Comments for Interesting question.

Interesting question.

2009-11-06T16:06:59Z

JTG asks in email (though I've seen it elsewhere, such as NRO).

John, I believe you wrote that you insisted on yer men qualifying with personal hand-held weapons, Redlegs that they were. Your Dad, though a Redleg, got a PH for a bayonet wound.

Now that we have an all-volunteer, "professional" armed force, can't we trust the soldiers with soldierly weapons?

Well, we've never really had the habit of carrying arms in garrison unless we were going to do something with them - or it was a garrison in hostile territory, such as the frontier forts, the FOBs of their day. Oh, excuse me, "COBs of their day."

I've seen other commentary along the lines of this, but I just don't think - unless the threat of "man caused disasters" turns out to be greater than we currently believe it to be - that we all need to be carrying our issue weapons all the time.

That said - we also *don't* allow concealed carry on post.

That would be the rule I would change.

Because then I would be working on an installation with Chuck Z wandering about armed and seeking trouble.

Which, unlike a GFW*, doesn't bother me at all.

*Gun-fearing Wussy.

Comment from Grimmy on 2009-11-07

2009-11-08T03:23:01Z

As a Marine, '79 through '85, I stood guard duty many times. Never once was it without a magazine of live rounds in the mag pouch.

Of course, you don't take the magazine out of the mag pouch and mess around with it, seat it in the weapon and chamber a round, unless you have need to do so.

Comment from Katherine Optima Maximae on 2009-11-07

2009-11-07T20:48:56Z

Doesn't the navy have a long tradition of not arming its sailors until otherwise necessary to lesson the chances of mutiny?

Men in confined spaces with nothing but sea for miles and miles get bored and get into mischief.

I would think that a similar kind of mindset went into the tradition of not allowing peacetime garrisons or garrisons not in enemy territory weapons. In peace time or non FOBs, the enemy is not ever present or just around the corner. If he were, it would give the soldiers something to focus their aggression and frustrations on.

Instead, peace time is "drill, drill, drill" and "clean, clean, clean" amongst the multiple, repetitive tasks of a peace time soldier in a peace time garrison. That gave them plenty of time to grumble, plan and act.

Comment from JamesLee on 2009-11-07

2009-11-07T13:53:45Z

@ Slick Rick

Scary! At least in the 90s, the Virginia had perfectly functional, if very worn, M14s. Even had a couple of select-fires, as well as the usual compliment of Singer and Remington-Rand 1911s, 12 gauges, about 4 M60s, and at least 8 Ma Duece's.

The only occasion we had to "repel boarders" was a SEAL Team practice session at NOB. Dropped swimmers off, seeing how they could do against our Security Force. Problem was, they never called the Sgt of the Gaurd or CDO to say "OK, we are coming, it's a drill, please don't shoot us!"

Shopkeepers, Sonar Techs, and Mess Specialists all issued weapons and live rounds (actually, our SOP for drills was to hand out loaded mags, but you never seated it or chambered a round until ordered to do so), and told by the SOG "Nobody called, so this is REAL. Lock and Load!"

Quite an evening that night.

Comment from Curtis on 2009-11-07

2009-11-07T13:38:52Z

Gosh,
Makes one wonder how the killer was dropped by a lawman? Everybody wearing the same confusing uniform.....what gave the killer away to the lawman?

Security dudes do most of the killing on base, mostly over their wives and girlfriends.

That said, I guess I have no problems with concealed carry on military posts. If some muslim wants to shoot you I guess I see no reason not to let our soldiers carry weapons to shoot muslim terrorists.

Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2009-11-07

2009-11-07T06:51:43Z

Actually, in this particular instance, if all of the soldiers at the SRP site had been armed, the most likely outcome would have been several more dead and wounded - from 'friendly' fire.

For those who have never been to an SRP site, imagine the DMV - crowded, not much room, with lots of people standing around in line for various stations. And everyone is dressed the same, because this is, after all, the Army.

Now add a shooter who's dressed exactly the same way. Even if all of the soldiers had sidearms, you'd have a Rule 4 (Know your target and what's beyond it) NIGHTMARE. The only person who'd have a clear field of fire is the lone bad guy, for whom everyone else is a target.

Add the confusion of trying to identify a target when you've got a whole bunch of people in uniform - the same uniform the bad guy is wearing - and everyone in uniform now has a pistol in their hand. It'd be a circular ambush with a diameter measured in feet and inches, not even yards. And circular ambushes tend to lead to a lot of friendly casualties.

Comment from SangerM on 2009-11-06

2009-11-07T05:28:18Z

The best reason for not giving soldiers weapons to cart around in peacetime areas is that they might use them....

I know that sounds counterintuitive, but military people are just people, albeit, trained to violence, even if controlled. If we had been issued weapons and kept them available with bullets when I was in the Army, there would almost certainly have been more shotouts than there were, like the one at Graf in 78 or 79 when a guy checked a 45 out of the arms room for motorpool guard (yes, w/ bullets) and walked into the barracks room and started shooting at the guy who had been doing his wife on the side.... As it was, he shot the wrong guy (oops), and even if other people had been armed, it wouldn't have saved the guy he was aiming at....

As for the Ft. Hood deal, given the timing, it's iffy to suppose that a guy carrying a weapon could have stopped the shooter in that small area... Most likely, anyone pulling a gun would have drawn his attention and got shot next.

I've pulled guard with loaded weapons and with sticks. I'll take the sticks.... A friend of mine at Hood killed a pal of his who had come out to a guard site to see him and was screwing around -- sneaking up on him. Ooops.

I just can't imagine life in the Army in the 70s and 80s if people had been allowed to carry loaded weapons as a matter of preference.... too many fist fights and disagreements would have ended in shots I think. And a whole lot more people than did would have been killed on Hood when I was there (average one a month or so, I think).

And given the added stress (and less supervisory control) a soldier in garrison has to deal with at a place like hood, I think it likely best that only the peacekeepers be carrying on military bases. Really.

Just my 2 cents

Comment from Slick rick on 2009-11-06

2009-11-07T02:42:30Z

Repelling Borders in the Navy, onboard the Sixth Fleet Flagship in the early '70s, included the issuance of well worn M1 Carbines. That had the bolts removed. And had not been functional for years. Never did figure that one out. Mine was not to question why. . . . . . .

Comment from Martin Morehouse on 2009-11-06

2009-11-06T23:47:26Z

After the Baader-Meinhof attacks in Germany, my kaserne started 'perimeter patrols'. In reality, it was our clerks circling the parking lot with empty, and magazine-free, M-16's. After much complaining, they finally issued the SDNCO one magazine of .45 ball for their M1911. While sitting and chatting with the SDNCO and another clerk one Saturday, I detail-stripped the 1911 and laid it out on her desk blotter. She only noticed when we got up as if to leave for dinner, and stopped me when she thought I was going to leave it like that.

The Army has always had a problem with soldiers carrying weapons. The most famous incident like that is probably the unit in the Phillipines that was attacked by the Moros during breakfast, after they had stacked arms across the parade field.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-11-06

2009-11-06T21:04:29Z

Perimeter patrol at the "soft site" of NATO-23 at Feucht was the only time we ever got issued live ammo for guard duty in Germany.

That was usually fairly intense duty - and required extra training - because of a previous terrorist action there, I heard.

Comment from Grimmy on 2009-11-06

2009-11-06T19:16:45Z

Could do like the old Alamo Scouts did during training.

Every soldier was expected to launch unexpected surprise attacks at any other soldier, at any time, night or day, regardless of rank, and wrestle em into submission.

Kept everyone on their toes and helped build up a natural "head on swivel" behavior.

Comment from Chuck Z on 2009-11-06

2009-11-06T18:33:29Z

Because then I would be working on an installation with Chuck Z wandering about armed and seeking trouble.

Hey, I don't look for trouble, it just has a way of finding me.

The 1991 Luby's incident led to TX passing concealed carry laws.

Now, military bases and schools and other "gun free zones" are really just "unarmed target rich environments" for any of the wolves who want to do us harm. If just one of the soldiers in the SRP at Hood had been carrying, I doubt there would be as many casualties.

Comment from Justthisguy on 2009-11-06

2009-11-06T18:13:05Z

I wouldn't mind having the silly rules apply to somebody like me, who gets to go shootin' once a year, if he's lucky. However, I thought (or presumed,ha!) that all U.S. sojers were trained up to minimum competency with their issue weapons, and required to show recent qualification with same, from time to time.

Comment from JamesLee on 2009-11-06

2009-11-06T17:58:23Z

John, I think I'm with you on that. If a soldier, sailor, or airman complies with either their home state's CCW laws, or with the local state laws, then carrying on base should at least be considered, at least in certain areas.

I also understand, having been there, the need to not just have everyone packing their issue weapons locked and loaded, even on base. I recall seeing a young marine, just relieved from duty in the Exclusion Area, hanging around the barracks with his rifle, apparently unloaded of course. (Not sure how that works, do they keep the weapon, but turn in all ammo? Navy had very different rules) But he seemed quite careless with the muzzle, even though I know he meant no harm to anyone, was just relaxing after a duty shift with his buddies.

Am hearing also that guys are actually getting busted down for weapons violations in Iraq, for failing to clear the chamber prior to using the clearing barrels after returning inside the wire. Personally, I think that seems a tad rediculous.

Comment from Mike L on 2009-11-06

2009-11-06T17:16:00Z

Yeah - interesting question. Reminds me of the thief who decided he'd rob a bar, not knowing it was the local precinct's preferred after-hour hang-out spot. He pulled one gun and was suddenly facing 37 barrels!! He backed down, but I'm not so sure an extremist would - yes, I'm jumping to a conclusion. Then there's always the situation of visiting dignitaries, like the ghost of president(s) past, who insisted every weapon on a certain Marine Base be secured in arms rooms before he visited referenced base. Looks like the current situation may have been averted had the doctor's peers been paying attention to his increasingly erratic behavior. Damn - just damn!!! ML