YAST, Multiple shots fired in Chattanooga

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,847
10,161
136
It'll take days / weeks before the authorities, if ever, release details of this shooter's communications with others. Those records will be necessary to try and determine intent and/or terrorism.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
We've known for a couple years now that recruiting & retention was being targeted because they're soft targets located off-base. Sadly due to funding and military regulations, many reserve centers & armories do not have armed guards, and some don't have any guards at all.

I don't see a politically viable way of keeping this from happening again in the future. We can't arm troops in garrison, and we certainly can't arm them out in the recruiting stations in American cities. So where does that leave us?

Also, religion of peace strikes again.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,847
10,161
136
We can't arm troops in garrison

What's the reason behind that policy?
and we certainly can't arm them out in the recruiting stations in American cities.

Even if the other one makes sense, for discipline or whatever... WTF is with them being disarmed all the time? The public isn't required to be. Aside from the notion that the office is a "gun free zone".

Help me understand why we leave people defenseless.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,584
985
126
Nobody ever said unqualified "there's no way to prevent this". Any intelligent person would say "there's no way to prevent these things without creating even less desirable outcomes".

I'm not so sure about that quite frankly. What do you base this opinion on?
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,584
985
126
What's the reason behind that policy?


Even if the other one makes sense, for discipline or whatever... WTF is with them being disarmed all the time? The public isn't required to be. Aside from the notion that the office is a "gun free zone".

Help me understand why we leave people defenseless.

Every company I've ever worked for has had a no guns allowed on company property policy. People are fallible and sometimes prone to acting emotionally... even law abiding people.

Here's a little cited fact: All criminals were at one time law abiding citizens.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
We've known for a couple years now that recruiting & retention was being targeted because they're soft targets located off-base. Sadly due to funding and military regulations, many reserve centers & armories do not have armed guards, and some don't have any guards at all.

I don't see a politically viable way of keeping this from happening again in the future. We can't arm troops in garrison, and we certainly can't arm them out in the recruiting stations in American cities. So where does that leave us?

Also, religion of peace strikes again.


Why cant they carry sidearms?
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
What's the reason behind that policy?


Even if the other one makes sense, for discipline or whatever... WTF is with them being disarmed all the time? The public isn't required to be. Aside from the notion that the office is a "gun free zone".

Help me understand why we leave people defenseless.

Being armed in garrison (on a military installation) would be easily, legally accomplished with the stroke of a pen. However, risk management policies and CYA guarantees it will never, ever happen. 4 marines get killed on a Navy base in Tennessee? 13 soldiers get killed at Fort Hood? It's quite easy to blame the killer, and terrorism. One angry\distraught soldier shoots himself with an Army weapon at Fort Campbell? Several levels of supervisors get fired and drummed out of the military, the guy who implemented the policy is done too. We're very risk averse in non-combat situations. I don't see that we'll ever get around this.

As far as the second scenario, arming troops out on the economy, there are likely some legal issues there, plus again, a ton more risk & liability to consider. Also the national image of having armed troops in the streets won't sit well with many, and sort of makes us look like a third world nation.

So while I personally would support both provisions, I know and understand why neither of them will ever happen, barring some sort of catastrophic, world changing event (terror attack larger than 9\11, foreign invasion, widespread civil unrest, etc.)
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
FWIW I can carry a gun just about anywhere in the country, covered under LEOSA, except for the place where I spend most of my time: a federal military installation.
 

dali71

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2003
1,117
21
81
There were actually shootings at two locations here. The main location is about a mile from me, but there was another shooting at a different recruiting station a couple miles away. Erlanger hospital is still on lock-down, but there were six ambulances sent there. (One may have been the shooter, if there was a substantial delay in reporting that he was down.) Prayers go out to those who were shot and their families.

I would hate to be the guy that decided to show off his new AR at work today, as one of the two large routes into downtown was blocked off and cars were being searched.

I work at Erlanger, and it was a pretty tense day to say the least. A source whom I trust informed me that the shooter was taken out by a helicopter sniper; they waited for him to poke his head out, after which he had no head...
 

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,499
560
126
I am currently sitting in Quantico VA, Headquarters of the Marine Corps. In a class with 95 other Marines. Two of these Marines are from that base, and one was the Plt Sgt for one Marine killed. Hits home. Obviously the base threat level has gone up, and really pisses me off. I will have to with hold comments because I don't want to speak from anger. After deploying several times it can get carried away sometimes. Extremely pissed and heartbroken at the same time. Here I am studying Warfighting, and this fucking happens.
 

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
25,327
4,993
136
I was really hoping this would turn out to be a run of the mill disgruntled ex-employee or a spurned lover instead of one of the mental midget Islamic badass wannabes. No such luck. :(
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Number of Islamic terrorist attacks world wide from 1990-1999: 27
Number of Islamic terrorists attacks from 1/1/15 to 6/26/15: 47

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

So it's 2 per week these days, while it was 2 per year in the 90's.

Anyone placing bets on how much worse this gets before it gets any better?

Murders in the United States last year: 15,000
Percent of those murders that were Islamic terrorist: less than 0.01%

It may be a problem in the Middle East, but it is certainly controlled here in the United States. That is not to say that it won't become a problem in the future. For the present we have been relatively lucky.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,243
136
Murders in the United States last year: 15,000
Percent of those murders that were Islamic terrorist: less than 0.01%

It may be a problem in the Middle East, but it is certainly controlled here in the United States. That is not to say that it could become a problem in the future. For the present we have been relatively lucky.


The trend line is disturbing. It's gone up year over year for the past 4 years.

The thing about terrorist attacks is that the cost is more than the immediate death toll suggests. 9/11 cost the US trillions of $ and thousands more lives if we look at cause and effect.

Let's hope we don't get another large one on US soil, like with 100+ casualties. If we do, you can bet the costs in lives and money will far outweigh the immediate impact.

This is not even addressing things that are difficult to quantify: longer lines in airports, erosion of civil liberties, peaceful Muslims being discriminated against, etc.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,847
10,161
136
Report:
"His whole family was really religious," Smith said. "His family, they all wore the drapes and stuff, all the women in his family wore the little hoods."

Motion to ban the hijab, symbol of slavery and violence against women.
 

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,499
560
126
Even if the other one makes sense, for discipline or whatever... WTF is with them being disarmed all the time? The public isn't required to be. Aside from the notion that the office is a "gun free zone".

Help me understand why we leave people defenseless.

Because there would be a public outcry. They don't want to see guns all over. It is also unfeasible to arm every recruiting station. There are rules and regulations to follow. The sheer number of such offices would be impractical to arm. Not to mention there is a HUGE military budget reduction. Everything has been cut back so much. We're supposed to go the field for four days of training doing demolition. C4, TNT, APOBS, etc, not going now. Know why? No funding. We were supposed to go to South Korea for training this month. We didn't. Know why? Budget cuts. They (the tax payers) want cuts, and we're paying for it. There will be a time when we're called on again, and we simply aren't getting the training needed. But that is a bit of topic.

Murders in the United States last year: 15,000
Percent of those murders that were Islamic terrorist: less than 0.01%

It may be a problem in the Middle East, but it is certainly controlled here in the United States. That is not to say that it won't become a problem in the future. For the present we have been relatively lucky.

Funny you should take that stance. How many deaths in percentage are caused by police to the public whether just or not? Yet you and others are all over it when someone dies by a cops hand. Your numbers are not used there.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Report:
"His whole family was really religious," Smith said. "His family, they all wore the drapes and stuff, all the women in his family wore the little hoods."

Motion to ban the hijab, symbol of slavery and violence against women.
We're getting rid of flags so there can't be a problem with this.