Yes, I know there are other threads regarding yesterday's slaying of four marines but I feel this deserves a separate thread. In a time when the media is mostly left-leaning and very supportive of gun control, Fox News has been hammering the folly of "gun-free zones" all morning. They even showed the "no guns" decal on the recruiting office window surrounded by bullet holes.

It's nice to know that we have one friend in the gun-hostile media world.

Good observation. I had not noticed that detail in the published photos.

Once again a gun-free zone has been chosen as the site of an attack.

The Fort Hood massacre. The Boston Marathon. A housewife beheaded in Oklahoma. The Attack on a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas a couple months ago. There seems to be a connection here but I just can't put my finger on it.

I saw the sign in the door watching Fox this morning. Glad they showed it hopefully gets enough pressure built up so they let our boys protect themselves !

Since this is a separate thread now, and if Lee will permit discussion of the gun-free zone issue here instead of the other thread, now that a day has passed since the tragedy, I want to respond to what federali said.

In THIS case: I doubt it would have made a difference if the recruiting office in the strip mall -- the one that Fox showed in its report, according to federali -- had not been a gun-free zone.

From what we know, the shooter drove up in an convertible with the top down, stayed in the car out in the parking lot, and pumped a bunch of rounds through the glass into the office, fortunately not killing anyone there, and then immediately drove to the other location, where I don't think we know yet what happened. Did he go inside, shoot from outside, or what? All I've seen as the investigation is still in its early stages is that he killed four Marines there, wounded other people, and was killed by responding cops.

If the recruiters at the strip mall had been armed, I doubt under the circumstances that they would have had much of a chance to return fire. Not from want of will or training; just from the surprise-attack/ambush scenario, with the shooter staying on scene for a very short period. (It's reported that both shootings took place within about a 30-minute period).

Would the shooter have chosen the recruiting office at the strip mall if he had known that armed recruiters were there? Given his tactics, I don't think he was have been deterred by that knowledge. It was a soft target, and would not have been a much harder one if weapons were inside, since his attack was of the type it was.

Do I think our troops at unguarded military facilities like including recruiting offices should be armed? Yes. Do I think it would have made a difference this time? At the strip mall, no. At the other location, the jury is still out.

The fact that Fox is taking the opportunity to "hammer" gun-free zones in THIS instance doesn't add much of value to the debate, I think.

__________________
Ukraine -- now more than ever

I don't know, but a liberal--make that uber-liberal--city I know once plastered "drug-free zone" stickers all over the skid row area to show their resolve. Naturally, even THEY came to realize how ridiculous the gesture was.

This is similar but with much worse consequences. Sometimes sheer absurdity can do things that logic can't.

Then there's the pain factor, too. All too often borne by the wrong people, unfortunately...

Why wouldn't it matter? ANYONE who was armed had the potential to stop this. You don't like Fox so you attack a perfectly logical thought. Get a grip.

Personally,I think if they had access to weapons,not as many would have been murdered. If I heard shots,had a weapon.Id like to think the first thing I would do is to duck and grab my side arm.

Where's the pic of the bullet riddled "gun free zone" door?

That should become an instant classic.

What we have here are men being attacked who were forbidden by law to be armed and able fight back in defense of their lives and others.

In my book, there aren't many laws more shameful than that.

You mean this picture?

I would have to respectfully disagree with vigil617. Approximately 50 officers die from GUNFIRE yearly. That they were defeated is not an argument supporting the disarmament of police officers.

Every confrontation has its unique tactical footprint. Even police stations are successfully attacked. I'd rather that an attacker spray a building in the hope that one or more of his bullets will find a target than have him boldly walk in and methodically select and assassinate his victims. Arming potential victims forces attackers to adopt less effective means of attack. It might also serve as deterrent to attack except for those who believe a reward awaits them in the afterlife.

Just saw this interesting AP article quoting the Army Chief of Staff regarding the issue of arming recruiters, and I post it here as part of the overall discussion.

Army Chief: Security at recruiting posts will be reviewed - AOL.com

__________________
Ukraine -- now more than ever

When the top brass does not value the lives of our young men and women in uniform that are serving our country....

It's a damn shame and dis-grace....We are at war, and the powers that be, want to remain in denial.


.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Carrying a defensive side arm does not guarantee that I will survive or prevail in any situation. It does provide me with a chance to do so.

Anyone assuming that criminals, terrorists, or psychotics will obey a "no guns allowed" sign have deluded themselves. Just because some people are sick, or predatory, or otherwise disgusting does not mean they are stupid; many have shown that soft targets are preferred for mass shootings and gun-free zones provide them with some assurance that they will not meet with serious resistance.

Well, Odierno sure as hell isn't George Patton.

In WWI the first British regulars sent to the Continent were professionals, nicknamed "The Old Contemptibles". Their musketry skills gave the overconfident Germans a rude awakening before trench warfare set in.

It looks like our current stateside military should be referred to as "The Expendables".

NOT.

I think even the staunchest anti gun advocate realizes that gun free zones are a stop gap measure on the journey to a gun free America

__________________
- Change it back -

Hm. Just ran across this: Hiram residents hold watch at recruitment center - Atlanta News, Weather, Traffic, and Sports | FOX 5

I personally have never been dis-armed......

But, I heard this story one time,

A very dear friend of mine once told be of being captured
and being sent to a Nazi concentration camp late in the war.

He told me of those there that had tried to boil their own shoe soles
to have something to eat.

The old man had a Walther 32 that he carried in his pocket and I ask if he had brought it back from the war.
He kinda looked way off for a few seconds and said, "Yup, I did."

Then he cleared his throat and said, "A short while after our camp was liberated,
they carried all of us to a place where we could clean-up a bit and be outfitted with some clothes.

When I unrolled the britches I had been given, this little pistol was in them.
I got dressed, then dropped that pistol in my pant pocket and have carried
it everyday since and I have never felt defenseless again."

Mr. Gene has long left this world, I will always remember the experiences of his life he chose to share with me.



No one should be stripped of the liberty or the dignity of a means of self protection to preserve their own life...


.


.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

This is a story that deserves, almost demands, much wider dissemination that any forum post can provide.

It is time to change, we are at war and this time the war has come to us, I'm pretty sure it is going to get much worse and drag on for a very long time. We must change, the longer it takes the more soft targets will be hit.

It is sad to think of our military being unarmed when on duty.

__________________
Shoot fast & live long
Warren

I'm proud of the Arkansas governor's decision to arm our National Guardmen.

Gov. Hutchinson directs state's full-time guardsmen to be armed

__________________
- Change it back -

I just wonder if someone with a ccw had been carrying and pulled out his gun and managed to stop this killer, who would be arrested? Imagine thee scene. But, officer, I was trying to stop the other guy with a gun, really.

Before any newsman made a comment about, I could not help but notice the irony of seeing the bullet-riddled windows where the "no gun zone" sign was placed. I hope this will finally wake people to up how dumb these zones are, and allow all members of the ARMED forces to be armed at all times. You hardly ever hear about a man trying to shoot up a police station - I wonder why that is.

I dont think you guys realize that this only reinforces the other sides views. Its not that signs dont stop guns, its that if there were no guns, then the world would be safer. This wont change peoplea views on the far end of the spectrum, but itll turn people in the middle, in either direction.

What we're seeing is a gathering return to the conditions which pertained when the Comanches controlled the Comancheria and could raid Galveston.

Only now these things can happen literally ANYWHERE, and you don't get the warning of pounding hooves and war cries, just "Allahu Akhbar" DURING the shooting.

It's LONG past obvious that unless we're going to have 10,000,000 cops (and a police state to go with them), people are going to have to be willing and able to protect THEMSELVES.

These animals want to KILL, they don't want to BE killed before they can sow carnage and terror.

The "OSHA for rapists" (and now terrorists) types are in a real bind now. Literally for DECADES, they've been saying "Only the police and military should have guns!" Now they're helplessly floundering about trying to figure out a way to exclude the military from that idiotic statement. Opinion polls seem to say they're failing... BADLY.

If you can carry, you'd better start. If you can't, you better acquire the ability. Otherwise, you are simply a potential target, and the odds of you getting "protected" when you NEED it are close to nil.

I always say, "And if there were no gravity, nobody would die in falls... one's as likely as the other."

I think Oklahoma just did the same thing.

The Germans at Mons were slaughtered like cattle, especially the newly called up students. It was the marksmanship of the professional NCOs and EMs that did it.

I have recently often detected more animosity for service members than for the terrorists. The ongoing scandal at the DEA is just one example.

Of course if you don't really CARE what happens to service members, the shootings are just much ado about nothing.

The Army guy in charge said:"Would cause more problems than it might solve"my eye. Did he forget that those recruiters are trained in the usage of firearms???? Sounds to me like he's only towing the political line.

If he told the truth, he'd be gone in the blink of an eye... if they didn't prosecute him like Petraeus.

It would be NICE to see just ONE senior officer stand up for what's right, though.

Our Govnuh probably will but,has to wait for Jade Helm to be over-with so the libs dont scream that he's a nut job for doing so. They already are blabbering about him having some Texas soldiers watching those conducting Jade Helm.

Just saw where the sailor.That was injured has now died bringing death toll to 5.May God bless him and his family.And before someone corrects me and says 6 died .I do not consider the non human that did it a significant loss of life.

I doubt it will wake up the terminally stupid doubters because,unless it happens to them personally-they ALWAYS side with the criminal. Case in point--just read ANY news article on yahoo about women or kids being murdered and you will see exactly what im talking about.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps recently did and im surprised he is still there. Grofaz hates being proved differently.

"No one should be stripped of the liberty or the dignity of a means of self protection to preserve their own life..."

Words to live by.

For those that lost their lives in days of late, while in service to our country,

May our most Merciful God welcome them into His place of rest...

And to those that hate us and would seek to kill us at any and all opportunities,
may they be held before God's judgment and not that of man's.

May the Good Lord comfort those families of their loss.


.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Exactly whatkind of training do these recruiters have?

As I noted in another thread:

Until vulnerable military men and women in the USA are armed and/or adequately protected, the Secret Service and Capitol Police should be prohibited from carrying weapons.

If you study history, or keep up with world events, it's pretty much been proven that carrying a gun will not prevent you from being a target.

Gun Free Zone: Style over Substance

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Is it true that the Marines guarding our embassies around the world carry unloaded rifles? I worked with a guy (he was in the Marines) and he told me this....but it was over ten years ago. I had a hard time believing it.

__________________
'Merica!

There's a HUGE difference between being a target that can fight back, and being a helpless, defenseless target.

Given the choice, which would you rather be?

And those are your ONLY choices.

No clue what you are talking about, but, yes, I just did.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

I guess,you missed the recent,attack on a Dallas Police Department sub station being attacked by a nut job in an armored truck. Just google it.

Edit: went back to read this post. I am not sure what the OP meant to communicate: perhaps someone can help me better understand it. (Reading at 1:30am generally doesn't do much for my comprehension.)

That said, history has a number of lessons. Logic dictates that having a weapon may not prevent one from being a target, but it offers the means whereby to return fire.

I suspect LtCol Cooper has cited better historical analyses, but the Founding Fathers (e.g., Jefferson, Washington, George Mason) were pretty intent upon the merit of the right to bear arms. Based on my experience at four USAF and one USMC range, allowing service members to carry may assume more risk than safety, but if working outside the garrison, circumstances may indicate a degree of value thereof.

__________________
50 Years of DSOTM

Compared to schools, malls, recruiting stations and the like, the number of direct attacks on police stations is infinitesimal.

There's a BIG difference between somebody who wants to kill a lot of people, and somebody who wants to BE killed by the cops.

I get your point, but maybe here in Texas we have bigger nut jobs. In 2010 McKinney, Tx police headquarters was also attacked by a gunman laying in wait across the street from HQ hidden in a stand of trees....it happens.

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, only that it happens far less than attacks where the murderer knows almost NOBODY is going to be armed. That's because they want to kill the most people and inflict the maximum terror. That's not accomplished by getting shot before they harm anyone else, something FAR more likely to happen in an attack on a police station than in an attack on an Amish elementary school.

First I saw a question here above as to what training the recruiters have? For all to hear, they are often fresh out of hard duty, which is typically ME combat zones since they began years back. Many are also near the ends of their respective careers and get a close to home of record assignment. Suffice to say the military doesn't put an untrained soldier,sailor or marine out there recruiting! To be honest and blunt it ticks me off that question was even mentioned?
As we currently are hearing lots of comment that the recruiters are in need of arming themselves, I'll add some historical perspective. I'm going to avoid making any "take a side comments" about the Kent State University shootings that occurred in 1970 at the hands of armed Ohio NG troops. Too long to explain that so I suggest that the younger or more forgetful here, read the Wiki about the tragedy that happened there. Obviously those infantry & armor troops were not only armed but trained. As to there judgement it was fatally faulty.
Read the WIKI and gain further understanding.

For the record, I was a commisioned member of the KS ARNG,69th Inf Brigade(a unit that served on active duty in the Vietnam War) at that time. For further clarity here, I was a strong supporter of that war-to say the least! The previous occasions that my unit was called to serve & activated for domestic duty, just prior to Kent State were the Topeka,KS tornado where I had soldiers on looter duty with zero weapons. This while the LEO's were logically armed and over taxed, thus our presense during that horrific tornado scene -that the Red Cross used as a TV ad to raise funds for many years thereafter.


(Edit- Phil)


Fast forward to now when the NG is being armed by various governors for recruiting duty, a typically safe and designated, "soft" duty assignment. Now the times have changed-not only do I watch the news, we have had two sons serve 6 combat tours-don't lecture me on terrorism. One served yet another year flying civilian in war zone of Afghanistan.

I am also concerned that there are many active duty armed(?) forces serving in many jobs other than recruitment offices and some are quite public duty, such as ROTC and many other jobs. As related to the TN senario they have not been mentioned to my knowledge?
This stuff wont end anytime soon, nor will the anti-gun fervor of our times. I'm remembering the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the coincidence with those I mentioned above. Sameo, sameo, except now we have a different enemy in the world and they are real, no matter where you were on the Viet war.
Me, I say arm the recruiters.