DoD Releases Plan to Allow Personnel to Carry Firearms on Base

[actaeon277]

DoD Releases Plan to Allow Personnel to Carry Firearms on Base | Military.com
DoD Releases Plan to Allow Personnel to Carry Firearms on Base


Not sure if this belongs here. It is about self defense, so I figured what the heck.


The Pentagon recently released detailed guidance that allows U.S. military personnel to carry privately owned, concealed firearms on base, a move that the Army's service chief argued against publicly.
"Arming and the Use of Force," a Nov. 18 Defense Department directive approved by Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, lays out the policy and standards that allow DoD personnel to carry firearms and employ deadly force while performing official duties.

 

[MinuteManMike]

It's sheer idiocy to not let soldiers (or whatever) carry at all times. If we cannot trust them, why the Hell are they "serving"?

 

[KellyinAvon]

Does anyone else find it odd that it is controversial to allow the US Military the right to use deadly force? The O-5s and above it mentions in the story who can authorize such actions are the same ones worried more about their next assignment/promotion to allow the ammo to be stored anywhere near the weapons, just sayin.

Milley defended the short time it took for law enforcement to secure the scene and said he is not convinced that allowing soldiers to carry privately owned weapons would have stopped Hasan. He obviously wasn't there. Spoken like a true careerist if I ever heard one and in 21+ years on active duty I heard A LOT of them!!

Personnel carrying firearms "will not be under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance I seem to remember the Military being against this most any time.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Is both in and out of uniform? In uniform, I wonder what the guidelines will be. Honestly, I don't think it should be their own firearms. I think the DoD should issue them for conformity, set standards, and qualifications. JMO.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Is both in and out of uniform? In uniform, I wonder what the guidelines will be. Honestly, I don't think it should be their own firearms. I think the DoD should issue them for conformity, set standards, and qualifications. JMO.

Don't worry, the DoD will suck all the fun out of it as they do with everything else.

 

[actaeon277]

Does anyone else find it odd that it is controversial to allow the US Military the right to use deadly force? The O-5s and above it mentions in the story who can authorize such actions are the same ones worried more about their next assignment/promotion to allow the ammo to be stored anywhere near the weapons, just sayin.

Milley defended the short time it took for law enforcement to secure the scene and said he is not convinced that allowing soldiers to carry privately owned weapons would have stopped Hasan. He obviously wasn't there. Spoken like a true careerist if I ever heard one and in 21+ years on active duty I heard A LOT of them!!

Personnel carrying firearms "will not be under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance I seem to remember the Military being against this most any time.

Well, the militaries theory is that if soldiers carry, there will be a "non-zero" amount of accidental discharges or crimes. Taking away the guns, brings it close to zero. The military IS a bureaucracy.

In war zones, the threat of attack overrides this risk, so there they carry.

 

[indykid]

I wonder why a soldier (any branch) that has to qualify with a weapon, cannot them be trusted to carry it?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I wonder why a soldier (any branch) that has to qualify with a weapon, cannot them be trusted to carry it?

Well, for one the military does a pretty poor job of training most folks on small arms. Gun handling and safety is glossed over and you'll likely learn more in a hunter's ed class. They also know the number of ADs will be greater than zero. When I was at Ft. Riley, an engineer was killed and another lost a hand to an ND with a .50 that hit their track. The military is a numbers game. The number of soldier lost to NDs vs the number of soldiers saved by allowing carry is the bottom line. Well, politics and PR aside.

Combine in that pistols are an afterthought to an afterthought, that a chimp could likely qualify "expert" with the M9, and the fact that folks believe they are "expert" because their quals say so...bad things will happen.

Now, good things may happen to. But guess which one impacts careers more? Right.

 

[oldpink]

Couldn't they address the concerns regarding ability to handle a sidearm safely by having those who want to carry qualify with their chosen carry weapon during normal qualifications with issue arms?
I know when I was on active duty, it always seemed so odd to know that I couldn't carry my two handguns on base in Norfolk, even as base security was bristling with their own weapons.
Wouldn't it have been nice if Nidal Hassan had been summarily gunned down the moment that he screamed "Allahu akbar!" and reached for his own gun, rather than thirteen dead soldiers?

 

[HoughMade]

Don't care about on base. What about on post?

 

[Excalibur]

They should be allowed to have rifles behind their desks

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Couldn't they address the concerns regarding ability to handle a sidearm safely by having those who want to carry qualify with their chosen carry weapon during normal qualifications with issue arms?
I know when I was on active duty, it always seemed so odd to know that I couldn't carry my two handguns on base in Norfolk, even as base security was bristling with their own weapons.
Wouldn't it have been nice if Nidal Hassan had been summarily gunned down the moment that he screamed "Allahu akbar!" and reached for his own gun, rather than thirteen dead soldiers?

Could they? Sure. Will they? Good luck. Range time is always at a premium, and just getting guys qual'd is a PITA. It's not about quals as much as handling, anyway. The whole "don't point it at people" thing wasn't really stressed, at least when I was in.

And of course it would have been better had someone shot him. The DoD looks at it as a numbers game though. 13 from that incident vs how many from NDs/ADs DoD wide if more people carry? It won't be zero injuries or deaths. In our county alone, we're at nearly 80 this year. I've no idea how many would choose to carry, how many mishaps, etc. but I'm sure the bean counters are busily sorting that out as we speak.

 

[Brad69]

While this may look like a good idea on the surface I don't think this will work out well.
In 24 yrs. active duty do you know how many fist fights I have seen ?
If the dummies had been packing we would have had a shootout!
Does the general public know how much young Soldiers drink?
I am glad I retired!

As far as training goes the Army had a huge transformation after 2001 suddenly we no longer had ammo shortages!
Equipment improved dramatically and training did as well.
Pistol training is always secondary and often we would conduct some transition work if we had time or just turned in the ammo.
I was spoiled I had the privilege of spending large amounts of your tax money on receiving training (thanks taxpayers)

 

[KellyinAvon]

Don't care about on base. What about on post?

Bases RULE!!

 

[oldpink]

It's passing strange that people who ordinarily advocate for expanding carry rights wind up sounding like anti-gunners when the idea of active duty military being allowed the same privilege on base is advanced.

 

[actaeon277]

While this may look like a good idea on the surface I don't think this will work out well.
In 24 yrs. active duty do you know how many fist fights I have seen ?
If the dummies had been packing we would have had a shootout!
Does the general public know how much young Soldiers drink?
I am glad I retired!

As far as training goes the Army had a huge transformation after 2001 suddenly we no longer had ammo shortages!
Equipment improved dramatically and training did as well.
Pistol training is always secondary and often we would conduct some transition work if we had time or just turned in the ammo.
I was spoiled I had the privilege of spending large amounts of your tax money on receiving training (thanks taxpayers)

Many of those soldiers had knives. Was there a large number of soldiers stabbing each other?

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's passing strange that people who ordinarily advocate for expanding carry rights wind up sounding like anti-gunners when the idea of active duty military being allowed the same privilege on base is advanced.

This honestly is probably going to be a pretty large headache for a lot of people. Obviously, you can't just hand out handguns to everybody, when they show up for basic. Some pretty detailed rules are going to need to be put in place.

 

[Lelliott8]

Well we certainly can't suffer the bureaucrats to have headaches. I suppose we can continue to restrict individual liberty wherever the government deems necessary, even if it means the unabated slaughter of innocents at these places.

If it's handguns that are the problem, why not allow them to carry their rifle?

 

[oldpink]

This honestly is probably going to be a pretty large headache for a lot of people. Obviously, you can't just hand out handguns to everybody, when they show up for basic. Some pretty detailed rules are going to need to be put in place.

Except that this has nothing to do with guns being handed out, only about allowing those already legally permitted to carry their own guns in the state where their base is, but on base as well.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Many of those soldiers had knives. Was there a large number of soldiers stabbing each other?

I witnessed a soldier hold another soldier with a knife to the throat over an argument that originally started on if Mr. Rogers (the children's TV show guy) was gay or not, while others in the unit frantically talked him down. We were a bit intoxicated. Just a bit. So...maybe?

It's passing strange that people who ordinarily advocate for expanding carry rights wind up sounding like anti-gunners when the idea of active duty military being allowed the same privilege on base is advanced.

The truth is the truth, regardless of if it supports your opinions or not. I see first hand that more people shoot themselves then shoot a criminal, and by a pretty large margin. That's strictly accidental shootings, not even suicides (which soldiers and veterans do at a higher rate). For civilians, that's the risk of exercising their freedoms. Soldiers are people and citizens, but they are also assets and when you sign up you do so with the knowledge that your freedoms and rights are going to be restricted based on the interest the government has in you as an asset. As we were often reminded, "you're here to protect democracy, not practice it."