So the fact that the soldier that went on a rampage had PTSD issues and the catalyst that started this has nothing to do with it right? The same hot headed soldier who the other day people didn't know about ?the same soldier who served
Alongside others? The same soldier who wasn't taken care of properly and vented out with violence of a weapon?
The fact that he still decided to pick up a gun and go on a rampage doesn't change the fact that others could have stopped him and had a right to defend themselves. It's pretty obvious to me that the rules didn't dissuade this guy from doing what he did, they only affected the victims ability to defend themselves.
The moment he picked up a gun and started shooting people everyone thinks the right answer is to kill him but you guys also complain about not taking care of the deeper issues like "take better care of our troops"
Why is it that there's only one way to skin this cat? Doesn't it seem like a good idea to both let people defend themselves AND make sure soldiers with difficulties get the help they need and DESERVE to try and put their lives back together after going down range on our behalf?
Weren't the other mil related shootings from broken service members?
IDK, the first Ft Hood shooting sure seems to me that it was PC bullshit that brought a terrorist into the fold, or at a bare minimum ignored warning signs that he was clearly not on our side, and when he struck was downplayed as workplace violence when it was clearly a terrorist attack carried out by a Muslim extremist.
How did these get by unvoiced
And unnoticed yet everyone wants to put a bandaid on this problem by taking his life by others with a ccw? What about taking care of the root of the problem so you can engage such issues without loss of life or wait until he does something terrible?
I don't think anyone is saying there's no need for making sure that soldiers with problems get the help they need. See above, again why only one or the other?
Why does everyone want to be quick to the trigger? God forbid any of you put into positions to defend anyone if you think killing is the only answer.
When someone goes on a shooting rampage, that is the only option, you kill the fucker right then and there to stop him from killing more innocent people. When someone has made the decision to start indiscriminately killing people, your not going to talk them out of it once they start. They don't ever just stop in the middle and decide, "oh damn, that wasn't very nice, I better talk it out with someone" They either off themselves, or give up once someone shows up with the hardware to stop them.
You think Adam Lanza was the wrong doer or everyone else who failed him and let him do what he did at sandy? How about be a real leader and take care of your troops instead of let them fly off the handle and tell everyone they can be a vigilante ?
Adam Lanza was so seriously screwed up it's amazing. He was a volatile cocktail that had had nearly every possible form of treatment given to him besides the one that was needed (institutional commitment). Once he stepped into that school and started shooting, there's no "saving him"
How about ccw for senior NCOs or officers who are appointed members in the service who are probably better at handling situations like these ?
I'm not a military man (I was declined by the recruiters for medical reasons) but WTF makes them more qualified to better handle these situations? That's a pretty broad brush to paint and shows a certain amount of arrogance toward the enlisted personnel. What about simply saying ccw for those willing to go through an evaluation process? Rank shouldn't matter when it comes down to self defense.
Can you guys even imagine past the fact that if someone had a ccw on post they could have stopped him earlier ? Look at the other shit you have worry about .
Anyone can get a ccw too easily. That doesn't give anyone the right to be a self appointed cop to stop active shooters because they'll be putting more at risk.
Look at what soldiers are posting and saying about this. They'll go out to kill an active shooter. What kind of attitude is that? You guys really can't see an accident waiting to happen with this?
You're also leaving out the simple premise, yet again, that you don't see yourself as the one that shooter walks up on first, or you apparently see yourself as one of the privileged few that gets to be armed.
Does this make the Leo or any alphabet agency worthless if all we need is someone with a ccw? Because that seems to be the general answer. Fuck cops we can handle this ourselves.
Again, no, it's saying "I don't want to wait around for them to show up when some nut job is shoving a gun in my face while only wanting to kill indiscriminately" Because guess what, if you're the one who he picks first, you're just dead, you didn't have any say in it, and no way to defend yourself. You seem to assume that somehow, there's no way you could ever end up in that position.
You guys that serve would be fuckin liars if you haven't seen a sharp, eo, PTSD or shit swept under a rug on a daily basis. Troops get away with it way too easily so yeah forgive me if I think there are those among us that shouldn't be in the military or have a weapon period.
Yet the same people will still get deployed again and get issued a weapon AGAIN to go up against the enemy....... Again, I haven't seen anyone here say they should not be identified and treated for their issues, but the stark reality is that if they snap, they'll find their weapon one way or the other, and the rules no longer apply to them as they have made the conversion from soldier to criminal at that point, and all the rules in the world don't mean shit.
Only competent people should have a ccw. Not everyone and that includes people in uniform
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
