branches-of-service-combo-pack-of-decals-8

I am not going to refer to any specific article.  Something needs to be done to arm our military personnel.  Right now, they are doing their job in uniform which apparently is the same thing as drawing an X on their backs and saying “shoot me!” Why must military personnel go around unarmed?  How many times have innocent troops been the target of terrorists and crazies?  What’s even more disturbing is the fact that the local police has to come to the rescue of the military.  This happens time and time again–Chattanooga, Navy Yard, Fort Hood, the list goes on.

Somewhere along the way, the military needs to change its policy.  Those wearing the uniform are going to have to be armed and well-prepared to use the weapon in the face of danger.

I don’t know much about military regulations but many of you all do.  Please enlighten us as to why the military isn’t armed.  They, like every other person, as a right to defend themselves.

13 thoughts on “Shooting up the military

  1. BSinVA

    Municipal and State police officers are, as we all know, armed while in uniform. Most are also armed when in civilian clothes – at their daughters ball game and or their backyard cooking hot dogs. They do this because the rascal that they arrested two days ago for beating Mrs. Rascal, gets out on bond and may seek vengeance on that police officer. Or Lester the Molester gets out of prison and wants to get even with the guy that put him there.

    I can certainly support the arming of the country’s military personnel while off post or off base at public function such as a recruitment office where wing nuts can easily find them.

    One thing to remember though is that the local police officer is WAY more trained in the use of firearms then the average military member. The local cop also is trained in self defense where the average GI lacks any such expertise. So, even armed, the GI is at a disadvantage unless properly trained.

    1. Perhaps the average GI needs more training. The military shouldn’t be a secondary culture. Times have changed. Give them the training they need to wear the uniform. Actually, they weren’t too protected at Fort Hood or the Navy Yard either.

  2. Cargosquid

    @BSinVA
    “One thing to remember though is that the local police officer is WAY more trained in the use of firearms then the average military member. The local cop also is trained in self defense where the average GI lacks any such expertise. So, even armed, the GI is at a disadvantage unless properly trained.”

    Not so, depending upon the service. Navy and Air Force would need to add training either for rifles or sidearms. However, even there, we have qualifications that need to be met now.

    As for “self defense:”
    http://www.bragg.army.mil/18abc/FBCS/Documents/Basic%20Combatives%20Course%20%28Level%20I%29%20Handbook.pdf

    Most cops are NOT highly trained with firearms. They qualify on static ranges once or twice per year. Marines and Soldiers are much more proficient with long arms. Sidearms are another matter, but anyone with basic training can meet the qualifier for cops. People in the shooting sports outshoot cops every day. The only thing that cops have over everyone else is training in the laws and uses of deadly force, which, lately, they seem to be ignoring anyway.

    That said, the most untrained service member or civilian is at a great advantage over any UNARMED person. Basic familiarization allows a firearm to be effectively used.

  3. Confused

    Posse Comitatus?

  4. BSinVA

    In my experience, over half of new recruits for municipal police departments are military veterans and about 1/4 to 1/3 are still serving in the reserves or National Guard. Additionally, there are many military facilities housed in unprotected office buildings off post (think Crystal City). On top of that, most of those facilities are manned by officers and clerical enlisted types. Few such officers go through specialized weapons training or maintain any expertise in either weapons of personal defensive tactics. In my jurisdiction, all uniformed cops including the Chief, the animal wardens and the school security personnel are all weapons qualified, recertified yearly and trained in non-lethal defensive techniques.

  5. Cargosquid

    @BSinVA

    In most jurisdictions, cops qualify about twice, at most, per year.

    The LAPD bragged about civilians not being able to pass their qualifying course.
    The locals accepted their challenge, set it up, and even the average shooter did it.

    What we are talking about here is being able to respond to a shooter. Not law enforcement.
    The military is most definitely qualified to do that.

    In general, we need to harden up. Think outside the box.

    Now….. realistically, I don’t think the recruiters need to arm up specifically for this threat. This attack, like the Lanza shooting in CT, were black swan attacks. I do think that NCO’s, in uniform, on official business, should be armed. I do think that civilians should be allowed carry nationally. I think having guards in schools is a good idea…..and for some schools, having armed teachers and admin have not been a problem.

    But….that’s just me.

  6. Starryflights

    I suppose Trump doesn’t consider them heroes.

  7. Wolve

    The first — allegedly interim — reaction out of Washington is to have the U.S. Marines working in the recruiting offices wear civvies and pull the blinds down.

    Now, really, Washington, do you think an insanely dedicated terrorist is NOT going to shoot up a military recruiting office because the unarmed people inside are not wearing uniforms and the blinds are drawn?

  8. Scout

    Whose “first – allegedly interim – reaction” was that, Wolve? Surely no one official.

  9. Wolve

    Scout :
    Whose “first – allegedly interim – reaction” was that, Wolve? Surely no one official.

    Ray Odierno, Ash Carter, Pentagon spokesmen…..You want more? I see that public reaction to the out-of-uniform order may be causing a reversal of that order for Marine recruiters. No weapons though. Still sitting ducks.

  10. Wolve

    Ash Carter described the first Pentagon reactions as an immediate response to the Chattanooga incident and told his people to get back to him later with any additional ideas for personnel security. That’s from the Marine Corps Times, as well as other media. But let me amend and extend my previous remark. It looks to me like there was a real backlash to the no-uniform order by Marines themselves, objecting no doubt to being made to look like cowards by changing into civvies so they won’t be in harms way in their own country.

  11. Wolve

    @Scout

    Well, it looks like Obama’s Washington is as discombobulated as ever. They even confused SNOPES, which claimed as truth that the Marine Corps Recruiting Command (MCRC in Quantico) had tendered a “later-approved” request for recruiters to not wear uniforms. (SNOPES was trying to absolve Obama of any blame for the order.) WaPo cites the Pentagon as referring to and describing the MCRC no-uniform order. But the MCRC cried foul, stating that they had not issued a national order of that kind. They had only told the Chattanooga recruiters to go home, change into civvies, and await further instructions regarding their own recruiting station. Other than that, says the MCRC, Marine recruiters will always be in uniform.

    I tell you, this Washington response is beginning to look like something out of Beetle Bailey.

  12. Scout

    To cut through this a bit, Wolve: Your comment #8 then was not a real world event?

    I could have told you that when I asked my neutral question. You are becoming even more playable and credulous as you mature. Can I safely assume that you will now excuse General Odierno, Secretary Carter and unnamed Pentagon spokesmen (your comment #10)?

    We have indeed become a world of Chicken Littles.

Comments are closed.