@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
joe - I have to agree the others here. Time and place dude. It's not that I disagree with you, nor is the irony lost on the location and access to firearms, but I think that the fact that my mind went there without it being said kind of suggests, that well... it didn't need to be said.
This is tragic enough without cynicism.
K
O
Your concerns have been duly noted.
Joefromchicago's cynical remark merely anticipated the arguments that we are now getting on this thread from OmSigDavid.
I get that. I really do. I just feel so sickened by this kind of thing that my normal tolerance for cynicism is pretty exhausted. Nothing gained by beating OSD to the punch. It's not like beating him to the punch prevented him from making his argument. It turned my stomach. I'm just not amused at this kind of humor at the victim's expense. I think the point can be made in less brash ways.
Map - I know that soldiers don't have immediate access. I said proximity, I was speaking to the other irony. You misinterpreted. I think snood may be able to verify this, but I think that only national guard soldiers (and MPs) can have live ammunition outside of regular exercises on US soil. I know they didn't have access to weapons for defense. I am unsure how the shooter(s) had access. Is this detail clear yet? Did they acquire the weapon on the grounds or did they bring it on?
Snood - Am I correct about weapons and live ammo?
OmSIGDavid - I can see the reasons why a soldier who is trained to operate a piece of military equipment should have access to this type of weaponry. To make this about the general topic of weapon control is to ignore many important distinctions about this versus private ownership of firearms by citizens.
joefromchicago - Why so brash? Does it not concern you that your statements may be offensive? I don't disagree with you, but do you believe that your statement was in good taste?
T
K
O
