"soft target" terrorists concerns

A shave tail is a second lieutenant or an ensign in the sea services, the lowest ranking officer, usually not much older than 23 or 24.

I'm 22 and am a National Guard Sergeant, a combat vet, and a state CCW holder and my campus says that I can leave my piece locked in my truck while in my class. I have to ask myself what good it does there.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the drunken frat-boy stereotype, heck, I contribute to it on Gamedays, but I am of the opinion that the issue of campus concealed carry, and more wide ranging concealed carry is one that needs to be addressed.

How some ever, something to think about in a VT style scenario in which a bunch of students respond with thier concealed pieces is that the first responders, who by now are trained to attack active shooters with aggressive patrolling, now have multiple armned citizens instead of the one psycho with an AK or whatever.
 
What's a "shave - tail"?
Click to expand...
The term is actually "Shaved Tail"

Originally it designated a mule in the army that had just been broken in, and the idea was everyone would know to be careful of that mule while his tail hair was growing back.

By the time it grew back, it would be a seasoned veteran and therefore reliable.

As SPEMack618 referenced, they often were used to designate a "butter bar" officer, an Ensign or 2nd Lieutenant (their collar devices are brass, hence, butter bar).

Butter bars and shaved tails were especially useful in the Navy when working on the gyroscopic compasses, and you needed a tube of relative bearing grease. Trouble is, . . . they just seemed to never come up with it. :D:D:D

May God bless,
Dwight
 
When a hanging around the TOC, it always made me chuckle when a butter bar was sent after a box of grid squares. Or told that a patrol had found a large pile of St-1s and needed an officer to look at them before they destroyed them in place.
 
Not to pull the thread away from college students and second lieutenants (and buck sergeants), but why do you suppose there have not been more foreign (as opposed to domestic) terrorism incidents in this country? Especially given the easy availability of firearms and the fact that Americans are prone to congregate in large crowds at everything from soccer fields, churches, to football stadiums. There certainly have been plenty of such incidents in Iraq and all the nearby friendly territories. Is it perhaps because quicker results are expected? Or has the big impersonal federal govenment been preventing things from coming to pass?
 
Or has the big impersonal federal govenment been preventing things from coming to pass?
Click to expand...

Probably this. There have been a LOT of uncovered plots, one major in LA that I can think of, and I'm sure countless more that we will never know about because they are national security secrets. But remember the failed panty-bomber over Detroit. He should have been caught a long time ago and the only reason it didn't work was cuz he screwed up on the plane.

I also think it has something to do with the fact that the last time it happened, America destroyed two countries. And one was because "just in case they are there, too".
 
I fully believe that the lack of foreign funded, inspired, led, and carried out attacks in the continental United States is proof that in some shape or fashion, the Global War on Terror is netting some tangible results.

It's pretty hard to wage war against the infidel on his home turf, if you are being chased up and down the Afghani-Paki boarder or through the streets of Tikrit by guys in North Face jackets and 19 year old National Guardsmen.

Now, this isn't a scientific empirical fact by any means, but it's just some of my postulating.
 
I would very much like to see AL enact some kind of class instruction and range qualification
Click to expand...
And I believe that most of us would not. Despite some of your misgivings, our system is working fine.

I suppose you would like our permit fee to be $150 a year, too?
their is no qualification other than not being a criminal.
Click to expand...
And why is this not sufficient for you?
Some states do not recognize Alabama CCP because of the fact that their is no qualification
Click to expand...
Some states do not recognize any other state's CCP, or issue one themselves. How are you going to persuade them if we had mandatory training/qualification?
 
I am tempted to suggest that to a suicidal terrorist, though they probably aren't all suicidal, the possibility that every other person might be carrying a weapon would not make him much less likely to attempt something, at least if we're still talking about soft targets. There was even some fool (but not a terrorist) that shot up the local police station here in western Fairfax County, Virginia, three or four years ago, and I wouldn't call a police station a soft target. For that matter, the police in Iraq are targeted with some frequency.

Doesn't exactly make you feel better, does it?
 
I fully believe that the lack of foreign funded, inspired, led, and carried out attacks in the continental United States is proof that in some shape or fashion, the Global War on Terror is netting some tangible results.

It's pretty hard to wage war against the infidel on his home turf, if you are being chased up and down the Afghani-Paki boarder or through the streets of Tikrit by guys in North Face jackets and 19 year old National Guardsmen.
Click to expand...

Attacks do not have to be foreign funded. No doubt there are already terrorists in the US waiting to be told to act. They have regular jobs like the rest of us and can buy things like guns and ammonium nitrate or other materials just like the rest of us, funded domestically via employment.
 
A 21-year-old person (even a lowly male!) is old enough to apply for and receive a carry permit in all but one state that issues them.

Yet somehow, when that same 21-year-old adult male with a state-issued carry permit walks onto college campus, he loses several dozen IQ points, and becomes capable only of drooling down his chin, barfing all over his classmates and falling in a drunken stupor against the woman he was date-raping.

Dayumn. Who knew going to college made people that stupid?

pax
Click to expand...

Only liberal arts colleges. :rolleyes:

Sorry it was an easy joke. I'll sit down now.
 
I think it's pretty clear to me that the terrorists know that these gun free zones are "soft targets" and that's why they have attacked them. Just look at all the attacks and attempted attacks in the states with the strictest gun laws, like New York City vs places where citizens are allowed to be armed. If some terrorist tried to blow himself up any of that in Texas he'd be shot before he had the chance to press the detonator. Just goes to show that even the terrorists are afraid of armed citizens.
 
That doesn't follow. Would someone trying to fly a plane into the Alamo (can't think of any other place in Texas) be shot down before he had a chance? My point earlier is that if the target is in fact "soft," then it doesn't matter how many are carrying guns, given that such things happen to police stations, even in the US.
 
Ray33 said:
If some terrorist tried to blow himself up any of that in Texas he'd be shot before he had the chance to press the detonator.
Click to expand...

They usually don't announce their intentions before going all 'splodey.

Lots of people carry guns in Israel, too, but a gun is a pretty narrow solution for a specific set of problems. A .38 in the pocket isn't going to stop someone wearing Semtex Underoos if you don't know they're wearing them.
 
How about a compromise for college campuses? If you live off campus and have a valid CCH permit then you can carry. However, guns are not allowed in college dorms, or college controlled housing. That helps get rid of the storage/security issue to some degree, and minimizes 2nd ammendment complaints.

We have to look at more than campuses to help with this problem though. In NC it is illegal to carry in to any place that charges admission or parades. That means everything from your local movie theatre, or county fair, to the yearly Christmas parade is a no CCH zone.

With other restrictions in place nearly every hospital, restaurant, every bit of state property, and federal property is a no CCH zone. Any educational facility of any type is also supposed to be a no CCH zone.

I think if a person goes through the required training, and passes the stringent back ground checks required, in a state like NC they should be able to carry nearly anywhere in the state. There is very little reason for a well trained citizen to be denied their rkba for self defense.

I know a J-frame isn't going to take out a handfull of AK wielding Jihadis. However, a nice seven shot Taurus 817 might help me get my wife and kid to cover. It might only serve as a distraction long enough fo my wife and kid to get away while I'm being murdered. If they survive that is good enough for me.

A good J-frame with the right ammo might have helped students at VT. It might have helped the students at UNC when a guy in a Ford Explorer drove in to a crowded pedestrian area and started running people down.

More often than not these attacks are one or two people counting on the element of suprise. One or two people with J frames (or semi-autos) could probably bring them to an end much quicker.
 
I think it's pretty clear to me that the terrorists know that these gun free zones are "soft targets" and that's why they have attacked them. Just look at all the attacks and attempted attacks in the states with the strictest gun laws, like New York City vs places where citizens are allowed to be armed.
Click to expand...
I don't get the connection.

To suggest that the 9/11 attackers chose NYC because it's "gun-free" is such a huge logical stretch that it's simply absurd. How could a group of citizens with S&W J frames and Ruger LCPs stop terrorists armed with Boeing 767's? :confused:

OTOH if you're talking about school shootings in general, IMHO three facts are clear.

1) They're so rare that it's almost impossible to conclude whether the rate of gun ownership amongst the nearby populace has anything to do with the event.

2) One of the few things that can be proven conclusively regarding school shootings is that most of the perpetrators are seriously emotionally disturbed and suicidal.

3) Most school shootings have taken place at a location that is near the shooter's home, either because of a personal connection between the shooter and the institution, or simply because it was convenient.

Assuming that emotionally disturbed individuals are more or less evenly distributed amongst the population, it stands to reason that more school shootings would take place in populated areas, simply because there are more people there. NYC has a larger population than several Western states combined, therefore the number of emotionally disturbed potential shooters is higher in NYC.
 
9/11 Hijackers chose soft target

The 9/11 hijackers chose airplanes as there weapon because they knew two critical pieces of information:

1. Airplanes are gun-free zones. In fact, are weapon free zones; so a person armed with a box cutter (razor knife) is better armed than the passengers and crew of any American aircraft.

2. Americans had (note, past tense) been trained to passively comply with hijackers. This changed over Pennsylvania.

So, the soft target wasn't the World Trade Center. It was the airplanes at the Boston Airport. Once they obtained more formidable weapons, they were able to use their stealth missles (airplanes) against an unguarded target.
 
How about a compromise for college campuses? If you live off campus and have a valid CCH permit then you can carry. However, guns are not allowed in college dorms, or college controlled housing.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added. 95% of students in dorms are under 21 and thus can't own a pistol anyways (in most states). Those are are over 21 are RAs (resident assistants). Maybe make it illegal to store a firearm in a dorm but allow carry in the dorm is a better solution. We could maybe tie this into not being able to store a pistol in a place that a minor could easily access it. Pretty much every square inch of a dorm qualifies as this :p

At many campuses, graduate students and families with students (grad families) live in a separate part of campus in apartments with their families. I see no reason to deny them their right to self defense.

Remember, the proposed regulation must be the least restrictive means possible to achieve the desired result.

Other than that I think this proposal is a definite step in the right direction and I think is even the mythical "low hanging fruit", especially for students like me (I live off campus and drive). I am denied my right to self defense even when I'm not on school grounds because I can't have my firearm on school grounds, so I can't have it on the trip over there. Driving to school does not make me immune to crime. Is this the least restrictive means? I can't even have my firearm in my car if I'm on college property, so if I'm even driving through campus, I'm breaking the law if I am armed.
 
Sefner, I agree with you, but I don't think college's want to be that nuanced in their rules. If you look at most college rules they are rather broadly written. There is a lot of zero tolerance stuff in college rule books. It makes it easier to avoid confusion, and more importantly, the accusation of biased discipline.

I don't think you could get carry allowed unless you ban it in all college controlled housing. Remember you have to chip away at these type of things to get what you want. That is how anti-gunners and anti-smokers have been able to go as far as they have.
 
Mike, you're absolutely right. That's why I like the idea of the "low hanging fruit" tactic, because we "chip away" at these things. I was just commenting on how pretty much every aspect of PFZs is pretty irrational and right-depriving.

You're definitely right that when it comes to things like this, we need to find one very specific issue that we can definitely win, and that's why I liked your suggestion of off-campus students so much, it wasn't even something that I had thought about and I even live off campus!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top