Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones

[LandShark]

I think the most cost effective and logical way to go about implementing something that would have both prevented the number of deaths and give pause to anyone else to try something like it again would be a federally sponsored CCW permit for military personal. That way there isn't the huge expense it would burden the units with in extra cost to qualify and maintain that qualification on every Soldier. Most Soldiers already have privately own firearms and the permit would be honored anywhere in conus. Obviously some regs will have to be modified and/or created but that is easy.

I have a CCW through the state of AZ but I can't take it on post which is a PITA when I'm out running errands and have to go on post for something.

[helomech]

Originally Posted by ceyko

I'll respectfully disagree. When I was 17 and enlisted I would've whole heartedly agreed. Now that I'm 32 and look back on it, there is a huge difference between the two.

Again though, I fully understand what people are thinking and where they are coming from. I'm just pointing out what I saw and know about from my enlistment.

Edit: For what it's worth, if the powers to be would either do all or nothing - I'd opt for all. However, I think that would decrease the quality of life for military (when not deployed...) drastically since they'd be under constant supervision and shakedowns to ensure weapon/ammo control and inventory. Anyone who has been under that level of supervision while enlisted knows it is not a grand ole time at all. It's just the way things are in the military.

Than they should not be able to enlist until they are able to in the government mind. And BTW a Texas that is 18 years old and in the military does qualify for a CCL.

[ceyko]

Originally Posted by helomech

Than they should not be able to enlist until they are able to in the government mind. And BTW a Texas that is 18 years old and in the military does qualify for a CCL.

But not old enough enough to buy one still. Granted, it could be given or obtained other ways.

[ceyko]

Originally Posted by LandShark

Most Soldiers already have privately own firearms and the permit would be honored anywhere in conus.

Where did you get that statistic from? Most soldiers I knew did not have privately owned firearms. Some did, but most did not.

[ceyko]

Originally Posted by Papa_D

Nope, never served in the military but wanted to, however they tend to frown on enlistees with a birth defect in their back and sorry to say, so does the fire department but I understand why and can't blame either of them..

I won't hold that against you and did not ask with the intent of calling you stupid or anything of that matter. I was just curious if you've seen...

The major was indeed an E5 and above. The same purpose would apply though as a majority of them would be armed to handle the situation. I believe the Fort Bragg incdient years ago was an E4 or below, so we're even. Not 100% sure on that one right now.

Again, I can chase this down for decades arguing with folks on why this should not happen to all military. However, if you support...

-Quality of life decreasing for soliders. (inventory, lockdowns..etc..etc)
-Them not having it when off base and having to deal with the hassle.
-Possible scenario of weapons being sold to the public that are federal firearms (regardless of consequence to the guilty party).
-Increased cost of running the military due to this.

Then by all means do it.

Again...again...again...A lot of these would apply even under my criteria. I think reality is that the older you are the better you are to deal with it.

Regardless, our opinions do not matter to the military no matter how much we want it to or we think it does. They have to operate at a different level, otherwise by now all our troops would only be planting flowers and hugging trees.

Anyway, at a minimum if they were to arm all soldiers (above and beyond inventory, constant checks and lockdowns for lost/stolen/misplaced weapons) a serious training program should be implemented. At a minimum a 10 hour training session should be initiation like in Texas so troops have an understanding when to and when not to use their weapon. In war, it can be straight forward...."fire" etc. Think are not that cut and dry on a daily basis in our lives. Granted the Ft. Hood deal would've been, but there are always tons of deaths/problems in the military and not all them would dictate the use of firearms. It would need to be drilled like the rest of their training.

To answer you question, no they were not dealt with severely. You try to handle your dirty laundry in house and that is what happened. Done deal.

Edit: I'm going to stop arguing the point since we agree, just not on the same level/aspect. I have fresh twins to deal with and these posts eat into sleepy time. At the end of the day we all agree troops should carry, it's just the extent that we disagree on and possibly the training aspect of it.

[helomech]

Originally Posted by ceyko

But not old enough enough to buy one still. Granted, it could be given or obtained other ways.

Wrong, an 18 year old can buy one, just not through an FFL. Private party sale to an 18 year old is legal.

[helomech]

Originally Posted by ceyko

Where did you get that statistic from? Most soldiers I knew did not have privately owned firearms. Some did, but most did not.

I think you are mistaken. Most do own, just don't bring them on base. I had plenty guns when I joined the Army, but never has one been on base. I left them at home because of the hassle.

[helomech]

Originally Posted by ceyko

I won't hold that against you and did not ask with the intent of calling you stupid or anything of that matter. I was just curious if you've seen...

The major was indeed an E5 and above. The same purpose would apply though as a majority of them would be armed to handle the situation. I believe the Fort Bragg incdient years ago was an E4 or below, so we're even. Not 100% sure on that one right now.

So for your math to be correct there would have to been one officer for every enlisted. And we both know that is not the case. I would guess there is probably 1 officer for every 10 enlisted. So if you use a percentage Than you are still behind by about 9.

[Papa_D]

Originally Posted by ceyko

I won't hold that against you and did not ask with the intent of calling you stupid or anything of that matter. I was just curious if you've seen...

The major was indeed an E5 and above. The same purpose would apply though as a majority of them would be armed to handle the situation. I believe the Fort Bragg incdient years ago was an E4 or below, so we're even. Not 100% sure on that one right now.

Again, I can chase this down for decades arguing with folks on why this should not happen to all military. However, if you support...

-Quality of life decreasing for soliders. (inventory, lockdowns..etc..etc)
-Them not having it when off base and having to deal with the hassle.
-Possible scenario of weapons being sold to the public that are federal firearms (regardless of consequence to the guilty party).
-Increased cost of running the military due to this.

Then by all means do it.

Again...again...again...A lot of these would apply even under my criteria. I think reality is that the older you are the better you are to deal with it.

Regardless, our opinions do not matter to the military no matter how much we want it to or we think it does. They have to operate at a different level, otherwise by now all our troops would only be planting flowers and hugging trees.

Anyway, at a minimum if they were to arm all soldiers (above and beyond inventory, constant checks and lockdowns for lost/stolen/misplaced weapons) a serious training program should be implemented. At a minimum a 10 hour training session should be initiation like in Texas so troops have an understanding when to and when not to use their weapon. In war, it can be straight forward...."fire" etc. Think are not that cut and dry on a daily basis in our lives. Granted the Ft. Hood deal would've been, but there are always tons of deaths/problems in the military and not all them would dictate the use of firearms. It would need to be drilled like the rest of their training.

To answer you question, no they were not dealt with severely. You try to handle your dirty laundry in house and that is what happened. Done deal.

Edit: I'm going to stop arguing the point since we agree, just not on the same level/aspect. I have fresh twins to deal with and these posts eat into sleepy time. At the end of the day we all agree troops should carry, it's just the extent that we disagree on and possibly the training aspect of it.

Yeah, it looks as though we are at least reading the same book and may just be on a different chapter and I didn't think you were calling me out with regard to the military enlistment, I just wanted it to be clear that I would have been one to join up if I was allowed and not for a college degree as the primary reason either, lol.

Same with the fire department, I was so disappointed about that because I had a very good friend's father who we used to hunt with that would have gotten me into the station he worked at and life would have been grand.

With regard to keeping it in house, I understand and there is such a thing as extenuating circumstances and I have known plenty of people that needed thrown off a building but I believe that we deal with a lot of this stuff to softly these days, all the way from Kindergarten to Court Martial and as I'm sure you are well aware, there are just some people that have no business in the military and we would do the world a favor by pointing them out whenever we have the opportunity to do so.

I also see your point about the decreased quality of life for the average soldier who has to worry about a weapon being stolen and so fourth however I believe it's important and a responsibility we would do well to encourage. I think their are many things that could be done to eliminate the hassle like digital surveillance of the barracks or an armed guard to make sure things weren't stolen as well as special training and so forth as well.

Yes, it would be additional responsibility and hassle but I would bet dollars to donuts that every soldier on the base in Texas would have gladly paid that price in order to be able to defend themselves when that scumbag opened up on them and they had nothing to fire back with other than their penis. I don't mean to trot them out like "the poor little children or the abused animal at the shelter", I'm just saying that for those of us in a position to have witnessed something like that and been helpless while it occurred, hind sight would lead us to think twice about how much hassle we are willing to endure to be armed and dangerous if it ever happened again.

You never know though, I was one of the types that figured if I was just in the right place I didn't have to worry about it and didn't even have a gun in my home for years and if it weren't for a home invasion where a women was killed a few houses down in my suburban paradise, I likely still wouldn't. To me, guns were always for hunting and although I had been shot at and had guns pointed my way numerous times, I figured i had just been occupying the wrong part of the world but as both myself and the soldiers in Texas found out, sometimes trouble comes looking for you and I just don't buy into the credible threat nonsense anymore.

As they say, it's always better to have it and not need it and that's the motto I live by these days, it's just the prudent thing to do. I also agree with rigorous training of military personnel, if for no other reason than to make sure they are completely proficient in the handling of their firearms and congratulations on the twins, hopefully you got two good ones but for the most part, that's up to you and I certainly don't envy the responsibility of raising kids in this day and age so good luck and God bless.

[LandShark]

Originally Posted by ceyko

Where did you get that statistic from? Most soldiers I knew did not have privately owned firearms. Some did, but most did not.

Well in the combat arms/combat support folks that I've been around in my 14 years, most do....multiple firearms at that.

Other than that do you see a problem with my solution?

[ceyko]

Originally Posted by helomech

So for your math to be correct there would have to been one officer for every enlisted. And we both know that is not the case. I would guess there is probably 1 officer for every 10 enlisted. So if you use a percentage Than you are still behind by about 9.

I'm sorry, where did you see any math?

[ceyko]

All, I gotta bow out of this debate and I admit maybe my experiences with the younger enlisted owning guns were different then yours. Just running low on time for a bit now.

Landshark - your idea is one solution for sure.

In general, remember I'd vote for all to carry as opposed to none. Just trying to point out that *I* strongly think there could be some issues. HOWEVER, reading and learning a bit I want to vote for it even more once I found out why this was taken away in the first place. Asshole Clinton.

I would just really like to see all concealed carry folks take a free - mandatory class that is similar to what TX CHL holders take. Not that it is bad or terrible, it is an eye opener and gets ya a bit more informed.

[helomech]

Originally Posted by ceyko

I'm sorry, where did you see any math?

When you said one officer and one enlisted killed people and then you said they are even. That would mean that the same amount of officers do it as enlisted but you failed to mention enlisted outnumber officers, by a huge margin.

[ceyko]

Originally Posted by helomech

When you said one officer and one enlisted killed people and then you said they are even. That would mean that the same amount of officers do it as enlisted but you failed to mention enlisted outnumber officers, by a huge margin.

Okay, thanks for pointing that out.

[SpiritOne]

I dont know if its different because I was a Marine, or maybe the late 90s was just a more relaxed time, but when I was in I had my own personal sidearm (not issued) and we were allowed to bring it on base, and in some cases carry it.