don't tolerate?

>I agree that gun control doesn't work in an uncontrolled area and in a free society. But I don't think an active
> duty military installation is uncontrolled area and I don't think the military is a free society.

Agreed. But you could say the same thing about a prison and apparently we can't keep illegal weapons, drugs or even cell phones out of prisons, so I don't think it will work anywhere. This whole tragic incident has shown that a military installation isn't that controlled either.

I'm glad the Fort Hood PD officers were able to respond and stop the killer, but wouldn't have been better if one of the soldiers in the building was armed and able to stop him sooner?

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:5thGenTexan said
"The news agencies must report Hasan as a "suspected" or "alleged" gunman because he hasn't yet been convicted of anything, and to do otherwise is to open themselves up to a huge libel lawsuit if, in fact, he was not the killer (not likely, but media has to cover themselves on this). Remember Richard Jewell? He was absolutely unequivocally the madman who tried to blow up the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta ... until he wasn't. Mr. Jewell will live comfortably the rest of his life off the libel and slander lawsuit settlements with the big media outlets."

Jewell died August 29, 2007, from natural causes at the age of 44. He was suffering from severe heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes, and obesity.[4]

Jewell's case became an example of the damage that can be done by reporting based on unreliable or incomplete information, and spurred the media to use "alleged" and "person of interest" (instead of "suspect") more frequently.[

The red quote was taken from the Wikipedia article. You can read the full story of Mr. Jewell's life at the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SIA

Wow, I had no idea he died. Well I guess his relatives are enjoying NBC's (or General Electric's) money.

ghostrider wrote:>I agree that gun control doesn't work in an uncontrolled area and in a free society. But I don't think an active
> duty military installation is uncontrolled area and I don't think the military is a free society.

Agreed. But you could say the same thing about a prison and apparently we can't keep illegal weapons, drugs or even cell phones out of prisons, so I don't think it will work anywhere. This whole tragic incident has shown that a military installation isn't that controlled either.

There's no such thing as a "controlled area" of that size, with tens of thousands of people entering and exiting every day.

As you note, guns even get smuggled into jails and prisons.

IMHO, the biggest difference between being deployed versus being home is that when deployed your job is what you focus on about 99% of the time. You can't focus too much on something you can't do anything about. If you don't focus on your job people around you will die. I know this is true for many jobs here, but it's just different when your job is the ONLY thing you think about 99% of the time.

When you're are home there are all the other factors that come into play. Relationships! These are what get's most people into trouble. When they are good everything's great, but when they are bad people don't tend to think straight. Not most people, but many and it only takes one.

I don't know the numbers, but it seems that violence like this on a military base is much less frequent than in the civilian population. I wonder if it is discipline, mind set, or something else.

KD5NRH wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I don't know how many times I needed to change into PT gear or get down and dirty.

If the armed forces are incapable of going for a run or digging a hole while armed, then the problem is worse that we've been discussing.

Please explain to me how I am going to run in my PT shorts, t-shirt and tennis shoe with my weapon. Have you ever been in a unit that tried it? Look at it from our typical CHL perspective: You have to figure out your wardrobe on a 24hour basis in order to carry concealed.
While running PT, where you going to secure your weapon? In the Armory! Hey, it is there already. Never mind.