View Full Version : Legalize Concealed Carry for Soldiers on Military Installations
UrbanWolf
04-03-2014, 18:50
Heck, let em open carry. I fully support either though.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/legalize-concealed-carry-soldiers-military-installations/FDk9cNpH
Signed and shared on the evil Facebook.
BPTactical
04-03-2014, 19:25
This should not even be a question on a military installation.
Great-Kazoo
04-03-2014, 19:36
This should not even be a question on a military installation.
They're not allowed to drink till they're 21. Should they be carrying guns[facepalm]
We are one of the most disarmed segments of society on base
I've said it once, I've said it 1,000 times: They trust us with loaded "assault rifles" downrange, carried in a loaded posture, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week... why not back home?
trlcavscout
04-03-2014, 23:25
Signed and shared.
I see no problem. They defend their country, they have the most training etc etc. why shouldn't they be given a lifetime CCW anywhere in the country, not just on military installations.
While I can see the arguments for letting soldiers carry on base, I also remember some instances that lead to commanders pointing to why soldiers in the barracks could have no weapons at all. Like in Hawaii some infantry guy had a pistol in his room and one drunken night kills the pizza delivery guy for some reason. Or an argument over some barracks skank gets one guy gut stabbed with a k-bar. The problems of these daytime shootings might be solved, but the night time accidents after pounding a 12 pack might be worse. There would have to be major changes in mentalities for this to work, and I don't see the power drinking and testosterone fueled idiocy common in on base parties stopping anytime soon.
speedysst
04-04-2014, 09:01
Military bases are not any more subject to shootings or crime than any other city. There are just as many people on a military base that I don't want armed with an assault rifle as there are civilians who I don't want to see armed with an assault rifle. If the shooter at Ft. Hood this past week had his M4, the situation would have been even worse.
Rucker61
04-04-2014, 09:18
I've said it once, I've said it 1,000 times: They trust us with loaded "assault rifles" downrange, carried in a loaded posture, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week... why not back home?
Unless things have changed in the last 20 years, it's the only way to keep DA civilians alive, given the way they treat soldiers. I guess we'd have to add contractors that list, too.
Service members aren't trusted with loaded weapons overseas either. What makes anyone think they will allow it here?
Why does this work so well in Israel? Don't they require all their soldiers to have their M4 with them at ALL times? A google search shows girls on the beach carrying these things around. I have never heard of a mass shooting over there by one of their soldiers and they require everyone to join the military after school.
Military bases are not any more subject to shootings or crime than any other city. There are just as many people on a military base that I don't want armed with an assault rifle as there are civilians who I don't want to see armed with an assault rifle. If the shooter at Ft. Hood this past week had his M4, the situation would have been even worse.
If the shooter at Ft. Hood this past week had his M4, AND SO DID EVERYONE ELSE ON BASE, the situation would have ended quickly, if it happened at all.
Why does this work so well in Israel? Don't they require all their soldiers to have their M4 with them at ALL times? A google search shows girls on the beach carrying these things around. I have never heard of a mass shooting over there by one of their soldiers and they require everyone to join the military after school.
Yep!
If the shooter at Ft. Hood this past week had his M4, AND SO DID EVERYONE ELSE ON BASE, the situation would have ended quickly, if it happened at all.
I think it would have been more of a deterrent than stopping the shooting shortly after beginning. These people are cowards. The moment they're met with armed resistance they give up or take their own life. If everyone had been armed, they would have chosen some place else.
Service members aren't trusted with loaded weapons overseas either. What makes anyone think they will allow it here?
I expect you mean in Garrison?
Certainly it was a long time ago, in a land far, far away, and maybe the circumstances of handling classified material and gear warranted it, but when I was in DE and worked shift at a comm center, the repair tech on duty as radio operator had ready access to a rack of M16's and a basic load.
Back in the real world (1st ID Fort Riley), we never had access to ammunition unless it was during refresh or qual.
I'm on the fence about arming soldiers in garrison with M4's, but there's no compelling reason I can see to prohibit permitted CCW.
With all the "news" programs spreading the word on how unarmed our military bases are here at home, I predict a terrorist attack carried out by around a dozen dirtbags hopping the fence and having a turkey shoot in the near future. It would be a little more difficult than attacking a gun free school, but with much greater bragging rights.
The dirtbags pulled it off multiple times in Afghanistan against armed troops.
Who could stop them?
How many would die before they are finally stopped?
Then (next prediction), instead of arming our military at home, they will instead hire the TSA to search everyone entering the bases.
I expect you mean in Garrison?
Certainly it was a long time ago, in a land far, far away, and maybe the circumstances of handling classified material and gear warranted it, but when I was in DE and worked shift at a comm center, the repair tech on duty as radio operator had ready access to a rack of M16's and a basic load.
Back in the real world (1st ID Fort Riley), we never had access to ammunition unless it was during refresh or qual.
I'm on the fence about arming soldiers in garrison with M4's, but there's no compelling reason I can see to prohibit permitted CCW.
As per base commander's policy- every unit arms room had to have a basic loadout (2 magazines full) for 4 soldiers to pull guard duty in the event of power outage, emergency, or terrorist activity in the area. That was Ft. Drum, 2010.
Thinking about it a little more, all us enlisted always had extra duty to pull; Doobie Driver, CQ for the barracks rats, etc.
Wouldn't it be fairly simple to assign x number of key personnel per day to be armed protectors while they're performing their regular duties?
Aloha_Shooter
04-04-2014, 11:58
I have no problem with the idea of allowing personnel on base carry concealed as long as they comply with local laws (applicable permits, etc.) but ... BUT ... any commander is going to have to think long and hard about arming up to guard a non-Priority A resource on US soil without legal authorities. Letting them exercise rights granted by the civil authorities is distinctly different from trying to exercise non-existent military authorities. How does LOAC apply to criminals versus verified enemy combatants? IIRC, Hasan yelled "Allahu Akbar" as he was firing -- that makes him a traitor and enemy combatant in my book. Lopez did no such thing -- he was no different from some gangster or redneck who went in firing because he was pissed over what I was wearing or that I'd made a pass at his girlfriend.
Very very dangerous ground here.
newracer
04-04-2014, 12:09
Military bases are not any more subject to shootings or crime than any other city. There are just as many people on a military base that I don't want armed with an assault rifle as there are civilians who I don't want to see armed with an assault rifle. If the shooter at Ft. Hood this past week had his M4, the situation would have been even worse.
So you are in favor of an "assault riffle" ban? Are you sure you are on the correct forum? Secondly who said anything about arming everyone with rifles?
... he was no different from some gangster or redneck ...
Rednecks are criminally equivalent to gangsters?
Am I reading this wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Au6qBLgk1A
HoneyBadger
04-04-2014, 12:31
Thinking about it a little more, all us enlisted always had extra duty to pull; Doobie Driver, CQ for the barracks rats, etc.
Wouldn't it be fairly simple to assign x number of key personnel per day to be armed protectors while they're performing their regular duties?
As far as I know, there are several Air Force installations in CONUS that do this or something very similar.
As per base commander's policy- every unit arms room had to have a basic loadout (2 magazines full) for 4 soldiers to pull guard duty in the event of power outage, emergency, or terrorist activity in the area. That was Ft. Drum, 2010.
That was a good laugh...we all know how available the arms room guys are.
That was a good laugh...we all know how available the arms room guys are.
ROFL.
Ah, good times. Looking for the arms room guy when he's supposed to be issuing weapons for a SCHEDULED QUAL...
As per base commander's policy- every unit arms room had to have a basic loadout (2 magazines full) for 4 soldiers to pull guard duty in the event of power outage, emergency, or terrorist activity in the area. That was Ft. Drum, 2010.
Huh?
Since when is a basic M4 load not 210 rounds?
In 198x we only had steel 20 rd mags and IIRC, it was a 240rd loadout.
Mick-Boy
04-05-2014, 04:31
Let's not fool ourselves. The US Military is institutionally afraid of weapons. The (overwhelming) majority of US bases I've been on in Iraq and Afghanistan have clearing barrels at the gates. Service members in combat theaters are often required to walk around with cleared weapons because loaded guns are scary. How do you think that Afghan AF officer was able to kill 8 NATO troops (and a contractor) in 2011? Those poor bastards had empty weapons. I have to carry a letter signed by an 0-8 equivalent that says I don't need to download my weapons coming onto bases.... in Afghanistan..... Most soldiers don't have that letter. Wrap your brain around that.
Here's the underlying problem. For the last decade or so the US military has developed a culture of risk aversion. Officers and senior NCOs are often afraid to make a call because a bad call means the end of their career.
Last year I had to sign a letter exempting an O-6 from responsibility before he would let me leave the base to do my damn job. Mind you, I didn't work for this man, but he was so concerned that he'd get blamed if something happened to my team that he wouldn't tell the guys at the gate that we could leave until he covered his ass.
Any base commander that allowed service members to carry on base (outside of official duties) has to be willing to accept that any incident means the end of their career. I don't see that happening. Ever.
And that's not even addressing the piss-poor small arms training most service members have.
My view on this from the eye's of a late 80's 11b are I can see both sides of this .
While I think that we should have been trusted to do the right thing at the time it could have gone very bad .
There is not much more dangerous than a bored infantryman . There were numerous cases of world class irresponsibility and stupidity . There were people I served with that would get in a pissing contest in a heartbeat and would have easily escalated if the possibility would have been there .
HoneyBadger
04-05-2014, 09:47
Let's not fool ourselves. The US Military is institutionally afraid of weapons. The (overwhelming) majority of US bases I've been on in Iraq and Afghanistan have clearing barrels at the gates. Service members in combat theaters are often required to walk around with cleared weapons because loaded guns are scary. How do you think that Afghan AF officer was able to kill 8 NATO troops (and a contractor) in 2011? Those poor bastards had empty weapons. I have to carry a letter signed by an 0-8 equivalent that says I don't need to download my weapons coming onto bases.... in Afghanistan..... Most soldiers don't have that letter. Wrap your brain around that.
Here's the underlying problem. For the last decade or so the US military has developed a culture of risk aversion. Officers and senior NCOs are often afraid to make a call because a bad call means the end of their career.
Last year I had to sign a letter exempting an O-6 from responsibility before he would let me leave the base to do my damn job. Mind you, I didn't work for this man, but he was so concerned that he'd get blamed if something happened to my team that he wouldn't tell the guys at the gate that we could leave until he covered his ass.
Any base commander that allowed service members to carry on base (outside of official duties) has to be willing to accept that any incident means the end of their career. I don't see that happening. Ever.
And that's not even addressing the piss-poor small arms training most service members have.
Nail, meet your hammer.
Sharpienads
04-05-2014, 09:48
I'm surprised some people are against this. The way I read the petition, all it's saying is if I can carry on the outside of the installation gate, I should be able to carry on the inside. Obviously the gun free policy doesn't work. So not only can I not defend myself with a firearm while on post, I can't from the time I leave my house for the day until the time I get home since you can't even bring a gun on base (with certain very limited exceptions). The no guns policy is bullshit. I realize Joe can be dumb, I work with him everyday. Sometimes I even participate in Joe's shenanigans. But I'd rather take my chances being armed.
When I was stationed at Hood, I went through SRP about a month or two before Maj Fuckstick shot it up. I was TDY to Hood about 3 weeks ago. I could have easily been a target in either of the shootings. Chances are I wouldn't have been involved in either incident, and even if I was may or may not have been able to do anything, but again I'd rather take my chances with the means to defend myself.
This idea doesn't solve all the issues, but it's a step in the right direction. If I have a permit to carry concealed in CO, I should be able to carry on Carson or Pete or any other base/post.
Huh?
Since when is a basic M4 load not 210 rounds?
In 198x we only had steel 20 rd mags and IIRC, it was a 240rd loadout.
For that particular policy that's what it stated... Not a full combat load out, but a "guarded" posture load. Downrange, however, we had to have our 210rnds on us at all times when going outside the wire.
That was a good laugh...we all know how available the arms room guys are.
True... And many of them didn't know very much about the firearms they were responsible for. Our unit armorer saw it as a chore.
Let's not fool ourselves. The US Military is institutionally afraid of weapons. The (overwhelming) majority of US bases I've been on in Iraq and Afghanistan have clearing barrels at the gates. Service members in combat theaters are often required to walk around with cleared weapons because loaded guns are scary. How do you think that Afghan AF officer was able to kill 8 NATO troops (and a contractor) in 2011? Those poor bastards had empty weapons. I have to carry a letter signed by an 0-8 equivalent that says I don't need to download my weapons coming onto bases.... in Afghanistan..... Most soldiers don't have that letter. Wrap your brain around that.
And that's not even addressing the piss-poor small arms training most service members have.
Different bases have different rules, our FOB was loaded mag, empty chamber, and 101st ABN before we took over said no mag in weapon... Uh we're in a war zone, wtf? And I agree with your last statement, I'm better trained now, after being out for almost 4 years, on an AR type rifle, than almost everyone in my unit was.
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Active shooter/insider threat is best solved at the individual level with mindset, not tools. Too many servicemen these days are, for lack of a better term, pussies. I see them in AS/IT scenarios each class and most stand still or curl up and cry. They are not ingrained with the mindset that if they are going to die that day, then they are taking the SOB with them by fighting until the lights go out.
Mick-Boy
04-07-2014, 09:07
Well the Marine Corps has responded by firmly declaring that..... their no-guns policy stands.
http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/NewsArticleDisplay/tabid/3488/Article/162014/marines-reaffirm-responsibility-of-personal-firearm-ownership.aspx
FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. --
Marine Corps leadership issued Corpswide guidance for personal firearm storage aboard installations April 4.
The release of Marine Administrative Message 176/14 (MARADMIN) creates standard policy and enforcement measures Corpswide.
“We decided to reemphasize, across the Marine Corps regulations, we have on the books at several installations and to make sure our Marines understand them,” Maj. Gen. Juan G. Ayala, Commander Marine Corps Installations Command, said. “We also wanted to make certain our installations remain safe for our Marines, sailors and their dependents — I like to use the term safe havens.”
Marine Corps Installation Command (MCICOM) serves as a higher headquarters for 24 Marine Corps installations nationwide. MCICOM provides leadership and direction to equip, train and provide all necessary support for operating forces and tenant activities. The command has only been fully operational for a little over a year.
According to Ayala, 99.9 percent of his 24 installations and the personnel who serve on them are safe and doing the right things. The recent Washington Navy Yard shooting tragedy prompted the Secretary of the Navy, The Honorable Ray Mabus, to direct the Department of the Navy to take a look at the personal firearm policies already in place.
Measures standardized across the Marine Corps by MARADMIN 176/14 include:
Prohibit privately owned firearms in all federal workspaces, to include leased building and vehicles, a standard practice for all federal facilities.
Privately owned firearms cannot be carried as concealed weapons aboard installations.
All privately owned firearms will be stored in approved installation facilities, registered and on file with installation law enforcement.
Prohibit the storage of firearms in bachelor enlisted quarters. At the installation commanders’ discretion, residents of bachelor officers’ quarters and staff non-commissioned officer BEQs will be allowed to retain secured privately owned firearms in their rooms.
Transportation of privately owned firearms is authorized in POVs to and from an authorized storage area or to an off-base location consistent with federal, state, and local laws. They may also be transported to and from on-base areas where firearms use is authorized, such as hunting areas or recreational shooting ranges. All personally owned firearms will be placed in secure fully encased containers.
“There is no change; we are simply reemphasizing the importance of Marines being familiar with the base orders and regulations on personally owned firearms,” Ayala said. “As we do with a wide array of issues, we want the commanders and enlisted leaders to talk to their Marines about these issues at every level.”
Ayala emphasized his confidence in being close to his desired end state — keeping people and property safe and ready to support training to ensure the operating forces are sufficiently equipped and trained to fight.
“The Marine Corps has been handling weapons for 238 years,” Ayala said. “We still have a duty to emphasize these rules, maintain security and readiness, and reduce instances of irresponsible weapons handling.
“The MARADMIN is not taking anyone’s rights away. We just want our folks to be safe — period.”
HoneyBadger
04-07-2014, 10:24
Well the Marine Corps has responded by firmly declaring that..... their no-guns policy stands.
http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/New...ownership.aspx (http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/NewsArticleDisplay/tabid/3488/Article/162014/marines-reaffirm-responsibility-of-personal-firearm-ownership.aspx)
FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. --
Marine Corps leadership issued Corpswide guidance for personal firearm storage aboard installations April 4.
The release of Marine Administrative Message 176/14 (MARADMIN) creates standard policy and enforcement measures Corpswide.
...
Prohibit privately owned firearms in all federal workspaces, to include leased building and vehicles, a standard practice for all federal facilities.
Privately owned firearms cannot be carried as concealed weapons aboard installations.
All privately owned firearms will be stored in approved installation facilities, registered and on file with installation law enforcement.
Wait a second... You're telling me that what this guy did was ... ILLEGAL?!?! *GASP* [facepalm]
Prohibit the storage of firearms in bachelor enlisted quarters. At the installation commanders’ discretion, residents of bachelor officers’ quarters and staff non-commissioned officer BEQs will be allowed to retain secured privately owned firearms in their rooms.
Not entirely no-guns...
Makes one wonder if any there are any authorizations in place at any installations.
A Fort Hood 1st Lieutenant wrote a letter to the TX State Senate... Pretty powerful stuff here:
My letter to Congress, read today at Texas Senate committee on Constitutional Carry. It is now public record.To my friends, fellow Texans, brothers in arms, members of the committee, and everyone within the sound of my voice, greetings.
My name is First Lieutenant Patrick Cook of the 49th Transportation Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas, and this past Wednesday I found myself trapped in an enclosed room with fourteen of my fellow Soldiers, one of whom was barricading the door against a madman with a .45 pistol when he was fatally shot. Through what I can only describe as a miracle, he somehow found enough strength to continue pushing against that door until the shooter gave up and went elsewhere, at which time he collapsed. Nearly a week later, I can still taste his blood in my mouth from when I and my comrades breathed into his lungs for 20 long minutes while we waited for a response from the authorities. This Soldier’s name was Sergeant First Class Daniel Ferguson, and his sacrifice loaned me the rest of my life to tell this story.
But I write to you today not to memorialize this brave Soldier, nor to tell a war story about how we made the best of a losing situation, but to express the part of that story that some in high positions of power clearly do not want told: I knew this was going to happen. I had been saying for five years that Fort Hood was a tinderbox of another massacre waiting to happen. It had to happen, because our betters failed to learn the obvious lesson of five years ago. Worse yet, I know it will happen again. More will die, more will be wounded, more families will be torn apart, needlessly. It happened again, and will happen again, because Fort Hood is a gun free zone.
When the first shots rang out, my hand reached to my belt for something that wasn’t there. Something that could have put a stop to the bloodshed, could have made it merely an “ugly incident” instead of the horrific massacre that I will surely remember as the darkest twenty minutes of my life. Stripped of my God-given Right to arm myself, the only defensive posture I had left was to lie prostrate on the ground, and wait to die. As the shooter kicked at the door, I remember telling myself, “oh well, this is it.” It is beneath human dignity to experience the utter helplessness I felt that day. I cannot abide the thought that anyone should ever feel that again.
At the point blank range at which this shooting occurred, anyone with an M9 and some basic instruction could have ended the mayhem as quickly as it began. An MP by trade and a CHL holder, I am convinced that concealed weapons would have stopped it, but openly carried side-arms, like the ones carried in a law enforcement capacity, could have prevented it entirely. Instead, many more died because of the fatally misguided restrictions on the carrying of arms, which obviously the madman did not respect.
I shall conclude by restating my warning. This will happen again, and again until we learn the lesson that suppressing the bearing of arms doesn’t prevent horrific crimes, it invites them. To those of you who hold elected office, if you hear nothing else I have told you, hear this: you have the power to stop the next massacre from happening. You have an opportunity to restore the sacred Right to bear arms, which has been either stripped entirely or unjustly relegated to the poor substitute of a probationary, government-issued privilege. For God’s sake, do the right thing.
Thank you for your attention, and good day.
HoneyBadger
04-08-2014, 20:42
A Fort Hood 1st Lieutenant wrote a letter to the TX State Senate... Pretty powerful stuff here:
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/srcstc.gif
Let's not fool ourselves. The US Military is institutionally afraid of weapons. The (overwhelming) majority of US bases I've been on in Iraq and Afghanistan have clearing barrels at the gates. Service members in combat theaters are often required to walk around with cleared weapons because loaded guns are scary. How do you think that Afghan AF officer was able to kill 8 NATO troops (and a contractor) in 2011? Those poor bastards had empty weapons. I have to carry a letter signed by an 0-8 equivalent that says I don't need to download my weapons coming onto bases.... in Afghanistan..... Most soldiers don't have that letter. Wrap your brain around that.
Here's the underlying problem. For the last decade or so the US military has developed a culture of risk aversion. Officers and senior NCOs are often afraid to make a call because a bad call means the end of their career.
Last year I had to sign a letter exempting an O-6 from responsibility before he would let me leave the base to do my damn job. Mind you, I didn't work for this man, but he was so concerned that he'd get blamed if something happened to my team that he wouldn't tell the guys at the gate that we could leave until he covered his ass.
Any base commander that allowed service members to carry on base (outside of official duties) has to be willing to accept that any incident means the end of their career. I don't see that happening. Ever.
And that's not even addressing the piss-poor small arms training most service members have.
Pretty much sums it up.
We're not even to the point where members trained in a law enforcement AFSC/MOS can conceal carry on installation off-duty with a personal firearm, let alone the armed forces as a whole.
<MADDOG>
04-08-2014, 22:23
My view on this from the eye's of a late 80's 11b are I can see both sides of this .
While I think that we should have been trusted to do the right thing at the time it could have gone very bad .
There is not much more dangerous than a bored infantryman . There were numerous cases of world class irresponsibility and stupidity . There were people I served with that would get in a pissing contest in a heartbeat and would have easily escalated if the possibility would have been there .
I'm torn also...
I had my fair share of intervening in "off-post" altercations with NCO's and their spouses with guns and alcohol in the mix. I can only imagine how bad that could get in the barracks, as I took part in some insane acts myself as a young 11B. Then I think about the possibilities of "informal" marksmanship competitions and the risk to wild-life.[LOL]
At the same time, I don't think anyone should be walking around being mandated to be defenseless.
Tough call to make.
A Fort Hood 1st Lieutenant wrote a letter to the TX State Senate... Pretty powerful stuff here:
[/FONT][/COLOR]
His thought was that his ONLY action was to lay there and wait to die??? That is a mindset issue, not a need for a firearm. If all he had available was a gov issue stapler then everyone in that room should have been ready to jump the shooter immediately and kept pounding staples in the shooters head until the threat was gone. That LTs letter, although well written, was nothing more than an armchair QB note saying "well, if would have done something if I had a gun..." That LT should be court marshaled for negligence. The US military has become so pussified that the normal response is not to run towards gunfire but to cower from it. I am disgusted...
muddywings
04-09-2014, 08:17
His thought was that his ONLY action was to lay there and wait to die??? That is a mindset issue, not a need for a firearm. If all he had available was a gov issue stapler then everyone in that room should have been ready to jump the shooter immediately and kept pounding staples in the shooters head until the threat was gone. That LTs letter, although well written, was nothing more than an armchair QB note saying "well, if would have done something if I had a gun..." That LT should be court marshaled for negligence. The US military has become so pussified that the normal response is not to run towards gunfire but to cower from it. I am disgusted...
I see your take on the letter but likewise i have seen enough libtard emotionally based arguments that I throw up a bit in my mouth now every time I hear them. I'm looking at this letter, looking at the intended target audience and what he is trying to say using the same emotional based argument tactics the other side seems to use so much better. He is pretty much taking the active shooter policies and procedures wrapping them up with a bowtie of emotion and throwing it policy maker's faces.
I read an article, that I should have kept, that stated (hugely paraphrasing of course) that the reason why both sides of the issue can't even have a conversation any more is because one side is using emotion and the other side is using logic. The article recommended using emotionally based arguments to counter emotionally based arguments which is what this guy did.
I wasn't there, I didn't see the his actions, other's actions, the shooters actions, floor layout, etc etc. I'll commend him based on his tactics OF this letter vs his tactics IN this situation as i wasn't there.
As for me, I work in a similar environment and have my own personal mindset that varies from the official policy/procedure and I'm ok with that.
As for what Mickboy said above bout Afghan 2011-I lost a classmate, a guy who I threw back a few beers with back in the day and a guy who worked one floor below mine in the same unit although we never crossed paths. That situation was beyond F-uped and still boils my blood. 'Leaders' should have been fired over that.
His thought was that his ONLY action was to lay there and wait to die??? That is a mindset issue, not a need for a firearm. If all he had available was a gov issue stapler then everyone in that room should have been ready to jump the shooter immediately and kept pounding staples in the shooters head until the threat was gone. That LTs letter, although well written, was nothing more than an armchair QB note saying "well, if would have done something if I had a gun..." That LT should be court marshaled for negligence. The US military has become so pussified that the normal response is not to run towards gunfire but to cower from it. I am disgusted...
Ok... you go right on ahead and rush a gun wielding attacker while you're unarmed... let's just see how that works out. Where should I send the flowers? Not everyone is Batman, able to dodge bullets and beat bad guys to a pulp.
Ok... you go right on ahead and rush a gun wielding attacker while you're unarmed... let's just see how that works out. Where should I send the flowers? Not everyone is Batman, able to dodge bullets and beat bad guys to a pulp.
I run that exact scenario every class. Want to see the footage with students and Sim guns? More aggression & charging the attacker, armed or unarmed always equals less casualties. EVERY TIME. Its not like I teach this shit for a living...It's even in current DoD active shooter/insider threat POI. Cowering and hiding will never stop the threat. Only being aggressive in response will. And you want to be a cop??? Good luck with that mentality. However, thank you for exemplifying my point about the lack of proper mindset.
The founding fathers would have laughed at the concept of disarming soldiers in garrison, dismissing it as a bad joke.
I run that exact scenario every class. Want to see the footage with students and Sim guns? More aggression & charging the attacker, armed or unarmed always equals less casualties. EVERY TIME. Its not like I teach this shit for a living...It's even in current DoD active shooter/insider threat POI. Cowering and hiding will never stop the threat. Only being aggressive in response will. And you want to be a cop??? Good luck with that mentality. However, thank you for exemplifying my point about the lack of proper mindset.
I don't mean it for myself- I mean it for the average person. Fight or flight. Not everyone is trained or mentally prepared to jump in, without equal armament, and attempt to stop an attacker. Even if I'm disarmed, unless a very good opportunity presents itself, I'm probably not going to intervene. Unless my options are dire, such as cower and die, or fight and possibly die, I'd prefer to get the hell out of there and live- if I'm unarmed, that is.
I don't mean it for myself- I mean it for the average person. Fight or flight. Not everyone is trained or mentally prepared to jump in, without equal armament, and attempt to stop an attacker. Even if I'm disarmed, unless a very good opportunity presents itself, I'm probably not going to intervene. Unless my options are dire, such as cower and die, or fight and possibly die, I'd prefer to get the hell out of there and live- if I'm unarmed, that is.
They were US Military!!! Not average people. It is their job to face the enemy, regardless of MOS. They failed to utilize their training to not freeze and hide in fear. The LT failed to act as an officer in the US Army and protect those under his command and do as he was trained to do. He was provided with active shooter training as well as combatives/H2H in basic training. He failed to do as he was paid to do because he "didn't have his firearm." A prime example of the weakening of our military...
ronin, if you will only act IF you have "equal armament" when innocent people are being slaughtered then you need to choose a new profession or rethink your training priorities and objectives (as well as your manhood).
They were US Military!!! Not average people. It is their job to face the enemy, regardless of MOS. They failed to utilize their training to not freeze and hide in fear. The LT failed to act as an officer in the US Army and protect those under his command and do as he was trained to do. He was provided with active shooter training as well as combatives/H2H in basic training. He failed to do as he was paid to do because he "didn't have his firearm." A prime example of the weakening of our military...
ronin, if you will only act IF you have "equal armament" when innocent people are being slaughtered then you need to choose a new profession or rethink your training priorities and objectives (as well as your manhood).
I'm just guessing here, but he never stated his MOS- so I can't speak to his training... the combatives training everyone gets in Basic (not sure about Infantry OSUT though) is a joke. I could do some basic moves right out of BCT, it wasn't until one of our NCOs went to Level 3 combatives training and took some outside the military training that we started doing weekly combatives/hand-to-hand training that I learned actual usable tactics. They Army doesn't see a huge need for all of it's troops- especially non-combat MOS soldiers- to know anything but a basic form of hand-to-hand, that IRL probably won't do you any favors. The Army is not trained to respond to a threat without the use of arms and force, unarmed against an active shooter and they might as well be average people with a little extra training in firearms, that's it. And I never said I'd only act if I had equal armament, I said unless an opportunity to act presented itself, I'm not going in gung ho and becoming another victim. That's why cops carry guns, otherwise what good are they if they become another victim? Questioning my manhood because I would be reluctant to commit suicide by gunman, okay, whatever. Now, if I was unarmed, encountered an active shooter, ideally I'd get to an advantageous position to utilize the hand-to-hand training I've received, but if that wasn't possible what good would I do in adding to the number of people the paramedics and/or coroner had to deal with?
Even if I'm disarmed, unless a very good opportunity presents itself, I'm probably not going to intervene.
The Army is not trained to respond to a threat without the use of arms and force, unarmed against an active shooter and they might as well be average people with a little extra training in firearms, that's it.
​​it's in current active shooter/insider threat POI as I mentioned before
And I never said I'd only act if I had equal armament, I said unless an opportunity to act presented itself, I'm not going in gung ho and becoming another victim.
​​see your quote above. You're trying to backpedal now.
That's why cops carry guns, otherwise what good are they if they become another victim? Questioning my manhood because I would be reluctant to commit suicide by gunman, okay, whatever. Now, if I was unarmed, encountered an active shooter, ideally I'd get to an advantageous position to utilize the hand-to-hand training I've received, but if that wasn't possible what good would I do in adding to the number of people the paramedics and/or coroner had to deal with?
​​based upon all the scenarios I've run over the last several years, you would most likely reduce the number of casualties and motivate others to join in stopping the threat by not being easy targets. Active shooters are cowards and are not looking for a fight. Every time the fight (armed or unarmed) has been brought to an AS/IT, they've stopped their actions and usually kill themselves.
I live in base housing and I have some guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wdLDDoxE8to
I live in base housing and I have some guns.
Base housing for some reason has different rules about what you can have on hand from barracks and other on base single soldier housing. One of the things that pissed me off to no end when I was in.
Base housing for some reason has different rules about what you can have on hand from barracks and other on base single soldier housing. One of the things that pissed me off to no end when I was in.
Yea, the barracks are crap. Guys in there cant even have knives. I have to register "all" mine with the cops but i can have them. Damned if I cant seem to count all the trees in the forest. I suck at math lol. I safe is tucked away. To be honest not sure how things will go if I pick up all my toys from the respective safe houses. My hour talk with the commander for the 5 I did register here might get very interesting on round 2.
Yea, the barracks are crap. Guys in there cant even have knives.
I had my Ka-Bar in my barracks room and no one said a thing about it... come to think of it, not sure anyone knew about it. [Muaha]
I had a steak knife in the barracks in Hawaii and almost got an article 15 for it. They confiscated it and I was forced to use a paring knife to cut food with since I was on BAS due to my job. The paring knife was under the blade length limit of the base barracks SOP. I wasn't even allowed to have the knife issued by my unit for my fight vest in the barracks as it was too long.
TheBelly
04-15-2014, 16:22
I'm just guessing here, but he never stated his MOS- so I can't speak to his training... the combatives training everyone gets in Basic (not sure about Infantry OSUT though) is a joke. I could do some basic moves right out of BCT, it wasn't until one of our NCOs went to Level 3 combatives training and took some outside the military training that we started doing weekly combatives/hand-to-hand training that I learned actual usable tactics. They Army doesn't see a huge need for all of it's troops- especially non-combat MOS soldiers- to know anything but a basic form of hand-to-hand, that IRL probably won't do you any favors. The Army is not trained to respond to a threat without the use of arms and force, unarmed against an active shooter and they might as well be average people with a little extra training in firearms, that's it. And I never said I'd only act if I had equal armament, I said unless an opportunity to act presented itself, I'm not going in gung ho and becoming another victim. That's why cops carry guns, otherwise what good are they if they become another victim? Questioning my manhood because I would be reluctant to commit suicide by gunman, okay, whatever. Now, if I was unarmed, encountered an active shooter, ideally I'd get to an advantageous position to utilize the hand-to-hand training I've received, but if that wasn't possible what good would I do in adding to the number of people the paramedics and/or coroner had to deal with?
Haze Yourself.
By saying that you don't have the right level of combatives training, all you're saying is that you failed to understand the primary purpose of the Modern Army Combatives Program: to instill the will to close with and destroy the enemy and provide a basic toolset to do so.
I'm interpreting this as: 'my buddy's life is not as important as mine.'
Again, haze yourself.
<MADDOG>
04-15-2014, 21:36
Haze Yourself.
By saying that you don't have the right level of combatives training, all you're saying is that you failed to understand the primary purpose of the Modern Army Combatives Program: to instill the will to close with and destroy the enemy and provide a basic toolset to do so.
I'm interpreting this as: 'my buddy's life is not as important as mine.'
Again, haze yourself.
Belly, with all due respect; your comments are laughable...
The "will"? I can fucking guarantee none of the 3 killed or the 16 wounded had the "will" to get shot. I'm sure you would have been the hero of the day if you were present however...
And please continue interpreting bullshit from other people's statements; it makes for good popcorn-eating reading for the liberals who visit the site.
TheBelly
04-17-2014, 08:39
And what would you have done, mad dog?
<MADDOG>
04-17-2014, 11:11
From which aspect do you wish me to address? The one wherein I was a "block away" and ultimately did nothing to change the outcome, or the one where I am actively placed in the scenario?
Either way I was not there; and I will not armchair quarterback this tragedy by purporting my opinions as fact. What is fact is there are 19 casualties, some of whom may have had the "will" and the training that is spoken of. What is also fact is an MP with a firearm took down the shooter.
I may be mistaken, but I believe that was the context of the OP; arming our soldiers.
Anyway, have fun; continue eating each other over hypotheticals about motivation and training.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.