While I simply ignored it and didn't like or dislike, I can hazard a guess that it has to do with the asinine thought that A) they were on a base in one of the most prevalent gun states and you assume they weren't armed. Or B) you refer to trained soldier experienced war and thus an array of combat tactics as "grunts" who can't defend themselves even if they were unarmed.
They were unarmed. Only MPs are allowed to carry on that base. They really weren't armed. When you are unarmed and are ambushed by a person who is armed, you're fucked. That's the short and long of it, no amount of hand-to-hand training will do anything to stop an assailant that's further away than spitting distance. As for that last bit, we refer to ourselves as grunts, it's a pride thing. You're either a grunt or a POG.
I know this is a joke and all but there actually has been a shooting where people shot back. The 2009 shooting at the military base Fort Hood, where 12 soldiers and one civilian died.
Actually, military bases are also "gun free zones". The only people who are allowed to carry on base are MPs. So it's not a shooting where people were allowed to shoot back.
People /did/ shoot back, though, which was my point. I didn’t meant to imply it was a free-for-all, though I can see how my comment could be taken in that way. Sorry for the mistake.
1Reply
·
Edited 6 years ago
deleted
· 6 years ago
I think the idea is to, you know, shoot people you don't like regardless of whether or not they're armed.
It just so happens that they don't allow guns in high schools. Who knew?
It's not about killing people you don't like. If that were the case, the fuckers would only target those people. Mass killers are just cowards that know they shouldn't be alive, yet still want people to remember their names.
Or, if you're all about that alliteration, Speedwagon skedaddles serenely.
It just so happens that they don't allow guns in high schools. Who knew?