It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Possible shooting reported at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: raedar

Thanks for that link, it does not seem to be related to this event though.





posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

If a shooter infiltrated a base, you wouldn't want them rearming themselves from the victims. That is one reason that comes to mind.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: carewemust
Are there so many shootings at Military facilities because so many people there are armed? If that's the correlation, then it wouldn't be good for ordinary citizens carry guns with them around town. That would escalate local violence too, wouldn't it?
-cwm


No, military bases are gun free zones in the US.


Because the military has COMMON SENSE while the government allows the NRA to call the shots - literally.
It's like all the pro-gun crazies claiming that guns should be permitted in schools, while banning them at NRA events and Trump rallies.

HYPOCRISY MUCH?



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

The NRA has millions of members. I agree they shouldn't have political influence. I believe that about lobbyist and unions in general.

However it's the second that allows people to carry guns in accordance to state public safety standards.

It's also completely false the NRA banned guns from any conventions. The members have to follow state and local laws.


Trump however I have no comment on.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Some might say that the NRA has enough power to stifle any meaningful debate about gun safety though.




posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

Sure. So do teachers unions.

How do states with strict gun laws do it?

Because their population voted that way.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Jonjonj

Sure. So do teachers unions.



Ouch, that is not relevant really...



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

Well they have a lot of influence over politics. My point is the systemic problem of lobby power is not restricted to the NRA. It's a symptom of a bigger problem.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

It isn't about hypocricy so much as it is about common sense.

Not everyone follows the rules and the police can't always get there in time when somebody wigs out and has access to firearms.

And it isn't about firearms so much as it being about means to project force over a distance.

Gee, what if it were a number of people with crossbows and bolts-a-plenty?.

What then?, not even any noise to judge what direction the projectile came from.

That would be interesting now, wouldn't it?.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Jonjonj

Well they have a lot of influence over politics. My point is the systemic problem of lobby power is not restricted to the NRA. It's a symptom of a bigger problem.


You will get not much argument from me about that. Two wrongs don't make a right either. And whataboutery shouldn't exclude relevant talking points. Just because all interest groups do the same thing shouldn't mean that all lobbying should be given the same weight.

Just my opinion.


edit on 8-4-2016 by Jonjonj because: clarity



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

Again my point is you can't allow your cause to go without scrutiny without expecting the same for someone else's. The NRA has millions of people who feel the way the organization represents itself. We are not talking about a board and CEO's Like Monsanto or something.

The second amendment is what allows the NRA to justify their cause. I hardly think it's purely subversive tactics in comparison to other lobby groups.

IMO if you attack the ability to lobby Congress and elections the influence you are concerned about will subside much more than trying to argue with gun owners.

edit on 8-4-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

It is common sense. Not in the way you're trying to spin it, though.

You can still personally own firearms in the military. But common sense dictates that it's a pain in the ass to drive a forklift wearing a rifle, much the same as its a pain in the ass to be a veterinary technician or a bulk fuel specialist or a flight deck crew member while carrying a rifle.

And being that a rifle is what the majority of people in the military shoot, once a year, common sense dictates it isn't really feasible to have everybody running around with a slung rifle. Add to that the weapons are not personally owned, and it makes even less sense to have to go through checking them in and out of the armory every day. The armory sucks enough as it is.

Throttle back the spin game.
edit on 8-4-2016 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Shootings in and around military bases are fairly common (and often with tragic consequences.) Weapons are easily accessible and in military towns, everything from knives and swords on up is usually easy to buy.

While the bases may be "gun free" they're not EXACTLY gun free. Under certain circumstances someone may carry a weapon (and the military police unit is always armed.) As a rule, guns have never been worn around base ... this dates back to the 1950's ... and I'm speaking from experience.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I think officers/commanders can carry in AF bases now? Is that correct?



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I don't know, I wasn't Air Force. To the best of my recollection, weapons could be issued under a commander's authority so I suppose it's possible that a commander somewhere could direct weapons to be issued.

Also not sure if Air Force pilots/air crew fly armed inside CONUS or not.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I think they made the change after ft Hood. I just saw a snippet reminding commanders than can carry.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: luthier

I don't know, I wasn't Air Force. To the best of my recollection, weapons could be issued under a commander's authority so I suppose it's possible that a commander somewhere could direct weapons to be issued.

Also not sure if Air Force pilots/air crew fly armed inside CONUS or not.


As an army aviator(former) we never flew with weapons unless we were training.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

As opposed to what type of flying?

Genuine question, as the only time I was ever in aircraft was to get from one place to another as a passenger. I just assumed any flying was training unless it was a mission?



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

It would have to be gunnery training for us to break out the guns.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Gotcha. Makes sense, and thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join