DoD Releases Plan to Allow Personnel to Carry Firearms on Base

[mammynun]

So . . .

. . . are we for military personal being allowed to carry weapons or are we a'gin' it?

Based on much of the preceding discussion, I can't tell. I don't pretend to understand military culture, but the discussion seems to have bogged-down in why it's a bad idea based on cultural, logistics, and training issues rather than whether or not these men and women should be allowed the means to protect themselves.

I'm for it, and I don't see how the barracks can be excluded. But I think it will come with costs that people should be aware of and consider before forming their own opinion. But if the cost is too high, or (especially) too spectacular, I can see it coming back to bite all of us... "If the trained military can't handle assault rifles (sic), how can we possibly justify civilian ownership!" they will cry on the pages of Slate.

Why not do something about that kind of behavior - whether you allow weapons or not? If it's really that bad, it's seems too dangerous whether firearms are involved or not.

The Army cultivates behaviors that value surprise, speed and violence of action in the infantry. From the limited amount of time (3 months) I spent with 2/2 Marines, they encourage that behavior as well.

It's like a family or a gang... nobody is allowed to mess with your little brother except you... to get a sense of military hierarchy, you just expand the number of people and change the terms; brother = squad member, cousin = platoon, etc. You want that esprit de corps, familiarity and trust in units, and in a culture predicated on violence and kicking ass, asses get kicked. You want that, even if you don't think you do (royal "you," not Rhino specifically). So if "an armed society is a polite society" the addition of firearms may have little effect.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Because you want fighters, and fighters are going to fight.

People in my unit were arrested in the civilian world for bar fights, for fighting LEOs, for fighting most anyone you can imagine. One guy kicked a civilian LEO unconscious and got prison time. Fighting outside is bad. Fighting in the barracks gets it out of your system, rarely results in any real repercussions aside from extra duty and restriction to base type stuff, and allows fighters to fight in a somewhat controlled environment.

Oh, and this will help tell you how fighting was viewed. You weren't in trouble for fighting outside as long as no one got in trouble. If you were present and you didn't extricate your buddy, you were in trouble.

The guy who kicked the LEO claimed he didn't realize the guy was a cop until it was too late. The LEO was breaking up a bar fight. I don't know the truth of if he knew or not, but I do know he ran and got caught shortly thereafter and he looked like he may have fallen up the stairs a few times when he bonded out.

Our 1SG and CPT went to his sentencing to ask the judge to basically remand him back into military custody and let us deal with it in house because he was "a good soldier". The 1SG and company commander are the Mommy and Daddy of the company, and they went to bat for a guy who kicked a cop in the head because "good soldier".

 

[mammynun]

The 1SG and company commander are the Mommy and Daddy of the company, and they went to bat for a guy who kicked a cop in the head because "good soldier".

As you mentioned upthread, Mommy and Daddy don't look good in the BN CDR's and SGM's eyes when one of their soldiers goes to civie jail...

 

[Woobie]

BBI is giving a very accurate account of Army life. It's probably hard to wrap your head around, but it really does work like this. Guys will fight each other viciously, and think they hate each other, but still make up an excuse to leadership why they look beat up. Then they will be like an uncle to that guys kids. A platoon sergeant or 1SG will leave his family in the middle of the night to pick your drunk butt up off a sidewalk. Then spend the rest of the week making the hangover the pleasant part of the experience. It really is a family.

 

[oldpink]

I think most of us are in the gray area of "yes, but with restrictions." I've yet to see anyone with an issue with recruiters carrying, for example. Most folks are not real hip to have guns in the barracks...seemingly the vast majority of us who lived there at one time or another so that's probably a clue. *IF* proper training and logistics are in place, I see no reason that you couldn't have a program for troops to carry. Being the military, I'd expect something like a test bed of NCOs, evaluate, then expand the program if things go well. Along with a new acronym. With duplicated efforts by each branch. With conflicting regulations between the branches. Because military.

Sounds perfectly reasonable.
The best way to approach it would definitely be to go incrementally, start with senior people who are more experienced, mature, and who have more to lose, make when, were, and how to carry part of the conditions, make it clear that even the tiniest infraction will be punished swiftly and severely, then see how it goes and adjust until you reach a point that even the most cautious person will be satisfied.
It doesn't have to be all at once, but something needs to be done to have a second line of defense against the next religious fanatic going off on a rampage, just as with yesterday when yet another "immigrant" gets afflicted with "Sudden Jihadist Syndrome," this time at Ohio State.
Let a few more of these misfits get blasted just as they initiate an attack and the cachet of executing these attacks will disappear pretty quickly.
Not to mention, it's contradictory for just about everyone in the military to forbidden to go armed on base.

 

[MoparMan]

BBI is giving a very accurate account of Army life. It's probably hard to wrap your head around, but it really does work like this. Guys will fight each other viciously, and think they hate each other, but still make up an excuse to leadership why they look beat up. Then they will be like an uncle to that guys kids. A platoon sergeant or 1SG will leave his family in the middle of the night to pick your drunk butt up off a sidewalk. Then spend the rest of the week making the hangover the pleasant part of the experience. It really is a family.

I agree. I was stationed at Campbell in the 90's and I remember quite a few quad brawls with other battalions. At that time if we lived in the barracks our pow's had to be secured in the vault and only to be signed out if we were leaving post. Could someone have signed them out and still used them in the barracks...sure...but i don't recall it ever happening while I was there. I guess most of the infantryman i know would rather take there grievance out with fists than guns or other weapons.

 

[Woobie]

I agree. I was stationed at Campbell in the 90's and I remember quite a few quad brawls with other battalions. At that time if we lived in the barracks our pow's had to be secured in the vault and only to be signed out if we were leaving post. Could someone have signed them out and still used them in the barracks...sure...but i don't recall it ever happening while I was there. I guess most of the infantryman i know would rather take there grievance out with fists than guns or other weapons.

There is something visceral about subduing your foe with your bare hands

But I never get involved in that crap. I did wait out side with a guy who just spat on me so he didn't attack my buddy when he got back once. There was tension. And my buddy probably would have killed him. Raving racist drunks and drunk Irish/Portrugese/Koreans don't mix.

 

[drillsgt]

It is worth pointing out that most of those statistics come from before or during the era when the culture was making a change toward where it is now. And I can only speak on Army training. For all I know the USMC is still telling their guys to rest their chins on the muzzle.

There is also a concern (and for the life of me I can't figure out why it hasn't caught on more with the terrorists) that there will be copycat terrorism based on past attacks by Hassan and others. So while past numbers are low, we also have to look at changing trends and times.

Please don't take this as attacking the character instead of the argument, but Gen Odierno has overseen a lot of the wussification, online training culture change in the Army. Not a fan, and I don't take a lot of stock in some of the things he says. And it's just like him to try to solve the problem in a PowerPoint or taking something away, rather than find a solid solution.

Finally, I'm betting a not-insignificant number of those ND's are murders. Guys don't take kindly to you getting their buddies killed. It's not nearly as much time in the Brig if no one thinks it's actual murder.

BBI's posting of links from ND's from a warzone to highlight the potential of ND's on post/base isn't really a relevant comparison. Overseas you have your rifle 24/7 for the most part but thanks to the military's typical distrust of service members they are required to unload/load way too much. Many of these happen at the clearing barrels because they cause a lot of unnecessary gun handling. Carrying a CCW on post as you go about your day would be no different to what all of us on this board do daily, I just don't see the end of the world scenario here. I'm not going to be a proponent of disarming the police off duty or on duty because there are some idiots, nor say that those in non LE or MIL jobs shouldn't have the right.

Search Result: Accidental Discharges - POLICE Magazine

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downlo...d_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2014V2.pdf

Washingtonpost.com: Deadly Force (120 AD's, DC police need some help!)

 

[BehindBlueI's]

DC police definitely needed help. That article if from 1998, and tells a tale of a department that was both under trained AND what training they were doing was outdated and lousy. LA had the same issue when they went to striker fired guns. Mishandling that you could get away with with a 10 lb trigger was causing issues with a 5 lb trigger.

That said, find me a single year when police NDs killed more cops or citizens than lives were saved with handguns. The risk/reward calculation still needs to be done, but it's pretty plain that the risk is dwarfed by the reward with even the most casual glance at the stats of officer involved shootings. Also, as noted, when a specific circumstance changes that risk/reward, LEOs do disarm. Also, as noted, the types of weapons, holsters, off limits areas, etc. are all due to that risk/reward ratio. Even the type of training done involves that. We all know some cops and some soldiers are going to be injured or killed in training, but that training saves more people than it costs. No one, or at least not me, is looking for zero defects. Handling firearms is a risky business, period. However, is that risk worth it given the circumstances, and for on-duty .gov folks that includes the consideration of will it cost more personnel than it saves. For civilians, it's irrelevant, the cost of freedom and of the right to bear arms trump the 79 people so far this year in my county alone with new holes in them due to ND/AD. What rights you have as a citizen are curtailed when you're on the job, and that's independent of LE or Mil.

Without saying I agree it's due to clearing barrels, if you accidentally kill someone at a clearing barrel you were doing more than one thing wrong. NDs into the barrel, not a real big deal, it's what it's there for (although I understand the military doesn't always agree). However, only about half of all NDs that were reported were in official clearing areas, and those aren't broken down into which caused injury and which didn't. Looking at anecdotal accounts from officers who investigated the shootings and what the military itself believes caused the majority and it's fatigue, screwing around with guns, and complacency. For the guys in the county this year, alcohol was a factor.

Of course the stats come from a war zone. That's where troops currently handle loaded weapons, for the most part, and where the media bothers to care. I've recounted the training ND that killed one and disabled one at Ft. Riley when I was there already. It happens, and it will always happen. We can minimize it, but never eliminate it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I can see some of your points but I guess it depends on your perception. If you perceive military members as drunken violent mindless degenerates that are nothing more than a national stock number (NSN) i'd probably be wary of allowing them anywhere near a firearm. If however you view them as rational adults and even force multipliers as I do then your perception is probably different. All these alcohol fueled horror stories with young military members are the same ones that the anti-gunners bring up about campus carry. People in this age group who aren't in the military or aren't in college drink too, it's not unique to being in the military i'd say more just age demographic. I'd probably trust a 21 year old E-5 with a gun more than i'd trust a college junior or some gas station cashier somewhere. The age range for the group most likely in the barracks and apparently getting drunk 24/7 can't get a permit/license anyway. If troops were allowed to carry their POW's it would probably much like how civilians do it, there would be a little surge for awhile until it became a PITA and then it would taper off to only those really serious about it. Many would probably opt out like mechanics and others that have to actually work in and around things etc. The biggest benefit would likely be similar to our parking lot bill where service members could have their firearms as they come to and from post. That would have been the biggest benefit I would have liked while at Benning. I don't think it's a valid argument to resist the possibility of our servicemen and women having the ability to protect themselves because you've responded to some ND's. You could apply that logic to anyone in IN even owning guns, forward your stats to the Brady Campaign i'm sure they'd love them.

The highlighted line confused me. Are you saying that 18 year olds can't enter the military and be in the barracks? Because IN allows 18 and over to obtain a LTCH. Or did you mean they couldn't qualify as proper persons due to the alcohol? (They could, as long as they didn't have two adjudications against them, IIRC.) But either way, age isn't a factor; there is no state of which I'm aware that doesn't allow 21 year olds to obtain a state permission slip (LTCH, whatever) and likewise, no state that the legal drinking age is higher than 21. If there's some part of this I'm missing, I'd appreciate the information.

All I did was question who your response was directed to and agree with something Birds Away said in this thread.

Maybe you'll put him on your ignore list, too.

Where was I "just bull****ting"?

ATM, I think he was saying that because you're serious about the 9/11 truth issue, you are, in fact, NOT BSing, and that's why he was going to ignore you... Conspiracy theory/Alex Jones/tinfoil hat, etc.

Not allowing them to carry makes as much sense to me as having NYPD having to turn in their weapons at the end of their shift to an arms room, and then telling them they aren't allowed to carry when off duty.
The people [strike]that should be armed,[/strike] should be armed at all times, if they choose.

Fixed. Until and unless my actions cause some harm, nobody else should be deciding whether or not I "should be armed". That's my decision.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATM]

...ATM, I think he was saying that because you're serious about the 9/11 truth issue, you are, in fact, NOT BSing, and that's why he was going to ignore you... Conspiracy theory/Alex Jones/tinfoil hat, etc...

Oh, I realize full well what he intended to say there, I just didn't let that stand in the way of using it to achieve my own goals and purposes.

Trust me, I got this!

Thanks, though, I always appreciate your genuine helpfulness and good intent.