Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
Showing Original Post only (View all)Why Military Security Experts Know That Arming All Troops Is Not the Answer [View all]
The argument that all military service members should be armed with guns to protect themselves proffered by GOP presidential candidates Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Donald Trump in the wake of the shooting deaths of four Marines and a sailor last week in Chattanooga, Tennessee is so basic that theres not much argument to it at all. Railing against gun-free zones last Friday, Trump summed the case up in this way: This sick guy had guns and shot them down. These are decorated people. These are people who could have handled guns very easily. They would have had a good chance if they had a gun. In making their cases, the presidential hopefuls echoed a Connecticut car repairman whose shop is near a military recruiting office, who told the Associated Press that arming its occupants made perfect sense to him. Most of them are trained infantrymen, the repairman asserted. That definitely would make it a lot more safe. Theyre military, they know how to use guns, how could we not have every one of them be armed all the time, just in case?
The argument is intuitive enough for a political sound bite and, like many sound bites, does not hold up well under fact-checking. It reflects a basic misconception about the average military members proficiency with guns, and it flat-out misses the reality that armed-forces installations are not gun-free zones by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, the military has fairly liberal guidelines empowering its commanders to arm members to defend themselves. Its just that those guidelines prioritize personal safety and the high likelihood of gun mishaps over statistically rare tragedies like the Chattanooga shooting.
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/military-bases-chattanooga-gun-free-over-arming/
The argument is intuitive enough for a political sound bite and, like many sound bites, does not hold up well under fact-checking. It reflects a basic misconception about the average military members proficiency with guns, and it flat-out misses the reality that armed-forces installations are not gun-free zones by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, the military has fairly liberal guidelines empowering its commanders to arm members to defend themselves. Its just that those guidelines prioritize personal safety and the high likelihood of gun mishaps over statistically rare tragedies like the Chattanooga shooting.
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/military-bases-chattanooga-gun-free-over-arming/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
29 replies, 4102 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
29 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Military Security Experts Know That Arming All Troops Is Not the Answer [View all]
SecularMotion
Jul 2015
OP
Blog fraud. There were no military experts cited in the article stating what the headline claims. nt
Nuclear Unicorn
Jul 2015
#2
There must be money in disarming people; or at least future money, what's in it for Bloomy???
ileus
Jul 2015
#17
We have Marines guarding embassies, but they're not equipped to guard enlistment stations?
pablo_marmol
Jul 2015
#12