Arming our military domestically

[IU1]

It's hard for me to believe we have come to a point where our military members can't defend themselves with a gun on base or at a recruiting center. Obviously this law needs to be changed immediately. Had the war veterans at the recruiting center had guns, Abdulazeez wouldn't have got off more than a round or two before being cut down.

What kind of logic is it that our military is unarmed domestically while terrorists know they can buy a gun and walk into a defenseless situation?

I see that armed citizens with conceal/carry permits are guarding a recruiting station in Georgia. This is not an ideal situation and with ISIS directly threatening US military personnel here in the U.S. it's time to arm military personnel so they aren't sitting ducks.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It's hard for me to believe we have come to a point where our military members can't defend themselves with a gun on base or at a recruiting center. Obviously this law needs to be changed immediately. Had the war veterans at the recruiting center had guns, Abdulazeez wouldn't have got off more than a round or two before being cut down.

What kind of logic is it that our military is unarmed domestically while terrorists know they can buy a gun and walk into a defenseless situation?

I see that armed citizens with conceal/carry permits are guarding a recruiting station in Georgia. This is not an ideal situation and with ISIS directly threatening US military personnel here in the U.S. it's time to arm military personnel so they aren't sitting ducks.

I've been looking for the rationale behind the policy, but can't find a trustworthy source. I imagine it has to do with all the reasons to have strict gun control in the workplace combined with the special circumstances of a military base, which almost certainly houses some number of soldiers who are being evaluated for PTSD and related issues.

Whatever it is, it's been issued under three different Presidents, so multiple people have considered the issue and come to the same conclusion.

 

[DougS]

I've been looking for the rationale behind the policy, but can't find a trustworthy source. I imagine it has to do with all the reasons to have strict gun control in the workplace combined with the special circumstances of a military base, which almost certainly houses some number of soldiers who are being evaluated for PTSD and related issues.

Whatever it is, it's been issued under three different Presidents, so multiple people have considered the issue and come to the same conclusion.

Considering that military bases are now targets, it may be time to review the policy. I'm not saying that everyone on the base should be packin', but perhaps the MPs should be? Before this policy was put in place how armed were military personnel at the bases?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

It's hard for me to believe we have come to a point where our military members can't defend themselves with a gun on base or at a recruiting center. Obviously this law needs to be changed immediately. Had the war veterans at the recruiting center had guns, Abdulazeez wouldn't have got off more than a round or two before being cut down.

What kind of logic is it that our military is unarmed domestically while terrorists know they can buy a gun and walk into a defenseless situation?

I see that armed citizens with conceal/carry permits are guarding a recruiting station in Georgia. This is not an ideal situation and with ISIS directly threatening US military personnel here in the U.S. it's time to arm military personnel so they aren't sitting ducks.

Weapons in the military are far more tightly controlled than you would believe. They are locked behind extremely sturdy doors with advanced locking mechanisms and are counted daily. If a weapon is missing, an entire base will get locked down until it's found.

It takes a company of Joes about an hour to draw weapons from arms rooms and about an hour to check them back in at the end of training. When are they supposed to get anything done during the duty day if two hours are gone drawing weapons?

If your argument is that they should just take their government issued weapons home with them, then you are extremely naive. The shit that privates do in the barracks would blow your mind and if they were armed, I probably would've had to bail someone out of jail nightly. The amount of suicides and domestic violence are disproportionately high and Uncle Sam won't enable that further.

Further, if you think that our soldiers / marines are android-like figures that would respond instantly while being shot at, you've seen too many movies. By the time they would've recovered from what was happening and gained situational awareness, it would've been over. You learn a lot about yourself and your boys when you get shot at.

Bottom line, the military should not and will not issue weapons to service members while in garrison.

 

[hootch1]

When I was in, shortly after Washington became president, there were marines at the base entrances, They were armed. We were not. When on the sub in port, the watch on deck was armed. All other weapons were secured.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Considering that military bases are now targets, it may be time to review the policy. I'm not saying that everyone on the base should be packin', but perhaps the MPs should be? Before this policy was put in place how armed were military personnel at the bases?

MPs do pack when on duty. This is only the second incident involving a recruiting center in ten years (that I can recall - though I'm too lazy to look it up) and that infrequency probably doesn't warrant arming stressed out recruiters in strip malls. Maybe civvie police can increase their attention to those areas and leave domestic safety to the experts.

 

[Ladoga]

MPs do pack when on duty. This is only the second incident involving a recruiting center in ten years (that I can recall - though I'm too lazy to look it up) and that infrequency probably doesn't warrant arming stressed out recruiters in strip malls. Maybe civvie police can increase their attention to those areas and leave domestic safety to the experts.

1. Whoever is handling security on the scene of any military installation should be trained, armed and authorized to engage every threat.
2. Evidently only losing a few soldiers to terrorist gunmen at a couple of recruiting centers in 10 years is acceptable and doesn't warrant reconsideration of the policy??
3. Civilian police aren't sufficient in number to guard any specific location.
4. Any terrorist will do whatever damage they are capable of long before any police will arrive.
5. Only armed and trained personnel on the scene will prevent the next event.

 

[hoot1]

How did we become a country where some of us are better armed than our own military and often have more firepower than the police?

In the future will we feel compelled to not only use arms to protect our homes but consider it necessary to be armed to the teeth when in public along with wearing body armor?

 

[IU1]

Weapons in the military are far more tightly controlled than you would believe. They are locked behind extremely sturdy doors with advanced locking mechanisms and are counted daily. If a weapon is missing, an entire base will get locked down until it's found.

It takes a company of Joes about an hour to draw weapons from arms rooms and about an hour to check them back in at the end of training. When are they supposed to get anything done during the duty day if two hours are gone drawing weapons?

If your argument is that they should just take their government issued weapons home with them, then you are extremely naive. The shit that privates do in the barracks would blow your mind and if they were armed, I probably would've had to bail someone out of jail nightly. The amount of suicides and domestic violence are disproportionately high and Uncle Sam won't enable that further.

Further, if you think that our soldiers / marines are android-like figures that would respond instantly while being shot at, you've seen too many movies. By the time they would've recovered from what was happening and gained situational awareness, it would've been over. You learn a lot about yourself and your boys when you get shot at.

Bottom line, the military should not and will not issue weapons to service members while in garrison.

I'm not saying arm every recruit the second they get off the bus for boot camp. But IMO certain ranking soldiers should be allowed to carry weapons on base. This is the first time we've had a foreign enemy calling for direct attacks at home on military personnel. If we're training soldiers for war some of them have to be capable of carrying weapons at home for protection?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

1. Whoever is handling security on the scene of any military installation should be trained, armed and authorized to engage every threat.
2. Evidently only losing a few soldiers to terrorist gunmen at a couple of recruiting centers in 10 years is acceptable and doesn't warrant reconsideration of the policy??
3. Civilian police aren't sufficient in number to guard any specific location.
4. Any terrorist will do whatever damage they are capable of long before any police will arrive.
5. Only armed and trained personnel on the scene will prevent the next event.

1. First of all, recruiting stations are not military installations. Real military stations have security, including armed guards.

2. Read this article, especially the part where the Navy recruiter shot himself in the leg and then the Workplace violence incident. Arming stressed out recruiters needs more than a few infrequent incidents before it even starts to make sense from a risk standpoint. http://www.usnews.com/news/politics...security-at-recruiting-posts-will-be-reviewed

3. No but they can increase their patrols if intelligence points to threats.

4. And long before recruiters would be able to get weapons out of a safe in their office so I guess they'd need to be strapped at all times which increases the danger to everyone.

5. Derp. So more guns?

The sooner Murica realizes that about 70% of the military has no idea how to properly defend themselves and wage personal combat, the faster you'll realize that they're not all Rambos and snake eaters. Let the police do their jobs.

 

[hoot1]

INRanger27, I agree with most of what you are saying. However, I can see local recruiting stations now becoming targets for a domestic ISIS wannabe.

Ranger, Are members of the military banned from having weapons in homes outside military bases as one of the posters mentioned?

 

[davegolf]

I think historically it is based on the authority granted the US Military. Like the CIA they are not authorized to take any official action within the US borders. I would note that in case of domestic emergencies it is always the guard that is called out because they (when not on official military deployment) are under the control of the Governor of each state. Many don't understand the differences between the Army Reserves which is a "reserve" entity of the regular army that is controlled by only federal authorities. The Army Guard, while still a "reserve" of the regular army, is dual status. It is controlled by state authority unless mobilized into federal service (like Iraq).

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

INRanger27, I agree with most of what you are saying. However, I can see local recruiting stations now becoming targets for a domestic ISIS wannabe.

Ranger, Are members of the military banned from having weapons in homes outside military bases as one of the posters mentioned?

I agree re: targets and the local police should increase patrols or the military should hire security to protect.

The military does not allow off-post residents to have military issued weaponry at their homes. However, of course they can have their personally owned weapons at their off-post homes, subject to local municipality/state laws.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think historically it is based on the authority granted the US Military. Like the CIA they are not authorized to take any official action within the US borders. I would note that in case of domestic emergencies it is always the guard that is called out because they (when not on official military deployment) are under the control of the Governor of each state. Many don't understand the differences between the Army Reserves which is a "reserve" entity of the regular army that is controlled by only federal authorities. The Army Guard, while still a "reserve" of the regular army, is dual status. It is controlled by state authority unless mobilized into federal service (like Iraq).

I too was surprised how quickly so many people were willing to throw out posse comitatus, but it appears as though that has nothing to do with this rule. Apparently the rule is primarily about safety and training.

 

[stollcpa]

It's hard for me to believe we have come to a point where our military members can't defend themselves with a gun on base or at a recruiting center. Obviously this law needs to be changed immediately. Had the war veterans at the recruiting center had guns, Abdulazeez wouldn't have got off more than a round or two before being cut down.

What kind of logic is it that our military is unarmed domestically while terrorists know they can buy a gun and walk into a defenseless situation?

I see that armed citizens with conceal/carry permits are guarding a recruiting station in Georgia. This is not an ideal situation and with ISIS directly threatening US military personnel here in the U.S. it's time to arm military personnel so they aren't sitting ducks.

When this policy was implemented radical Muslims weren't committing workplace violence. It would seem after Ft Hood and all the reports of terrorist going after soft targets that our political leaders would have done something about this situation.

 

[Rockfish1]

It would seem after Ft Hood and all the reports of terrorist going after soft targets that our political leaders would have done something about this situation.

Because the security arrangements at military recruiting outlets are a regular agenda item at White House briefings. And because it would be so easy to "do[] something about this situation."

 

[hootch1]

I too was surprised how quickly so many people were willing to throw out posse comitatus, but it appears as though that has nothing to do with this rule. Apparently the rule is primarily about safety and training.

I can't comment on the Marines. Based on my experience the Naval guys have little formal training with weapons. There are obviously certain special forces that have a lot of experience. The ones that I know had little.

I was in the Navy for six years. In boot camp I shot a pistol that was built as a 45, the standard pistol for the Navy, but used 22s. I don't know why they used this type of setup. Questions were not cheerfully answered in boot camp. We also shot rifles for a few rounds. In all maybe 20 shots shooting at a stationary target.

Added on edit: I did spend six months on a mine sweeper and served on the decommissioning crew. The decision was made to expend the little ammo left. I did shoot a 50 caliber machine gun. My instructions were 1) point in that direction and 2) pull the trigger.

When I arrived at my boat I had to qualify for firearms even though my rating would require me to use them in only the most dire situations. This was shooting at a target again but with a real 45. We also trained on a shotgun which consisted of shooting two shellsells into the side of a hill, reloading and shooting two more shells in the side of the hill.

Oh, and I spent some time in a tear gas chamber in boot camp. I still don't know much about tear gas.

I knew a couple of chiefs that went into recruiting off of our boat, one of them pretty well. They had no additional firearms training when they went into recruiting. The training issue is significant.

 

[iubud]

It's hard for me to believe we have come to a point where our military members can't defend themselves with a gun on base or at a recruiting center. Obviously this law needs to be changed immediately. Had the war veterans at the recruiting center had guns, Abdulazeez wouldn't have got off more than a round or two before being cut down.

What kind of logic is it that our military is unarmed domestically while terrorists know they can buy a gun and walk into a defenseless situation?

I see that armed citizens with conceal/carry permits are guarding a recruiting station in Georgia. This is not an ideal situation and with ISIS directly threatening US military personnel here in the U.S. it's time to arm military personnel so they aren't sitting ducks.

I am sure there are exceptions, but I trust having a trained military person with a firearm. The Colonel in the background of the press conference with Gov. Pence this weekend is my cousin's ex-husband and a very good friend of mine. His daughter is an MP and has served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan just as her dad has. I would feel very safe with either of these armed in my workplace.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I can't comment on the Marines. Based on my experience the Naval guys have little formal training with weapons. There are obviously certain special forces that have a lot of experience. The ones that I know had little.

I was in the Navy for six years. In boot camp I shot a pistol that was built as a 45, the standard pistol for the Navy, but used 22s. I don't know why they used this type of setup. Questions were not cheerfully answered in boot camp. We also shot rifles for a few rounds. In all maybe 20 shots shooting at a stationary target.

Added on edit: I did spend six months on a mine sweeper and served on the decommissioning crew. The decision was made to expend the little ammo left. I did shoot a 50 caliber machine gun. My instructions were 1) point in that direction and 2) pull the trigger.

When I arrived at my boat I had to qualify for firearms even though my rating would require me to use them in only the most dire situations. This was shooting at a target again but with a real 45. We also trained on a shotgun which consisted of shooting two shellsells into the side of a hill, reloading and shooting two more shells in the side of the hill.

Oh, and I spent some time in a tear gas chamber in boot camp. I still don't know much about tear gas.

I knew a couple of chiefs that went into recruiting off of our boat, one of them pretty well. They had no additional firearms training when they went into recruiting. The training issue is significant.

That definitely used to be the case. Unless you were a special operator, assigned to security teams on the ship, or the ship was going on a deployment, Sailors didn't get a whole lot of small arms training. It all changed after 9/11 and everyone gets a lot more training now with a lot of firing range time and requalification every year for all hands on the ship and those that are assigned to security teams and boarding teams get a lot more small arms training as well as nonlethal weapons training. When I joined the Navy, we joked that the armed watch on the Quarterdeck might be more dangerous to himself or his fellow watchstanders than to any security threat. Those jokes aren't told any longer. Sailors are much better with weapons now. I wouldn't be too worried about one or more of them having weapons at hand at a recruiting station now, but I'm not entirely convinced it should be required. Maybe in more high threat areas, but otherwise, probably not.

 

[Noodle]

It's hard for me to believe we have come to a point where our military members can't defend themselves with a gun on base or at a recruiting center. Obviously this law needs to be changed immediately. Had the war veterans at the recruiting center had guns, Abdulazeez wouldn't have got off more than a round or two before being cut down.

What kind of logic is it that our military is unarmed domestically while terrorists know they can buy a gun and walk into a defenseless situation?

I see that armed citizens with conceal/carry permits are guarding a recruiting station in Georgia. This is not an ideal situation and with ISIS directly threatening US military personnel here in the U.S. it's time to arm military personnel so they aren't sitting ducks.

The worst excuse I head over the weekend was a guy on NPR who said that having recruiters armed could make potential recruits uncomfortable. Good lord, maybe that's the best reason of all to arm military personnel at recruitment centers--so that they can weed out potential recruits who are uncomfortable around firearms!

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

That definitely used to be the case. Unless you were a special operator, assigned to security teams on the ship, or the ship was going on a deployment, Sailors didn't get a whole lot of small arms training. It all changed after 9/11 and everyone gets a lot more training now with a lot of firing range time and requalification every year for all hands on the ship and those that are assigned to security teams and boarding teams get a lot more small arms training as well as nonlethal weapons training. When I joined the Navy, we joked that the armed watch on the Quarterdeck might be more dangerous to himself or his fellow watchstanders than to any security threat. Those jokes aren't told any longer. Sailors are much better with weapons now. I wouldn't be too worried about one or more of them having weapons at hand at a recruiting station now, but I'm not entirely convinced it should be required. Maybe in more high threat areas, but otherwise, probably not.

You mean like this gentleman / soon to be ex-sailor?

http://news.yahoo.com/u-navy-recruiter-shoots-himself-leg-georgia-215310697.html

 

[zeke4ahs]

You mean like this gentleman / soon to be ex-sailor?

http://news.yahoo.com/u-navy-recruiter-shoots-himself-leg-georgia-215310697.html

Question for Ranger and Aloha and anyone else past military. Why is it that the abundance of military is conservative? One thing I've heard is that the officers are by a large majority, but not so much the others. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, particularly with the voting the last decade or so, in that it is generally the GOP voting down increasing benefits and such. Been curious about this for awhile. Don't mean to hijack the thread.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I am sure there are exceptions, but I trust having a trained military person with a firearm. The Colonel in the background of the press conference with Gov. Pence this weekend is my cousin's ex-husband and a very good friend of mine. His daughter is an MP and has served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan just as her dad has. I would feel very safe with either of these armed in my workplace.

Wrong. Firearms experts in the military are the minority, not majority of servicemen and women. This is true even in the Army and Marines, and even more so in the Navy and Air Force.

You need only look up the numbers of accidental discharges during training and combat and dovetail in the PTSD issues and you quickly realize that the military is quite right with their current policies.

If a real threat to recruiting centers is persistent and real, there are alternatives to arming recruiters.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

You mean like this gentleman / soon to be ex-sailor?

http://news.yahoo.com/u-navy-recruiter-shoots-himself-leg-georgia-215310697.html

Yes, it happens. So? It does nothing to change the fact that Navy personnel are better trained in small arms now than before 9/11. Many more are very competent with small arms now than before. However, there will always be accidents and there will always be some percentage that probably shouldn't be handing small arms.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Question for Ranger and Aloha and anyone else past military. Why is it that the abundance of military is conservative? One thing I've heard is that the officers are by a large majority, but not so much the others. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, particularly with the voting the last decade or so, in that it is generally the GOP voting down increasing benefits and such. Been curious about this for awhile. Don't mean to hijack the thread.

While your characterization about who votes against benefits is selective and incomplete (the truth is that the military has benefitted since the 90s by politicians of both parties trying to prove they like us more) and neglects to mention which party is more inclined to cut the military than the other, here's something for you to read. It's got some good stuff in it. From my experience, conservatives tend to join the military more than liberals (so there's a beginning bias - and that has declined some) and it's not uncommon for those that start out as liberal or moderate to become more conservative while in the military. That was my personal experience too. I've noticed more and more in my last years in the military that claim to be independent rather than Republican, but haven't seen a huge increase in people calling themselves liberal and Democrat. I did have more officers in the wardroom of my last ship that were obviously liberal than I've ever had before. Still a minority, but a much larger one. On my first ship I bet I was one of only two Democrats in the wardroom. There may have been a couple others, but not sure who. I used to joke with one of my fellow officers about him being a right wing Nazi when he picked up his conservative magazines at mail call and he jokingly called me a commie as I picked up my copy of the Rolling Stone or some other liberal leaning magazine. We're both still good good friends today. While he's way more right than I am (to the point that I even hide some of his more right wing posts on Facebook because I don't want to see them and don't care for my friends to see them), we're at least on the same side of the aisle and he doesn't call me a commie.

 

[iubud]

Wrong. Firearms experts in the military are the minority, not majority of servicemen and women. This is true even in the Army and Marines, and even more so in the Navy and Air Force.

You need only look up the numbers of accidental discharges during training and combat and dovetail in the PTSD issues and you quickly realize that the military is quite right with their current policies.

If a real threat to recruiting centers is persistent and real, there are alternatives to arming recruiters.

Wrong? I guess that is your opinion. An MP like I described, or someone in an office environment that is trained is a completely different situation than a training exercise. I would not want an arsenal kept in a strip mall recruiting office, but a holstered weapon by one or more uniformed recruiters is fine with me. Our police are armed in their cruisers, or while providing security off duty yet they aren't accidently firing off rounds like Barney Fife.

Someone with a holstered firearm is unlikely to discharge their weapon unless they intend to. The idea is to leave the weapon in the holster with the safety on and the firing method protected. I don't have an issue with someone in uniform being armed. The Hong Kong airport has pairs of officers carrying automatic rifles, sidearms, and what I assumed was tasers patrolling the ticketing area and stationed at security. I didn't see them handling their weapons in an unsafe manor.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Wrong? I guess that is your opinion. An MP like I described, or someone in an office environment that is trained is a completely different situation than a training exercise. I would not want an arsenal kept in a strip mall recruiting office, but a holstered weapon by one or more uniformed recruiters is fine with me. Our police are armed in their cruisers, or while providing security off duty yet they aren't accidently firing off rounds like Barney Fife.

Someone with a holstered firearm is unlikely to discharge their weapon unless they intend to. The idea is to leave the weapon in the holster with the safety on and the firing method protected. I don't have an issue with someone in uniform being armed. The Hong Kong airport has pairs of officers carrying automatic rifles, sidearms, and what I assumed was tasers patrolling the ticketing area and stationed at security. I didn't see them handling their weapons in an unsafe manor.

Wrong is not my opinion. You're WRONG. Your rebuttal, when I explained in many posts in this thread that the vast majority of servicemen don't touch their weapons more than once a year when qualifying, is to speak about policemen who carry their weapons everyday and are extremely proficient.

I say again: the vast majority of servicemen are not MPs, are not Infantry, are not SOF, and do not have experience engaging the enemy in close combat. They are weapons novices at best...powder kegs at worst.

 

[iubud]

I wouldn't expect someone trained as an airframe mechanic without any recent weapons training to carry a weapon in a recruiting center. The person in the news conference with Gov. Pence is very experienced as is his daughter and other nonmilitary family members. Terrorists seem to prefer locations that offer no resistance. Let's make then wonder if an office is armed.

From my retired Vietnam era uncles and dad to my active duty cousins, I don't know one of them that would pass up the opportunity to take part in training to protect themselves, co-workers, or civilians like me if they had a chance. If they have the proper training, they should be allowed to carry a weapon.

I guess we will just have to disagree.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I wouldn't expect someone trained as an airframe mechanic without any recent weapons training to carry a weapon in a recruiting center. The person in the news conference with Gov. Pence is very experienced as is his daughter and other nonmilitary family members. Terrorists seem to prefer locations that offer no resistance. Let's make then wonder if an office is armed.

From my retired Vietnam era uncles and dad to my active duty cousins, I don't know one of them that would pass up the opportunity to take part in training to protect themselves, co-workers, or civilians like me if they had a chance. If they have the proper training, they should be allowed to carry a weapon.

I guess we will just have to disagree.

But what is it exactly you think you are disagreeing over? No one is arguing we should disarm MPs. The question is, should we also ark everyone else? Ranger has made the very good point that simply being military doesn't make you a small arms expert. I think many are of the simplistic view that every single soldier is a master marksman.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

But what is it exactly you think you are disagreeing over? No one is arguing we should disarm MPs. The question is, should we also ark everyone else? Ranger has made the very good point that simply being military doesn't make you a small arms expert. I think many are of the simplistic view that every single soldier is a master marksman.

Yep. The vast majority of servicemen/women touch their weapons once a year or twice at most. The recruiting corps reflect the military, thus most recruiters aren't skilled with weapons in combat situations.

The critically thinking individual will quickly understand that there is an exponential increase in risk to the public when servicemeni(the vast majority of which are support personnel) in mini malls become armed. The minute one of them commits a crime or has an accident in public using a service-issued weapon, the litigious floodgates open.

It's nice of people to think about servicemen safety when recruiting, but let's use some critical thinking when coming up with solutions.

 

[hootch1]

Aloha tells me that today' s military trains significantly more than we did with weapons. It has been a couple of decades since I was in the military.

What are the initial and ongoing training reqs?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

But what is it exactly you think you are disagreeing over? No one is arguing we should disarm MPs. The question is, should we also ark everyone else? Ranger has made the very good point that simply being military doesn't make you a small arms expert. I think many are of the simplistic view that every single soldier is a master marksman.

I can't believe it took this long for these clowns to officially release this.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/20/politics/nra-guns-military-recruiters/index.html

 

[hoot1]

Ranger makes a good point when he reminds us that not all those who serve in the military aren't equally qualified to use small arms and the military does have a good many positions which are non-combat tasks. To this I would ask, are the personnel selected to act as recruiters likely to be both hawks and doves?

Given that the military needs to attract all kinds of personalities, shouldn't recruitment offices and those working there offer a relaxed environment to anyone considering a military career? Along these lines, I would play down the danger of going into a recruitment office along with reminding the public that our men and women in uniform aren't walking targets.

 

[iubud]

But what is it exactly you think you are disagreeing over? No one is arguing we should disarm MPs. The question is, should we also ark everyone else? Ranger has made the very good point that simply being military doesn't make you a small arms expert. I think many are of the simplistic view that every single soldier is a master marksman.

The issue of PTSD was initially given as a reason recruiters shouldn't be armed. Then there was mention that the number of accidents in training should keep the policy the same. I am saying there are enough people in the military that can handle firearms that the ban could be lifted. I am not saying recruiting offices should maintain a cache of weapons, but those that are properly trained should be able to carry a military issued firearm. A Navy cook that hasn't fired a gun since basic training would not carry a weapon.

There aren't going to be any accidents with a holstered firearm while the weapon is secured. That is why the weapon isn't unholstered while it is being worn unless it is to be used. I come from a family with many active and retired military. I would trust all of them in an emergency.

Collateral damage in a strip mall from return fire is a hazard the trained soldier or trained private citizen understands. The terrorist is less worried about injuring the public than the person returning fire. It seems obvious to me that taking down the terrorist early by an armed soldier could save lives. My only concern is that the recruiters would be out-gunned by the terrorists. I am not concerned with the stability or capabilities of the soldiers.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

The issue of PTSD was initially given as a reason recruiters shouldn't be armed. Then there was mention that the number of accidents in training should keep the policy the same. I am saying there are enough people in the military that can handle firearms that the ban could be lifted. I am not saying recruiting offices should maintain a cache of weapons, but those that are properly trained should be able to carry a military issued firearm. A Navy cook that hasn't fired a gun since basic training would not carry a weapon.

There aren't going to be any accidents with a holstered firearm while the weapon is secured. That is why the weapon isn't unholstered while it is being worn unless it is to be used. I come from a family with many active and retired military. I would trust all of them in an emergency.

Collateral damage in a strip mall from return fire is a hazard the trained soldier or trained private citizen understands. The terrorist is less worried about injuring the public than the person returning fire. It seems obvious to me that taking down the terrorist early by an armed soldier could save lives. My only concern is that the recruiters would be out-gunned by the terrorists. I am not concerned with the stability or capabilities of the soldiers.

I give up. You're clearly not getting it.

 

[iubud]

I give up. You're clearly not getting it.

I get it. I trust the military leaders and those that wear the uniform and would feel comfortable in a room of armed soldiers.

 

[U81Too]

Wrong. Firearms experts in the military are the minority, not majority of servicemen and women. This is true even in the Army and Marines, and even more so in the Navy and Air Force.

You need only look up the numbers of accidental discharges during training and combat and dovetail in the PTSD issues and you quickly realize that the military is quite right with their current policies.

If a real threat to recruiting centers is persistent and real, there are alternatives to arming recruiters.

Recruiters are not a bunch of PTSD sufferers sent to a safe location to finish their careers in peace and quiet. While the uniform is on, they are soldiers.

Add bullet-proof glass, add a reception area to further divide the office from the street, secure all entries other than the front door, and only have those trained in small arms carrying weapons in case someone penetrates the first layers of defense. Not all locations will have someone carrying a weapon, but the terrorists don't need to know that.

Terrorists won't strike recruiting offices now. They will find a new location that isn't protected or seen as a threat to return fire.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Recruiters are not a bunch of PTSD sufferers sent to a safe location to finish their careers in peace and quiet. While the uniform is on, they are soldiers.

Nobody is saying that. However, if you don't think that they are under great stress, both job related and trauma related, then we needn't talk anymore.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2009/02/13/696992/-Army-Recruiting-The-crappiest-job-in-the-world

I'm fine with the bulletproof glass and hardening the building. I'm just trying to tell you that some training in small arms doesn't make someone able to respond to that level of attack. Everyone in the military has small arms training but practicing annually doesn't help keep people safe.

The military policies on arming troops on base and off post are sensible and grounded in logic. Armed soldiers walking around is a disaster waiting to happen and should only be addressed if enough evidence and planning warrant it. So far it hasn't.

Not every serviceman is Rambo. You are all vastly overstating the combat training of our military. Less than 25% are combat trained in responding to attacks.

 

[Noodle]

Nobody is saying that. However, if you don't think that they are under great stress, both job related and trauma related, then we needn't talk anymore.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2009/02/13/696992/-Army-Recruiting-The-crappiest-job-in-the-world

Just curious--how/why does someone get tagged for recruitment duty? It's something I always wondered about ever since a recruiter made a point of trying to sell me on the military simply because he assumed a guy in his early 20s eating by himself at Ponderosa in the middle of the day must be unemployed. When I told him I was in law school, his eyes got real big and the pitch changed to the JAG Corps. Do they get more "points" for putting someone in OCS or something like the JAG Corps?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Just curious--how/why does someone get tagged for recruitment duty? It's something I always wondered about ever since a recruiter made a point of trying to sell me on the military simply because he assumed a guy in his early 20s eating by himself at Ponderosa in the middle of the day must be unemployed. When I told him I was in law school, his eyes got real big and the pitch changed to the JAG Corps. Do they get more "points" for putting someone in OCS or something like the JAG Corps?

First, Recruiting duty requires extra screening. They have to have high ratings on their evaluations, no disciplinary issues, better than average physical fitness scores and there are limits on tattoos (usually they can't be visible while in uniform). Second, the needs of the Navy drives their focus. Could be we're short on nurses, JAGs, pilots or ship drivers (if an officer recruiter) or short on particular enlisted specialties if an enlisted recruiter (they're usually not the same recruiters). Whatever we have the greatest need for will mean that recruiters will be trying harder for people that qualify for those positions and their eyes will "light up" a bit when they have a prospect for one of those needs.