"Can you carry a concealed weapon on a military base? No. People on military bases may own and use guns, but they can't carry them around whenever or wherever they want. Every gun must be registered with the base's provost marshal—the equivalent of their chief of police—and stored in the armory. If they want to use the gun, whether for a military exercise, for leisure time at the on-base shooting range, or for off-base use, they have to check it out from the armory and return it immediately when they're done. Visitors who arrive with guns must leave them with the guards at the gate. "

Gee, if I ran a town this way (an armory, control of the guns, etc) I would be accused of being a commie. I guess the reality is its just thinking like the US military.

The army is kind of a communist organization: statist, regimented, everyone in barracks getting paid according to a strict scale determined by the government, no first amendment rights, apparently no second amendment rights, you can't leave...probably why you and I never opted to join the army.

I throw this one at you: would he have been able to shoot dozens of people if those people were armed?

How many more shootings would there be on base if everyone were armed? How many would have died in the "friendly" fire? I wondered how hard I would have to look to find that idiot question. You probably never joined because "you hate America" or had other priorities. ;-)

mark14:

How many more shootings would there be on base if everyone were armed? How many would have died in the "friendly" fire?

What about the policewoman who shot him -- how many soldiers died because of _her_ friendly fire? Did her presence double the danger -- on the theory that now people had to worry about bullets coming from _two_ directions?

How many more shootings would there be on base if everyone were armed?

Considering that the doomsday scenarios the gun control crowd trots out prior to states implementing concealed carry never seem to materialize, probably not much.

How many would have died in the "friendly" fire?

Ah yes. Gee, I wonder why the military and police don't go without firearms to avoid the huge problem of friendly fire. Clearly friendly fire is a greater danger than having an armed enemy firing upon you.

You missed my point. Despite the claims from the right, most liberals have simply asked for realistic gun policies including keeping heavy weapons at a community armory, registration of those who have them, training, etc.

Now here we have the ultimate conservative community--boorah!--everyone loves America, salutes the flag, respects authroity, hates the right people, etc and yet the gun laws here would be unacceptable in the typical red state town--but the rules for officers are different (because hey, they are more mature and stable right?) and therefore we have another nutjob with guns killing a bunch of people needlessly.

So at the end of the day, our most conservative patriots subscribe to the most liberal gun policies imaginable and the willingness of same to make exceptions of their superiors leads to the worst case imaginable.

No, I didn't miss your point. I was addressing mark's. I thought Blove addressed your point pretty well. It isn't so much that a military base is conservative; it's authoritarian. Enlisted and officers voluntarily sacrifice many of their freedoms to serve, including many that would rile them if these restrictions were enforced in a civilian environment. That goes for whether they're a rightwinger or a lefty. Also, what "different rules for officers" are you referring to? To my knowledge they also must register and store weapons in the armory. If we really must turn this story into a gun debate, it looks to me like heavy restrictions are difficult to enforce, making the law abiding more susceptible to those that break the rules.

Soldiers volunteer to enter the military and are told they are surrendering a significant portion of their rights as citizens when they do so. They have the right to free speech, but not to publically denigrate the military leadership or directly participate in private, party-related politics.

A critical distinction IF THEY CHOOSE TO LIVE ON BASE, they also give up some of their private right to keep and bear arms. When I was in the Army competed in small-bore target pistol competition, and as the article described, I had to keep my .22 Ruger Mark I Target pistol locked in the company arms room, and check it out of the arms room to use it.

Private citizens, and for that matter Soldiers living off post, aren't expected to surrender their civil rights when it comes to weapons ownership.

The Fort Hood murderer, like many Soldiers, elected to live off base. As such, his privately owned weapons were not kept in any Arms room. Cars are only randomly inspected (and infrequently unless there is an obvious threat and concomitant change in the force protection level. What Slate has written here is accurate, but lacks detail.

fsilber:

mark14:

How many more shootings would there be on base if everyone were armed? How many would have died in the "friendly" fire?

What about the policewoman who shot him -- how many soldiers died because of _her_ friendly fire? Did her presence double the danger -- on the theory that now people had to worry about bullets coming from _two_ directions?

I'll answer you and the others here one time and in simple language.

There were two parties with guns. The perpetrator and the uniformed police. The uniformed police do not constitute an armed citizenry. They were clearly identifiable and knew who the perptrator was. There was no friendly fire. If there had been a room full of people with guns how would you know who the perpetrator was when the second non uniformed shooter fired on the first (and the thrid on the second, etc, etc.). It isn't me but the miitary that you accuse of not getting it. They do. You don't.

see above

The other thing is, as with all gun control laws, the Army's gun control (so extreme it would be a political non-starter in the civilian world), did not, in fact, work. The person who ignored the law got to shoot unarmed people who had abided by it for uninterrupted minutes until the police arrived. The law abiding and disarmed could only be victims -- even those who were combat veterans and presumably could execute a "shoot-don't-shoot" drill in broad daylight.

Gun control is great at disarming those who obey the law. People who ignore the law are, however, unlikely to be affected.

As for "locking up the heavy weapons in an armory..." do you know, as a matter of history, where Clyde Barrow (the Clyde in "Bonnie and Clyde") got his automatic weapons? He robbed an armory (specifically a National Guard armory).

mark14:

fsilber:

mark14:

How many more shootings would there be on base if everyone were armed? How many would have died in the "friendly" fire?

What about the policewoman who shot him -- how many soldiers died because of _her_ friendly fire? Did her presence double the danger -- on the theory that now people had to worry about bullets coming from _two_ directions?

I'll answer you and the others here one time and in simple language.

There were two parties with guns. The perpetrator and the uniformed police. The uniformed police do not constitute an armed citizenry. They were clearly identifiable and knew who the perptrator was. There was no friendly fire. If there had been a room full of people with guns how would you know who the perpetrator was when the second non uniformed shooter fired on the first (and the thrid on the second, etc, etc.). It isn't me but the miitary that you accuse of not getting it. They do. You don't.

My rule is simple. If I see an armed civilian shoot at another armed civilian, not knowing which was the criminal and which was the off-duty police officer or virtuous armed private citizen, I would hold my fire and try to flee. If I see an armed civilian shoot at an unarmed civilian, I would conclude that the armed civilian was the criminal, and that it would be right to shoot him. All the moreso if he were shooting at _me_.

I don't see what is so difficult.

What a wild fantasy life and what a wide field of vision and ability to see through other things in your field of vision you have. And when you decide to lift up you gun how do I know who you are shooting at and how do I know if there is one shooter or three as was first reported about the Fort Hood shootings based, I would think, on original eye witness accounts?

trapdoor:

The other thing is, as with all gun control laws, the Army's gun control (so extreme it would be a political non-starter in the civilian world), did not, in fact, work. The person who ignored the law got to shoot unarmed people who had abided by it for uninterrupted minutes until the police arrived. The law abiding and disarmed could only be victims -- even those who were combat veterans and presumably could execute a "shoot-don't-shoot" drill in broad daylight.

Gun control is great at disarming those who obey the law. People who ignore the law are, however, unlikely to be affected.

As for "locking up the heavy weapons in an armory..." do you know, as a matter of history, where Clyde Barrow (the Clyde in "Bonnie and Clyde") got his automatic weapons? He robbed an armory (specifically a National Guard armory).

Drunk driving laws work for people who obey them. People who ignore the law are, however, unlikely to be affected.

Therefore we shouldn't have any drunk driving laws. Oh but I forgot, everyone carrying a gun as much as possible is a clear social good. Why is the military so frigging stupid about this simple fact?

Bonnie and Clyde also stole money form banks therefore we shouldn't keep money there (maybe not such a bad idea...).

Oh but I forgot, everyone carrying a gun as much as possible is a clear social good.

It need not be a "clear social good" to not criminalize it. If you're going to limit the rights of others, you better have a damn good reason, and an irrational fear of firearms isn't sufficient.

We heard from gun control advocates that if a state were to allow concealed carry then every bar fight or road rage incident would turn into a shootout and firearms accidents would spike. This turned out not to be the case, essentially proving that at least some forms of gun control restrict liberties without improving public safety. I don't need to prove it's a "social good". You need to prove it's a "social evil" for a ban.

On the other hand, there IS a very clear and proven causation between driving under the influence and a risk of crashing and injuring others. As such, it is appropriate to curtail people's ability to drink and drive in the interest of public safety.