Should U.S. soldiers be armed?

[auditor0007]

Who cares. They are trained in the use of weapons. The idea that soldiers are disarmed on a military base is asinine. ALL soldiers are qualified to carry. Disarming them just makes it easy for the nutters to kill more.

It's just like being in private society in the US; more guns in the hands of more people leads to more deaths. It's simply a numbers game. Yes, you can make the argument that everyone should have the right to arm themselves for protection, but it is incumbent upon anyone supporting this to acknowledge that doing so will actually lead to many more deaths than it will save lives via people defending themselves.

Possessing a gun makes you less safe not more safe - Tulsa FBI | Examiner.com

I could easily add link after link supporting this. If you don't believe it, research it yourself. I'm not arguing against what you are saying; just putting the facts out there. If you and every gun owner in America feels that having thousands of people killed each year just so we all can own a gun, then you have the right to that belief. Personally, I think it's stupid. I have raised four boys who all have tempers. I would never have kept a gun in my house, but that is my choice. They are all alive, and all is well.

You do understand that your link is written by a blogger who has nothing to back up his numbers? I'm a hundred times safer while I have one of my guns on me.... Pisses me off everytime I get to one of those places where i have to leave it locked in the car...

Like I said, I can find link after link backing this up. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a right to own your gun; I'm just saying the fact is that you will more likely use it to kill yourself or a family member than you will to protect yourself from being killed. That is a statistical fact.

METHODS: We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.
RESULTS:
During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. [J Trauma. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI

I don't have an issue with those of you who argue it is your Constitutional right to own and carry a gun. What pisses me off though, is when you try to convince us that everyone would be safer if everyone was packing.

 

[auditor0007]

It's just like being in private society in the US; more guns in the hands of more people leads to more deaths.

Sorry, that is a rather pointless statistic to be honest.

You can literally replace "guns" with anything and it will be accurate.

More cars in the hands of more people leads to more deaths.
More motorcycles in the hands of more people leads to more deaths.
More airplanes in the hands of more people leads to more deaths.
More ladders in the hands of more people leads to more deaths.

That is literally a worthless claim if you think logically on it.

Let's see, cars are used to move from place to place. People need to travel; it's pretty much a necessity. Motorcycles we could do without because they are not nearly as safe as a car, but they are still used to move people, so they can still be considered a necessity. Airplanes? Without them, it would take an awfully long time to travel. Hmmm, Ladders. Yea, we could probably do without those because nobody needs to get on their roof or paint their house.

Guns on the other hand really only have one purpose, and that is to kill. See the difference? Cars, Motorcycles, and planes have purposes other than to kill. In fact they are not made to be used to kill. Death from all of those things is an unfortunate consequence for some due to the need to use all of them. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill, that's it, and that's why so many people end up dying from guns.

 

[Mushroom]

Let's see, cars are used to move from place to place. People need to travel; it's pretty much a necessity. Motorcycles we could do without because they are not nearly as safe as a car, but they are still used to move people, so they can still be considered a necessity. Airplanes? Without them, it would take an awfully long time to travel. Hmmm, Ladders. Yea, we could probably do without those because nobody needs to get on their roof or paint their house.

Guns on the other hand really only have one purpose, and that is to kill. See the difference? Cars, Motorcycles, and planes have purposes other than to kill. In fact they are not made to be used to kill. Death from all of those things is an unfortunate consequence for some due to the need to use all of them. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill, that's it, and that's why so many people end up dying from guns.

Translation: Get rid of anything I do not think you should have.

Sorry, that is not how this country is set up. And I have had a gun for over 20 years, it has yet to kill anybody. Although it more then likely did save my wife's life about 5 years ago.

 

[SFC Ollie]

It's just like being in private society in the US; more guns in the hands of more people leads to more deaths. It's simply a numbers game. Yes, you can make the argument that everyone should have the right to arm themselves for protection, but it is incumbent upon anyone supporting this to acknowledge that doing so will actually lead to many more deaths than it will save lives via people defending themselves.

Possessing a gun makes you less safe not more safe - Tulsa FBI | Examiner.com

I could easily add link after link supporting this. If you don't believe it, research it yourself. I'm not arguing against what you are saying; just putting the facts out there. If you and every gun owner in America feels that having thousands of people killed each year just so we all can own a gun, then you have the right to that belief. Personally, I think it's stupid. I have raised four boys who all have tempers. I would never have kept a gun in my house, but that is my choice. They are all alive, and all is well.

You do understand that your link is written by a blogger who has nothing to back up his numbers? I'm a hundred times safer while I have one of my guns on me.... Pisses me off everytime I get to one of those places where i have to leave it locked in the car...

Like I said, I can find link after link backing this up. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a right to own your gun; I'm just saying the fact is that you will more likely use it to kill yourself or a family member than you will to protect yourself from being killed. That is a statistical fact.

METHODS: We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.
RESULTS:
During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. [J Trauma. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI

I don't have an issue with those of you who argue it is your Constitutional right to own and carry a gun. What pisses me off though, is when you try to convince us that everyone would be safer if everyone was packing.

Everyone who was properly trained and wasn't a nutcase or a felon......

 

[SFC Ollie]

It's just like being in private society in the US; more guns in the hands of more people leads to more deaths.

Sorry, that is a rather pointless statistic to be honest.

You can literally replace "guns" with anything and it will be accurate.

More cars in the hands of more people leads to more deaths.
More motorcycles in the hands of more people leads to more deaths.
More airplanes in the hands of more people leads to more deaths.
More ladders in the hands of more people leads to more deaths.

That is literally a worthless claim if you think logically on it.

Let's see, cars are used to move from place to place. People need to travel; it's pretty much a necessity. Motorcycles we could do without because they are not nearly as safe as a car, but they are still used to move people, so they can still be considered a necessity. Airplanes? Without them, it would take an awfully long time to travel. Hmmm, Ladders. Yea, we could probably do without those because nobody needs to get on their roof or paint their house.

Guns on the other hand really only have one purpose, and that is to kill. See the difference? Cars, Motorcycles, and planes have purposes other than to kill. In fact they are not made to be used to kill. Death from all of those things is an unfortunate consequence for some due to the need to use all of them. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill, that's it, and that's why so many people end up dying from guns.

Really? I've been using a gun form most of my life, all of my adult life...I'll bet 3 months have never passed that i haven't fired a gun. Guess how many people my privately owned guns have killed.... That big magical zero. Now I wonder, am I that bad a shot or was i using those guns for other purposes than to kill people?

 

[Indofred]

But still not a single example of an American using his weapon to defend the United States.
Not once since 1945, has this happened.

The only uses, apart from training, was to kill people who were no threat to America.

 

[MrMax]

But still not a single example of an American using his weapon to defend the United States.
Not once since 1945, has this happened.

The only uses, apart from training, was to kill people who were no threat to America.

So attacking the organization that's responsable for 9/11 isn't defending America? Who knew?

 

[High_Gravity]

I see you are unable to answer
Is mass murder of civilians acceptable?
You can't answer because, if you do, you either accept 9/11 as legitimate or admit U.S. mass murder in Cambodia as a massive crime.
All you can do is post another insult in some weak attempt to avoid tge question.

Addiction is not the answer we can get you the help you need.

As I predicted.
No way to answer so an insult instead.

You have to admit your addiction before you can truly get help.

 

[SFC Ollie]

But still not a single example of an American using his weapon to defend the United States.
Not once since 1945, has this happened.

The only uses, apart from training, was to kill people who were no threat to America.

Only in your mind dickweed. Every time US Forces have deployed anywhere in the world it was for the betterment of freedom. That you don't like it is just too fucking bad, now go rape a 9 year old or something...

Or maybe we should start showing the atrocities committed by your hero Muslims?

 

[KevinWestern]

Should U.S. soldiers be armed?

After all, not one has fired a gun to defend the United states since 1945.

In 1915, the War of 1812 was the only real large scale conflict the US had with an outside country in over 100 years. Using your logic, we would have disarmed all of our soldiers around the 1880's, and would have been wholly unprepared for WWI and WWII.

Thank goodness no one is seriously considering using your logic, lol.

 

[Mushroom]

Should U.S. soldiers be armed?

After all, not one has fired a gun to defend the United states since 1945.

In 1915, the War of 1812 was the only real large scale conflict the US had with an outside country in over 100 years. Using your logic, we would have disarmed all of our soldiers around the 1880's, and would have been wholly unprepared for WWI and WWII.

Thank goodness no one is seriously considering using your logic, lol.

Actually, we had at least 3 others.

The Mexican-American War was no small conflict, with 60-80,000 fighting on each side.

Then there was the Spanish-American War, a truly global conflict, with 300-500,000 on each side fighting in multiple theaters.

And finally the Boxer Rebellion, with 250-500,000 on each side.

Without the US military, Texas would have been forced back into the Mexican Empire, the slaughter and enslavement of the Cubans and Philippines would have continued, and the International Settlement in Peking probably would have fallen.

Not to mention other effects, like no Panama Canal.

I now ignore Fred because he is nothing but a troll, and not worth listening to in my opinion.