>>> There are people there that were hit as many as four times.
>> Probably......two handguns with up to twenty rounds apiece and >> magazines to reload with don't take more than a second or so to >> change out.
>>> How could he not have been tackled by what seems to have been a room >>> full of "military" personnel being redied to ship out to combat?
>> When you are being shot at, John Wayne is not usually your first >> model to use.
> Yes it is. I saw one estimate that over 100 people (unarmed) rushed TO > the scene of the carnage.
The population of Ft Hood is over 35,000. I would venture that many of the "over 100" simply went to see what was going on and didn't really have any intention of going there to stop the shooter. Those in immediate vicinity were not rushing TO the scene, they were rushing away from it. Does that mean that they are cowards? Absolutely not. The first rule of surviving a gunfight is find cover, THEN plan out further defensive action. It does one no good to simply stand there in the line of fire.
-- Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?
>>> She was civilian security. Her _job_ was to be armed. She >>> was >>> also trained to be aggressive when confronting a shooter. She did >>> well, even though she took a hit.
>> She was also considered a weapons expert on the SWAT team.
> There are those who are experts with gun and there are those who rush > to the sound of the guns.
> Fortunately, in this case, the two characteristics overlapped.
Yep, according to reports she not only responded, but she was shooting as she closed with him. He charged her after her initial shot and she took him down while she, herself, suffered wounds to her wrist, lower leg and thigh. I don't know how many rounds she (or he) fired, but she got him four times and stopped the carnage. She deserves every kudo she gets.
-- Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?
>>>> There are people there that were hit as many as four times.
>>> Probably......two handguns with up to twenty rounds apiece and >>> magazines to reload with don't take more than a second or so to >>> change out.
>>>> How could he not have been tackled by what seems to have been a room >>>> full of "military" personnel being redied to ship out to combat?
>>> When you are being shot at, John Wayne is not usually your first >>> model to use.
>> Yes it is. I saw one estimate that over 100 people (unarmed) rushed TO >> the scene of the carnage.
>The population of Ft Hood is over 35,000. I would venture that many of >the "over 100" simply went to see what was going on and didn't really >have any intention of going there to stop the shooter. Those in >immediate vicinity were not rushing TO the scene, they were rushing away >from it. Does that mean that they are cowards? Absolutely not. The >first rule of surviving a gunfight is find cover, THEN plan out further >defensive action. It does one no good to simply stand there in the line >of fire.
Please remember that most of those in here are chickenhawks and didn't have the balls to serve. They don't know what they are talking about.
>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote: >>>>> There are people there that were hit as many as four times. >>>> Probably......two handguns with up to twenty rounds apiece and >>>> magazines to reload with don't take more than a second or so to >>>> change out.
>>>>> How could he not have been tackled by what seems to have been a room >>>>> full of "military" personnel being redied to ship out to combat? >>>> When you are being shot at, John Wayne is not usually your first >>>> model to use.
>>> Yes it is. I saw one estimate that over 100 people (unarmed) rushed TO >>> the scene of the carnage. >> The population of Ft Hood is over 35,000. I would venture that many of >> the "over 100" simply went to see what was going on and didn't really >> have any intention of going there to stop the shooter. Those in >> immediate vicinity were not rushing TO the scene, they were rushing away >>from it. Does that mean that they are cowards? Absolutely not. The >> first rule of surviving a gunfight is find cover, THEN plan out further >> defensive action. It does one no good to simply stand there in the line >> of fire.
> Please remember that most of those in here are chickenhawks and didn't > have the balls to serve. They don't know what they are talking about.
>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote: >>>>> There are people there that were hit as many as four times. >>>> Probably......two handguns with up to twenty rounds apiece and >>>> magazines to reload with don't take more than a second or so to >>>> change out.
>>>>> How could he not have been tackled by what seems to have been a room >>>>> full of "military" personnel being redied to ship out to combat? >>>> When you are being shot at, John Wayne is not usually your first >>>> model to use.
>>> Yes it is. I saw one estimate that over 100 people (unarmed) rushed TO >>> the scene of the carnage. >> The population of Ft Hood is over 35,000. I would venture that many of >> the "over 100" simply went to see what was going on and didn't really >> have any intention of going there to stop the shooter. Those in >> immediate vicinity were not rushing TO the scene, they were rushing away >>from it. Does that mean that they are cowards? Absolutely not. The >> first rule of surviving a gunfight is find cover, THEN plan out further >> defensive action. It does one no good to simply stand there in the line >> of fire.
> Please remember that most of those in here are chickenhawks and didn't > have the balls to serve. They don't know what they are talking about.
And lets also hope this doesn't turn into another Jessica Lynch story complete with friendly fire casualties and embarrass everyone...
--
}(:
It is clear that the "Birthers", "Teabaggers", politicians and media hosts or pundits that purvey messages of resistance, insurrection and don't want their kids to go to school to hear the words of the POTUS have become the dupes and stooges of foreign intelligence services that wish to see the US destabilized by a bunch of fools - they must be laughing their heads off at these wingnuts who are so ready to be their pawns...
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Stephan Rothstein <srothst...@earthlink.net> reported Elvis on Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:29:45 -0600 in misc.survivalism:
>Lookout wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 20:59:36 -0800 (PST), Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> >> wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 5:00 pm, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> It hasn't been proven yet. Why would they start a lie. Remember..the >>>> news media are all liberals and it's the conservatives who love to >>>> lie. >>> The list of liberal lies is so long as to boggle the mind. They have >>> been doing it forever. But the latest wrinkle is to accuse all >>> conservatives of lying. That's the oldest trick in the book. The >>> criminal always accuses his victim of being the criminal.
>>> You are obviously the liar here.
>> Shall I start with Reagan or Nixon. About the lying I mean. Or we can >> start with bush if you like.
>Just for technical accuracy, I think you would need to go much further >back to find the first lying politician. In the US, I know it goes as >far back as Lincoln and would bet on it going back to Washington. And >that is just among the presidents, obviously. If we include the other >politicians (like the colonial governors), we could probably trace it >back as far as the Battle of Hastings.
Why stop there?
I recall an illustration, of a caveman standing on a rock, addressing other cavemen. "Things have been pretty bad for a while, but now that we have invented language, you're going to be hearing a lot more about it."
Politicians are the same the world over. They promise a bridge where there is no river. Nikita Krushchev. - pyotr filipivich The two oldest cliches in the book are "The Good Old Days were better." and "After all, these are Modern TImes."
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> reported Elvis on Sat, 7 Nov 2009 07:52:37 -0500 in misc.survivalism:
>What a shame. The government doesn't trust soliers with >guns.
Yep. Too much experience with dumb soldiers.
pyotr
- pyotr filipivich. Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel, you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> reported Elvis on Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:36:48 -0600 in misc.survivalism:
>>>I was shocked to learn that bullets are not in guns inside the base, >>>if you are millitary
>> Been that ways since ... the invention of cartridges? gunpowder?
>>>So, I believe she must have been a civilian, working as security, >>>therefore having bullets in her gun? >>>haven't heard all details as of yet
>> She was civilian security. Her _job_ was to be armed. She was >> also trained to be aggressive when confronting a shooter. She did >> well, even though she took a hit.
>She was also considered a weapons expert on the SWAT team.
If it looks stupid, but it works - it isn't stupid.
pyotr - pyotr filipivich. Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel, you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> reported Elvis on Sat, 7 Nov 2009 05:51:14 -0600 in misc.survivalism:
>Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>> - >>> Not surprising at all. The woman was armed, the men were not. That's >>> the >>> beauty of guns...levels out the playing field for those who would >>> otherwise >>> be powerless.
>> Wrong...there were men who were armed.
>Uh, no. Not a single one. Some armed men arrived AFTER the shooting begain, >but there were initially none in the vicinity. The first armed person on the >scene was the lady and she was responding to a radio call.
Actually, as in all Gun Free Zones, the first armed person to arrive was the one with criminal intent.
tschus pyotr - pyotr filipivich. Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel, you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> reported Elvis on Sat, 7 Nov 2009 13:30:27 -0600 in misc.survivalism:
>>> There are people there that were hit as many as four times.
>> Probably......two handguns with up to twenty rounds apiece and >> magazines to reload with don't take more than a second or so to >> change out.
>>> How could he not have been tackled by what seems to have been a room >>> full of "military" personnel being redied to ship out to combat?
>> When you are being shot at, John Wayne is not usually your first >> model to use.
>Yes it is. I saw one estimate that over 100 people (unarmed) rushed TO the >scene of the carnage.
Why? Why were they rushing _to_ the scene?
To throw their bodies in the way, or to help those injured, or to find out what the hell is happening?
People rush to the scene of fires and accidents, too.
pyotr - pyotr filipivich. Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel, you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
>> RD (The Sandman) wrote: >>>> There are people there that were hit as many as four times. >>> Probably......two handguns with up to twenty rounds apiece and >>> magazines to reload with don't take more than a second or so to >>> change out.
>>>> How could he not have been tackled by what seems to have been a room >>>> full of "military" personnel being redied to ship out to combat? >>> When you are being shot at, John Wayne is not usually your first >>> model to use.
>> Yes it is. I saw one estimate that over 100 people (unarmed) rushed TO >> the scene of the carnage.
> The population of Ft Hood is over 35,000. I would venture that many of > the "over 100" simply went to see what was going on and didn't really > have any intention of going there to stop the shooter. Those in > immediate vicinity were not rushing TO the scene, they were rushing away > from it. Does that mean that they are cowards? Absolutely not. The > first rule of surviving a gunfight is find cover, THEN plan out further > defensive action. It does one no good to simply stand there in the line > of fire.
The first rule of combat is to engage and crush the enemy. And who is the enemy? Anyone trying to kill you. At least that used to be the first rule.
These were trained and in some cases, experienced infantry, were they not? But how were they trained? How were they conditioned?
The shooter was surrounded by hundreds of trained, fit, soldiers. They could have crushed him in seconds.
Finding the enemy was no problem. Then it all broke down.
They *reacted* just like the VPI students. Run and hide.
One man, one inexperienced out-of-shape doctor, with two .22 pistols routed 300 soldiers and shut down the post for hours.
Not that it was a secret, all the world now knows the truth.
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> reported Elvis on Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:52:56 -0500 in misc.survivalism:
>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote: >>>>> There are people there that were hit as many as four times. >>>> Probably......two handguns with up to twenty rounds apiece and >>>> magazines to reload with don't take more than a second or so to >>>> change out.
>>>>> How could he not have been tackled by what seems to have been a room >>>>> full of "military" personnel being redied to ship out to combat? >>>> When you are being shot at, John Wayne is not usually your first >>>> model to use.
>>> Yes it is. I saw one estimate that over 100 people (unarmed) rushed TO >>> the scene of the carnage.
>> The population of Ft Hood is over 35,000. I would venture that many of >> the "over 100" simply went to see what was going on and didn't really >> have any intention of going there to stop the shooter. Those in >> immediate vicinity were not rushing TO the scene, they were rushing away >> from it. Does that mean that they are cowards? Absolutely not. The >> first rule of surviving a gunfight is find cover, THEN plan out further >> defensive action. It does one no good to simply stand there in the line >> of fire.
>The first rule of combat is to engage and crush the enemy. And who >is the enemy? Anyone trying to kill you. At least that used to be >the first rule.
>These were trained and in some cases, experienced infantry, were they >not? But how were they trained? How were they conditioned?
>The shooter was surrounded by hundreds of trained, fit, soldiers. >They could have crushed him in seconds.
>Finding the enemy was no problem. Then it all broke down.
>They *reacted* just like the VPI students. Run and hide.
>One man, one inexperienced out-of-shape doctor, with two .22 pistols >routed 300 soldiers and shut down the post for hours.
>Not that it was a secret, all the world now knows the truth.
Dear God, save me from being near the ones who are surfeited with courage, and lack sense.
As Aristotle pointed out, many of the virtues are a balance between vices of excess or deficient. That is to say, courage is the median between an excess of bravery, and a lack of the virtue of prudence. (Cowardice is an excess of prudence, but a lack of bravery.)
pyotr - pyotr filipivich. Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel, you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
>> A declining society means that persons will become more and more >> responsible for their >> personal security.
> Safety is a delusion. Peace of mind is achieved despite the dangers of > life after birth.
Damn, a semi-intelligent statement! It's about time - all this flame war shit is such a waste of time.
I might add that the peace of mind to which you refer is achieved as a matter of conscious choice. We have the choice to live in morbid fear... or not. I choose not to, as do many others. Then there are the liberals...
> > >> A declining society means that persons will become more and more > > >> responsible for their > > >> personal security.
> > >> tt
> > >Also very interesting to see that ONE woman could get done what a ROOM > > >of men could not.
> > >TMT
> > - > > Not surprising at all. The woman was armed, the men were not. That's the > > beauty of guns...levels out the playing field for those who would otherwise > > be powerless.
> Wrong...there were men who were armed.
> TMT
There was only one armed man in there... the one that you want to have say whether other people can own firearms or not.
How does it feel when your world crashes down on you?
> >> A declining society means that persons will become more and more > >> responsible for their > >> personal security.
> >> tt
> >Also very interesting to see that ONE woman could get done what a ROOM > >of men could not.
> >TMT
> - > Not surprising at all. The woman was armed, the men were not. That's the > beauty of guns...levels out the playing field for those who would > otherwise > be powerless.
********** <Wrong...there were men who were armed. < <TMT - Maybe another cop. But the group that was attacked was unarmed. Troops moving around an army post don't carry loaded weapons unless the day's activity calls for it. --Wayne <an unloaded weapon is the same as no weapon>
Strabo wrote: > RD (The Sandman) wrote: >> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in >> news:1-GdnUDYJcpJV2jXnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@earthlink.com: >>> RD (The Sandman) wrote: >>>>> There are people there that were hit as many as four times. >>>> Probably......two handguns with up to twenty rounds apiece and >>>> magazines to reload with don't take more than a second or so to >>>> change out.
>>>>> How could he not have been tackled by what seems to have been a room >>>>> full of "military" personnel being redied to ship out to combat? >>>> When you are being shot at, John Wayne is not usually your first >>>> model to use.
>>> Yes it is. I saw one estimate that over 100 people (unarmed) rushed TO >>> the scene of the carnage.
>> The population of Ft Hood is over 35,000. I would venture that many >> of the "over 100" simply went to see what was going on and didn't >> really have any intention of going there to stop the shooter. Those >> in immediate vicinity were not rushing TO the scene, they were rushing >> away from it. Does that mean that they are cowards? Absolutely not. >> The first rule of surviving a gunfight is find cover, THEN plan out >> further defensive action. It does one no good to simply stand there >> in the line of fire.
> The first rule of combat is to engage and crush the enemy. And who > is the enemy? Anyone trying to kill you. At least that used to be > the first rule.
> These were trained and in some cases, experienced infantry, were they > not? But how were they trained? How were they conditioned?
No, they were not all fit and trained infantry. The building is primarily a processing center and is staffed by a medical unit. The people bing processed were from many different units with many different MOS's. Some were active duty career, and some were reserves who had just reported in for their call-up.
Yes, there were some trained, experienced, fit combat soldiers int he group. And there are many stories of individual heroic efforts, such as the soldier who heard the shots, popped out of the cubicle to see what was going on, then popped back in, forced the civilian medtech who had been about to give him a shot under the table, and shielded her with his body. Many others ran out and started giving first aid, some even while the shooting was still going on. There were a few who did run, but we have no idea yet if they were trained infantry or some other MOS.
And remember, for the non-combat experienced soldiers, we basically have a large group of young kids (19 average age for lower enlisted being readied for deployment) with little more than 10 weeks of basic training and a few more weeks in their specialty. I would expect that group to act like college students.
>> Yes it is. I saw one estimate that over 100 people (unarmed) rushed >> TO the scene of the carnage.
> The population of Ft Hood is over 35,000. I would venture that many > of the "over 100" simply went to see what was going on and didn't > really have any intention of going there to stop the shooter. Those > in immediate vicinity were not rushing TO the scene, they were > rushing away from it. Does that mean that they are cowards? > Absolutely not. The first rule of surviving a gunfight is find > cover, THEN plan out further defensive action. It does one no good > to simply stand there in the line of fire.
You would venture wrong. There were 300 medics undergoing graduation ceremonies across the street. Many of them rushed to the scene, still in their cap and gowns. Others fashioned emergency bandages and rendered first aid while several drove their personal vehicles up to the doors, helped load the wounded, and drove them to the base hospital.
The first rule of a military gunfight is NOT to seek cover. The first rule of a gun fight is to attack the enemy. He who hesitates, dies, along with the rest of his unit.
Wayne wrote: >> - >> Not surprising at all. The woman was armed, the men were not. That's >> the beauty of guns...levels out the playing field for those who would >> otherwise >> be powerless. > ********** > <Wrong...there were men who were armed. > < > <TMT > - > Maybe another cop. But the group that was attacked was unarmed. Troops > moving around an army post don't carry loaded weapons unless > the day's activity calls for it.
There were no armed friendlies within a mile of the shooting. The first armed help took three minutes to get to the scene, in a car, after receiving a radio call.
Stephan Rothstein wrote: > Strabo wrote: >> RD (The Sandman) wrote: >>> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in >>> news:1-GdnUDYJcpJV2jXnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@earthlink.com: >>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote: >>>>>> There are people there that were hit as many as four times. >>>>> Probably......two handguns with up to twenty rounds apiece and >>>>> magazines to reload with don't take more than a second or so to >>>>> change out.
>>>>>> How could he not have been tackled by what seems to have been a room >>>>>> full of "military" personnel being redied to ship out to combat? >>>>> When you are being shot at, John Wayne is not usually your first >>>>> model to use.
>>>> Yes it is. I saw one estimate that over 100 people (unarmed) rushed TO >>>> the scene of the carnage.
>>> The population of Ft Hood is over 35,000. I would venture that many >>> of the "over 100" simply went to see what was going on and didn't >>> really have any intention of going there to stop the shooter. Those >>> in immediate vicinity were not rushing TO the scene, they were >>> rushing away from it. Does that mean that they are cowards? >>> Absolutely not. The first rule of surviving a gunfight is find >>> cover, THEN plan out further defensive action. It does one no good >>> to simply stand there in the line of fire.
>> The first rule of combat is to engage and crush the enemy. And who >> is the enemy? Anyone trying to kill you. At least that used to be >> the first rule.
>> These were trained and in some cases, experienced infantry, were they >> not? But how were they trained? How were they conditioned?
> No, they were not all fit and trained infantry. The building is > primarily a processing center and is staffed by a medical unit. The > people bing processed were from many different units with many different > MOS's. Some were active duty career, and some were reserves who had just > reported in for their call-up.
This was not a PTA meeting.
These were active duty deployable soldiers expected to confront the enemy in battle *and beat him.*
They all underwent army basic training which includes PT, weapons and self-defense. All army personnel are assumed to be available for combat under 'do-or-die' conditions. They all undergo physicals. They were fit enough but *wrongly trained and conditioned.*
Why are they called warriors?
There were exceptions but as a group *they did the opposite to enhance their personal survival and that of their fellow soldiers and their unit.*
The closet people should have IMMEDIATELY charged the gunman. That should have been their training, their second nature, their conditioned response. It would have ended in seconds with 3 or 4 casualties tops.
That post CO should be replaced by Sergeant Kimberly Munley. At least she has the guts and the spirit to inspire and motivate.
Pathetic situation.
>
> Yes, there were some trained, experienced, fit combat soldiers int he > group. And there are many stories of individual heroic efforts, such as > the soldier who heard the shots, popped out of the cubicle to see what > was going on, then popped back in, forced the civilian medtech who had > been about to give him a shot under the table, and shielded her with his > body. Many others ran out and started giving first aid, some even while > the shooting was still going on. There were a few who did run, but we > have no idea yet if they were trained infantry or some other MOS.
> And remember, for the non-combat experienced soldiers, we basically have > a large group of young kids (19 average age for lower enlisted being > readied for deployment) with little more than 10 weeks of basic training > and a few more weeks in their specialty. I would expect that group to > act like college students.
Steve, you're making excuses for them and for the US military. The students at VPI got away with bad judgment and were praised as being "brave". But on an Army post? In the daytime? Among 300 soon-to-be deployed troops? That was a piss poor performance and no amount of excuse making will change the truth, the US is in big trouble.
HeyBub wrote: > RD (The Sandman) wrote: >>> Yes it is. I saw one estimate that over 100 people (unarmed) rushed >>> TO the scene of the carnage. >> The population of Ft Hood is over 35,000. I would venture that many >> of the "over 100" simply went to see what was going on and didn't >> really have any intention of going there to stop the shooter. Those >> in immediate vicinity were not rushing TO the scene, they were >> rushing away from it. Does that mean that they are cowards? >> Absolutely not. The first rule of surviving a gunfight is find >> cover, THEN plan out further defensive action. It does one no good >> to simply stand there in the line of fire.
> You would venture wrong. There were 300 medics undergoing graduation > ceremonies across the street. Many of them rushed to the scene, still in > their cap and gowns. Others fashioned emergency bandages and rendered first > aid while several drove their personal vehicles up to the doors, helped load > the wounded, and drove them to the base hospital.
> The first rule of a military gunfight is NOT to seek cover. The first rule > of a gun fight is to attack the enemy. He who hesitates, dies, along with > the rest of his unit.
Hey Bub, you're exactly right.
In a *close-in surprise attack* you're already at the highest risk possible. There's no logical choice but to reach and block and overcome your attacker. To do otherwise increases risk.
They gave in to their primal fear because *they were not properly trained.*
> Stephan Rothstein wrote: > > Strabo wrote: > >> RD (The Sandman) wrote: > >>> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in > >>>news:1-GdnUDYJcpJV2jXnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@earthlink.com: > >>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote: > >>>>>> There are people there that were hit as many as four times. > >>>>> Probably......two handguns with up to twenty rounds apiece and > >>>>> magazines to reload with don't take more than a second or so to > >>>>> change out.
> >>>>>> How could he not have been tackled by what seems to have been a room > >>>>>> full of "military" personnel being redied to ship out to combat? > >>>>> When you are being shot at, John Wayne is not usually your first > >>>>> model to use.
> >>>> Yes it is. I saw one estimate that over 100 people (unarmed) rushed TO > >>>> the scene of the carnage.
> >>> The population of Ft Hood is over 35,000. I would venture that many > >>> of the "over 100" simply went to see what was going on and didn't > >>> really have any intention of going there to stop the shooter. Those > >>> in immediate vicinity were not rushing TO the scene, they were > >>> rushing away from it. Does that mean that they are cowards? > >>> Absolutely not. The first rule of surviving a gunfight is find > >>> cover, THEN plan out further defensive action. It does one no good > >>> to simply stand there in the line of fire.
> >> The first rule of combat is to engage and crush the enemy. And who > >> is the enemy? Anyone trying to kill you. At least that used to be > >> the first rule.
> >> These were trained and in some cases, experienced infantry, were they > >> not? But how were they trained? How were they conditioned?
> > No, they were not all fit and trained infantry. The building is > > primarily a processing center and is staffed by a medical unit. The > > people bing processed were from many different units with many different > > MOS's. Some were active duty career, and some were reserves who had just > > reported in for their call-up.
> This was not a PTA meeting.
> These were active duty deployable soldiers expected to confront > the enemy in battle *and beat him.*
> They all underwent army basic training which includes PT, weapons > and self-defense. All army personnel are assumed to be available for > combat under 'do-or-die' conditions. They all undergo physicals. They > were fit enough but *wrongly trained and conditioned.*
> Why are they called warriors?
> There were exceptions but as a group *they did the opposite to enhance > their personal survival and that of their fellow soldiers and their > unit.*
> The closet people should have IMMEDIATELY charged the gunman. That > should have been their training, their second nature, their conditioned > response. It would have ended in seconds with 3 or 4 casualties tops.
> That post CO should be replaced by Sergeant Kimberly Munley. At least > she has the guts and the spirit to inspire and motivate.
> Pathetic situation.
> >
> > Yes, there were some trained, experienced, fit combat soldiers int he > > group. And there are many stories of individual heroic efforts, such as > > the soldier who heard the shots, popped out of the cubicle to see what > > was going on, then popped back in, forced the civilian medtech who had > > been about to give him a shot under the table, and shielded her with his > > body. Many others ran out and started giving first aid, some even while > > the shooting was still going on. There were a few who did run, but we > > have no idea yet if they were trained infantry or some other MOS.
> > And remember, for the non-combat experienced soldiers, we basically have > > a large group of young kids (19 average age for lower enlisted being > > readied for deployment) with little more than 10 weeks of basic training > > and a few more weeks in their specialty. I would expect that group to > > act like college students.
> Steve, you're making excuses for them and for the US military. The > students at VPI got away with bad judgment and were praised as being > "brave". But on an Army post? In the daytime? Among 300 soon-to-be > deployed troops? That was a piss poor performance and no amount of > excuse making will change the truth, the US is in big trouble.
> >
We should round up every street hood, white, black, latino, and asian, pay them good money to "sign up" and do just what they like on the streets of Iraq/Afg and show the world just what a "tough American" will do if they point a gun at them. Or, hell, just shanghai them like they did in the "good ole' days" with useless street vultures. Maybe we can throw open the doors of the prisons too just like Saddam did and give anyone who "signs up" to "serve" a suspended sentence and let them really earn their keep overseas? These would be the kind of guys I'd want around me in a real fight. It ain't vieo games. It ain't "smart bombs" and "mop up."
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:32:38 -0500, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>... >The closet people should have IMMEDIATELY charged the gunman. That >should have been their training, their second nature, their conditioned >response. It would have ended in seconds with 3 or 4 casualties tops. >...
When I was in (enlisted, not an officer of any kind, not even an NCO) a major was like a minor god, that rank was so far above me. A major in the same uniform as you pointing a gun at you is simply unimaginable and unforeseen. I don't care how highly trained you are, you're going to be stunned to see an officer from your own side shooting at you.
> >> >> A declining society means that persons will become more and more > >> >> responsible for their > >> >> personal security.
> >> >> tt
> >> > Also very interesting to see that ONE woman could get done what a > >> > ROOM of men could not.
> >> > TMT
> >> >
> >> Except for the attacker she was the only one there with a gun.
> > Where did you get this? > > It looks like more thjan 60 rounds were fired. > > 13 dead and 43 injured is at least 56 rounds. > > For that many killshe must have been a damn good shot r at close > > range.
> "She" wasn't the shooter. She was the cop who stopped the shooter.
You misread my typo. killshe = kills he
> > It was commented that "some of the wounded may have been from friendly > > fire."
> No, it wasn't. The only folks with guns were the shooter, her and, > possibly, her partner.
Yes it was. Most likely on the national news. At first the held two other "suspects" too. All those shots fired made them think there was more than one shooter.
> > Even though the perp had 2 guns with twenty round clips, how did he > > manage to get off so many rounds and change at least one clip without > > being stopped?
> No one else had guns until the civilian cops got there.
That isn't the point. If that was the case too bad. You can BET that there will be a review and hiring of "permanent armed guards" on military bases. Maybe they'll use U.N Troops for this? Oh goody!!!
>Soldiers don't > run around their base armed unless they have a duty reason to be (MPs) or > have range scheduled for that day. Their firearms are locked in the > company armory.
Maybe that should change. Let's see, carry guns on and Army base? What a concept?
> > There are people there that were hit as many as four times.
> Probably......two handguns with up to twenty rounds apiece and magazines > to reload with don't take more than a second or so to change out.
Not if 15 guys are rushing you.
> > How could he not have been tackled by what seems to have been a room > > full of "military" personnel being redied to ship out to combat?
> When you are being shot at, John Wayne is not usually your first model to > use.
It's not supposed to be get under the table and let the guy keep shooting. Isn't the Army the supposed ground troops that used to fiight hand to hand in the trenches. Aren't they supposed to be trained attack back when one guy is standing in a room having a turkey shoot. I guess they aren't watching enough Rambo movies. Seems to me in all these movies they can unload about a thousand rounds while the hero dodges bullets.
> > This doesn't say much for their abilities under fire.
> If they had been armed it would have been different.
No shit Sherlock. What this PROVES is that some person can go ballistic ANYWHERE including an Army base and slaighter dozens. What this PROVES is that everyone should be carrying their side arm because it can happen anywhere at any time.
> -- > Sleep well tonight,
"Happiness is a warm gun."
> RD (The Sandman)
> Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass > a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand > it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who > hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't > pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese > Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke. > What could possibly go wrong?- Hide quoted text -
|
