Reports of active shooter in Chattanooga, TN; several sites, one officer down.

[wagyu52]

Seems to work for the IDF, I don't see the problem

 

[T.Lex]

View attachment 40098

I feel like, if I stare closely enough at this pic for long enough, I can make out the serial number on there.

My eyesight isn't as good as it used to be, though....

 

[jamil]

I feel like, if I stare closely enough at this pic for long enough, I can make out the serial number on there.

My eyesight isn't as good as it used to be, though....

Wife looking over your shoulder?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I feel like, if I stare closely enough at this pic for long enough, I can make out the serial number on there.

My eyesight isn't as good as it used to be, though....

I like her magazine pouches.

 

[T.Lex]

I like her magazine pouches.

Wait. There's a pic from the front?

Wife looking over your shoulder?

"You see, honey, that's a very rare rifle there. Not only does it only have a 16" barrel, but the flux capacitor is actually tucked inside the anterior charging surface. If you look closely enough you can see where the fine Israeli craftsman tack welded the ion distortion generator."

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Wait. There's a pick from the front?

I wish.

 

[Alpo]

I slept on what I had written and then thought about what cce1302 wrote.....and he is correct: I know nothing about the modern military. Not in any detail. Not in the way officers relate to each other or the enlisted forces. All I have are books and movies, like Generation Kill, Restrepo, etc. I'm from the We Were Soldiers Once and Young days. Westmoreland, and Calley, and McNamara. That is different than Abu Gharib, Kill Squads, desecrating enemy dead, etc. Isn't it?


The world is certainly different. I remember buying a 22 rifle just before heading home on leave. I bought it at the PX, kept it in my locker until I went to the airport later in the week, then handed it to the captain of the plane to keep in the cockpit until we arrived. A different time....

We didn't think about carrying on base. We really didn't think about carrying anywhere in the USA. Unless you were hunting, or sport shooting, or a cop. But, those days are gone and we face deadlier threats than we used to be confronted with on our own soil. Some from drug-addled thugs. Some from religious zealots. Some from people who no longer use their fists to attempt to win an argument.

And while the bean-counters may be correct in their actuarial assumptions about AD's/ND's/homicides, it is the mindset and response of senior military officials that is troubling. Rather than the safety of the troops, they are apparently concerned with how an AD will look in the press and what effect it will have on their career. That, to me, is Bravo Sierra.

We need to change that way of thinking



https://youtu.be/MMzd40i8TfA

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I slept on what I had written and then thought about what cce1302 wrote.....and he is correct: I know nothing about the modern military.

Atwood must have had a time machine since your experiences mimic those of more "modern" servicemen. It was the same in the 90s, and it was the same in the early 2000s as far as the topic at hand. I doubt there's been a significant culture shift in 8 years, and the posts of others seem to confirm that. The lens of a chaplain isn't the same, that's all.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well, in this case, we're supposed to focus on everything but the big elephant in the room that would cause this bacon hater to drive past countless schools and black churches (those soft targets that, when attacked by guns, are beneficial to the PC gun control folks) and shoot up a couple of places frequented by the most bacon-loving red, white and blue patriotic Americans. This shooter's recent visits to the Middle East have been rationalized in some media reports as family efforts to get him away from the "wrong crowd" he was getting high with in Chattanooga. Waiting on the "innocent, brainwashed victim of manipulative jihadist Jordanian substance abuse counselors" angle to materialize......

So we're not supposed to wonder why he decided to shoot anyone at all? Or are you going to take the position that his "bacon hating" alone was enough?

 

[jamil]

So we're not supposed to wonder why he decided to shoot anyone at all? Or are you going to take the position that his "bacon hating" alone was enough?

Of course it's fair to wonder. But just as we shouldn't automatically choose the narrative we most want to believe, we shouldn't deny the most obvious narrative either.

I don't find it profitable to leave out a likely reason just because I find it culturally distasteful. I don't think "bacon hating" has anything to do with it. But I doubt he just went postal. His chosen targets mean something. I highly suspect he was radicalized and did it because of the call to murder military people in the US. I mean if there is another competing reason why he chose the targets he chose, I'm open to listening. But there seems to be a concerted effort to get the most obvious scenario out of the public conversation.

 

[cce1302]

Atwood must have had a time machine since your experiences mimic those of more "modern" servicemen. It was the same in the 90s, and it was the same in the early 2000s as far as the topic at hand. I doubt there's been a significant culture shift in 8 years, and the posts of others seem to confirm that. The lens of a chaplain isn't the same, that's all.

Interesting combination of two logical fallacies to avoid addressing the points I have made.


For those keeping score, there's a hasty generalization, and argumentum ad hominem.

 

[jamil]

I slept on what I had written and then thought about what cce1302 wrote.....and he is correct: I know nothing about the modern military. Not in any detail. Not in the way officers relate to each other or the enlisted forces. All I have are books and movies, like Generation Kill, Restrepo, etc. I'm from the We Were Soldiers Once and Young days. Westmoreland, and Calley, and McNamara. That is different than Abu Gharib, Kill Squads, desecrating enemy dead, etc. Isn't it?


The world is certainly different. I remember buying a 22 rifle just before heading home on leave. I bought it at the PX, kept it in my locker until I went to the airport later in the week, then handed it to the captain of the plane to keep in the cockpit until we arrived. A different time....

We didn't think about carrying on base. We really didn't think about carrying anywhere in the USA. Unless you were hunting, or sport shooting, or a cop. But, those days are gone and we face deadlier threats than we used to be confronted with on our own soil. Some from drug-addled thugs. Some from religious zealots. Some from people who no longer use their fists to attempt to win an argument.

And while the bean-counters may be correct in their actuarial assumptions about AD's/ND's/homicides, it is the mindset and response of senior military officials that is troubling. Rather than the safety of the troops, they are apparently concerned with how an AD will look in the press and what effect it will have on their career. That, to me, is Bravo Sierra.

We need to change that way of thinking



https://youtu.be/MMzd40i8TfA

 

[Rookie]

argumentum ad hominem.

Bless you.

 

[cce1302]

Bless you.

 

[Woobie]

Cce, I've known a lot of officers. Some were amazing leaders, and I would follow them anywhere. Some, for the sake of their mission and the safety of their troops, needed to receive friendly fire. Some had the superiority complex you so ardently refute. It had nothing to do with military tradition, but some nonsensical Bravo Sierra taught them in ROTC, and they never had it beat out of them by a crusty old E-7 when they hit a line unit. Maybe because their first assignment was BN, as they weren't really qualified to have a platoon. A few knew the real differentiation in the roles of officers and nco's, and respected that line, maintained the standard, and still respected the men that they led. The former need to be stuck in a staff position or teaching at an academy (those who can't do, teach), the latter are true leaders and the cream of their generation, men that I would gladly acknowledge as my superiors and follow. The military has changed, but not in so many ways as you contend.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Military Gun-Free Zones and the Ill-Logic of the Left | EveryJoe

 

[cce1302]

Cce, I've known a lot of officers. Some were amazing leaders, and I would follow them anywhere. Some, for the sake of their mission and the safety of their troops, needed to receive friendly fire. Some had the superiority complex you so ardently refute. It had nothing to do with military tradition, but some nonsensical Bravo Sierra taught them in ROTC, and they never had it beat out of them by a crusty old E-7 when they hit a line unit. Maybe because their first assignment was BN, as they weren't really qualified to have a platoon. A few knew the real differentiation in the roles of officers and nco's, and respected that line, maintained the standard, and still respected the men that they led. The former need to be stuck in a staff position or teaching at an academy (those who can't do, teach), the latter are true leaders and the cream of their generation, men that I would gladly acknowledge as my superiors and follow. The military has changed, but not in so many ways as you contend.

I pretty much agree with what you've said, except in your claim that I contend that the military has changed in many ways.

There have been a lot of posts trying to put words in my mouth and I won't defend what I haven't said.

My point, repeatedly, is that the statement that "The officer corps doesn't like the idea of enlisted and NCO with weappons [sic]. They tolerate it on the battlefield, but they don't trust them otherwise" is incorrect. There is no concerted effort of "the officer corps" to not trust the enlisted with weapons.

Sure, there are a lot of bad officers; but as you note, there are a lot of good officers as well who are resisting the bad officers. I think it's unjust to lump all officers together in with the jerks.

 

[Woobie]

I pretty much agree with what you've said, except in your claim that I contend that the military has changed in many ways.

There have been a lot of posts trying to put words in my mouth and I won't defend what I haven't said.

My point, repeatedly, is that the statement that "The officer corps doesn't like the idea of enlisted and NCO with weappons [sic]. They tolerate it on the battlefield, but they don't trust them otherwise" is incorrect. There is no concerted effort of "the officer corps" to not trust the enlisted with weapons.

Sure, there are a lot of bad officers; but as you note, there are a lot of good officers as well who are resisting the bad officers. I think it's unjust to lump all officers together in with the jerks.

I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I did not intend to, but oversimplified several pages of this thread, and I should not have.

As far as the officer corp argument goes, no O-5's or even O-6's are making these decisions. It's more like people who sit on the JCS, or people, uniformed or otherwise, that advise them or that they advise. High level stuff. I agree it is not an "O side" vs "E side" conspiracy. I did not, however, lump all officers together with the jerks. On the contrary, I made a point of contrasting them.

 

[Alpo]

Sure, there are a lot of bad officers; but as you note, there are a lot of good officers as well who are resisting the bad officers. I think it's unjust to lump all officers together in with the jerks.

Salute it or paint it. You not covered in yellow? You're an officer.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Of course it's fair to wonder. But just as we shouldn't automatically choose the narrative we most want to believe, we shouldn't deny the most obvious narrative either.

I don't find it profitable to leave out a likely reason just because I find it culturally distasteful. I don't think "bacon hating" has anything to do with it. But I doubt he just went postal. His chosen targets mean something. I highly suspect he was radicalized and did it because of the call to murder military people in the US. I mean if there is another competing reason why he chose the targets he chose, I'm open to listening. But there seems to be a concerted effort to get the most obvious scenario out of the public conversation.

Why he chose the target he did is one question, and a radical interpretation of Islam is certainly the most likely candidate. Why he went shooting at all is a different question, though, and that's what I was addressing.