Saturday, July 18, 2015

Chattanooga Shooting: Bullet-Riddled Glass Door With ‘Gun Free Zone’ Sign At Building Where Shooting Took Place Sparks Debate

Bullet Holes Next To "Gun Free Zone" Sign At The Military Recruitment Center, Chattanooga
Inquisitr

According to the Tennessean, Abdulazeez stopped his car in front of a building used as a military recruitment center and fired shots randomly through the glass doors from his car.
He then drove to another facility in Chattanooga, a Navy-Marine training center, according to the Tennessean, where, again, he opened fire.
Many gun advocates are pointing out the irony of the fact that at the recruitment center where the attack began, there were bullet holes in the glass door right next to the sign that designated the area a “gun free zone,” thus banning people from carrying guns within the facility.
Gun advocates commenting on the irony sparked a debate on social media, with many suggesting that the policy should be reviewed.
In an interview with CNN, a former NYPD police officer, Harry Houck, said the incident highlights the need to change the “gun free zone” policy at military bases, implemented during the administration of President Bill Clinton.

33 comments:

  1. Glad to see this very genuine debate taking place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Gun, the bloody High-Powered Rifle, is the True Symbol of These United States.

    Welcome to the NRA and The Republicans' Perfect America; A Bloody Wasteland of Bullet-Riddled Bodies. No one is safe in the United States anymore. NO ONE. Not Kindergarten Children. Not United States Marines. America has been consumed by the Gun Cultists.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Texas Governor Orders National Guard To Arm Troops On Base

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Full-time military personnel at National Guard facilities in six states could soon be armed after deadly shootings at two Tennessee military facilities raised questions about the vulnerability of the country's troops on home soil.
    The governors of Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Florida and Indiana have authorized the arming of full-time National Guard members to deter attacks and allow them the ability to protect themselves and civilians in case they are targeted."

    " Utah's governor said the National Guard was authorized to carry weapons on military facilities last year. Gov. Gary R. Herbert said in a statement Saturday that he directed the Guard to examine ways to further protect military personnel in the state. "

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/chattanooga-shooting/governors-order-national-guardsmen-be-armed-after-chattenooga-attack-n394476?cid=sm_fb

    Seven down, forty three to go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know if the National Guard is really qualified to handle guns safely. I guess we'll find out.

      Delete
    2. I don't know if the National Guard is really qualified to handle guns safely.

      Um, Mikeb, the National Guard has handled weapons systems as powerful as the MLRS (the use of which against American citizens features so prominently in Laci's fantasies), without any safety problems I've heard of.

      Delete
    3. "I don't know if the National Guard is really qualified to handle guns safely. I guess we'll find out."

      That's sort of funny considering that in the past you've considered them and law enforcement to be one of the few large groups who should be able to bear arms.
      Also keep in mind that a pretty fair percentage of National Guard members have been deployed in combat zones. Next time you're around a large group of soldiers, look for a patch on the right shoulder under the flag, that shows the unite they served with in a combat zone.
      National Guard also has a requirement to qualify with their assigned personal weapon periodically. That is what I've been doing since I returned from Iraq in '05, namely training soldiers and units who are deploying overseas.
      There is also a fair percentage who already have carry permits in their respective states. Ironically though, just as I am, they aren't allowed to carry on military facilities.
      And I imagine that if units decide to arm select soldiers, they'll likely be required to qualify all over again just to be sure of their skills. Something most combat arms soldiers will fight for a chance to do.

      Delete
    4. I don't think I ever gave the National Guard such consideration. I think of them as guys who spend two weeks in the summer playing soldier, hardly what I would consider adequately trained.

      And, about cops, I pretty much put them in the same category as I put civilian gun owners - about half of them are really with it, the other half lacking.

      Delete
    5. And yet you Second Amendment denialists (yeah, I probably made that word up--sue me--I like it) tell us that private citizens stopped being "the militia" when the National Guard was formed, taking over that role. So now we're to leave what's necessary to the security of a free state to half-trained play soldiers?

      Delete
    6. No, Kurt, we're not to leave the security of a free state to them or anyone else - other than the government. In the US we have the rule of law. We have a democratic system for adjusting those laws as needed. And we have law enforcement officers to do the job that you, in your megalomania, claim for yourself, a wheel-chair-bound militia of one. You're a joke.

      Delete
    7. MikeB: "In the US we have the rule of law. We have a democratic system for adjusting those laws as needed."

      Wait- what happened to your idea that we can just ignore laws by saying they are not necessary anymore without going through the system to adjust those laws?

      Delete
    8. To be clear, you think Laci is dead wrong when he says the second amendment is for the national guard.

      Delete
    9. No, Kurt, we're not to leave the security of a free state to them or anyone else - other than the government.

      You've got to be kidding me. You're the one who says, "The US government has already taken away your rights in so many areas . . .." You're the one who says, "While your monomanic obsession continues to grow unabated, the true freedoms that made America great have disappeared." You're the one who incessantly accuses the government's hired armed muscle of gunning down minorities, motivated by racial animus. Now suddenly this entity--guilty, according to you, of so much reprehensible oppression and evil--is the very same entity to which we are to turn to protect our liberties? You think this government is the one worthy of such blind faith? And you accuse others of "jingoism"?

      And "megalomania," Mikeb? What kind of power have I ever tried to wield over others?

      Oh, and if "wheel-chair-bound" is supposed to be insulting, you need some better insults.

      Delete
    10. In spite of the problems inherent in the US government, yes, I do believe they are responsible for the security of the state. You clowns are a bunch of self-aggrandizing idiots to think that lofty task falls to yourselves.

      Delete
    11. MikeB: "In spite of the problems inherent in the US government, yes, I do believe they are responsible for the security of the state."

      But not the National Guard- despite that their name implies their role is to guard the nation?

      Delete
    12. In spite of the problems inherent in the US government, yes, I do believe they are responsible for the security of the state.

      Problems so great, apparently, that you chose to leave the country that has that government, and raise your children elsewhere. You trust that government to protect your freedom better than you trust yourself to do so. How soul-crushing it must be to live that way. How abject. How pathetic.

      But then again, perhaps I've misunderstood something about you this whole time. Maybe your disdain for the U.S. has never been about the government (for which you actually seem to be quite the fanboy), but about the people governed by it. Maybe it's not America that you dislike, but Americans.

      Delete
    13. Actually, Kurt, I wrote a post once about why I prefer to live here and raise my kids here than in the US. As I recall, the "Americans" were a big part of it, Americans like you in particular.

      Delete
  5. Here is an interesting development,

    "One of the four Marines killed during Friday’s attack in Chattanooga may have been armed and could have exchanged fire with shooter Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, the Washington Post reported on Monday.
    Marines are not authorized to carry personally owned firearms at the Navy Operational Support Center, the second location Abdulazeez attacked during his violent spree, and where all five military fatalities occurred. But the FBI recovered a pistol from the scene which may have been “privately owned and used by one of the Marines,” according to the Post. Investigators are reviewing forensics to determine if the pistol was used to fire at or wound Abdulazeez, who died during the violence."

    "The Glock currently being examined by the FBI was found near one of the dead Marines, the Post reported. A Navy Petty Officer also died during the attack."

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/20/marine-may-have-been-armed-during-chattanooga-attack/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sad. One of them had a gun and it failed to save the day.

      Delete
    2. Sad. One of them had a gun and it failed to save the day.

      In the same way that it's sad that sometimes people wearing seat belts, in airbag-equipped cars, die in car accidents, anyway. And such cases of failure to "save the day" no more demonstrate that such safety features are valueless in car accidents, than this incident demonstrates that armed self-defense is useless against jihadis and other such vermin.

      Delete
    3. Sad. One of them had a gun and it failed to save the day.

      Mike, you seem to have the mind set in which if anyone is hurt or killed during a defensive gun use, then it did no good. Its quite possible that the terrorist having to deal with being shot at resulted in others not being killed or injured.

      Delete
    4. MikeB: "Sad. One of them had a gun and it failed to save the day."

      We recognize any acts of heroism during these tragedies- like a teacher barring a door momentarily, or a student yelling "run". Yet here you are dismissing this man's heroism as a failure because he fought back with a gun. Heck, the Brady Campaign lauds Colin Goddard as a hero for dialing 911 and playing dead.

      Delete
    5. None of you have the integrity to admit how embarrassing it is that the gun crowd immediately screamed "gun free zone," and then it turned out that not one, but two guys were armed anyway and it didn't help.

      Being armed is small comfort when a sneak or sudden attack occurs. But you guys keep talking about it as if it makes all the difference, and then when we show you examples like this one, you say, "oh, well, it doesn't work every time."

      Delete
    6. "None of you have the integrity to admit how embarrassing it is that the gun crowd immediately screamed "gun free zone," and then it turned out that not one, but two guys were armed anyway and it didn't help."

      I imagine its about as embarrassing as when everyone was yelling that a background check would have prevented the Charleston shooting for instance, and then a couple of days later, its discovered that the shooter did go through a background check.
      Actually I'm betting that the Marine and the Navy officer were glad they were armed at the time, especially the Marine. As for whether their being armed helped or not, that remains to be seen.
      I'm waiting for word on whether there were any holes in Joe terrorist from either of those two personal weapons. And I'm betting that having two people shooting at you likely, as Jayne would day, damaged his calm and might have helped other soldiers escape.

      Delete
  6. So gun loon Marines broke the law. No surprise there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So gun loon Marines broke the law. No surprise there."

      Well Anon, it appears that the Navy got involved also. Apparently, the post commander, a Navy Lt. Commander also threw some rounds at the bad guy also. I'm anxiously waiting to hear if either of them scored any hits. Kudos to both of them.

      "A report distributed among senior Navy leaders during the shooting's aftermath said Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White, the support center's commanding officer, used his personal firearm to engage Abdulazeez, Navy Times confirmed with four separate sources. A Navy official also confirmed a Washington Post report indicating one of the slain Marines may have been carrying a 9mm Glock and possibly returned fire on the gunman."

      http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/07/21/sources-navy-officer-marine-shot-chattanooga-gunman/30426817/

      Delete
    2. Thanks for pointing out that Navy people break the law also. Of course criminal gun loons like you shout "kudos" when people break the law.

      Delete
    3. "Of course criminal gun loons like you shout "kudos" when people break the law."

      Well Anon, I imagine you'd be quite happy of the Marine was prosecuted posthumously, and the Navy officer charged. I'm guessing that if the military decides to charge the base commander, he'll consider it a fair trade-off for protecting his troops.
      I personally hope that it doesn't happen.

      Delete
    4. So what charges should be brought against the idiot gun loon who fired off a shot while "protecting" a military office? What stupidity, but it's good to know you think this is what should be done. HA HA HA HA

      Delete
    5. Well Anon, if you read the article Mike posted on the event, then you'll find out. Though the question isn't really germane to this thread.

      Delete
    6. Seeking justice isn't a matter of being happy, but allowing people to brake the law makes you happy. Figures for a criminal supporting gun loon like you.

      Delete
    7. "Seeking justice isn't a matter of being happy, but allowing people to brake the law makes you happy."

      Well Anon, you may get your wish. I've actually seen a couple of articles out there that Lt. Cmdr. White is going to be charged with illegally discharging a firearm on federal property. No word if the charges will be a court martial or non-judicial punishment.
      And I'm not going to provide a link because it isn't from a source that's the regular media. Feel free to Google it if you wish, its out there. I sincerely hope the report is wrong.

      Delete
    8. Of course you do. You have made it perfectly clear you support law breakers and criminals. Typical gun loon stance.

      Delete