Should military on bases be armed standing watch?

[OldRetSWO]

You’re right, but if Johnny down the hall left his weapon while he went to the loo and I’m a deranged lunatic who just got NJPd guess what I now have access to that i wouldn’t have before.

If that lunatic was currently caught with a weapon on base before the act they’d be in trouble, if the rules changed there wouldn’t be anything wrong.

I’m not convinced that arming every watch stander is going to do more good than harm, and that’s what should be test.

Maybe we should change our label to the "Unarmed Forces" ?

 

[kp2001]

Maybe we should change our label to the "Unarmed Forces" ?

No, arm the people who are charged with protecting us while we are in garrison and hold them accountable when they don’t and reward them when they do.

Not every Tom, Dick, and Jane needs to be walking around with a weapon on post.

 

[kp2001]

A question for those who are on the side of arming all watchstanders:

What would be the suggested number of hours of training one would need before being qualified to be armed?

What would the maintenance of certification training requirements be in regards to range time, proper weapons handling, suspect identification and engagement?

Remember it’s going to have to be geared to someone whose entire history with a weapon is a range familiarization shoot at Boot Camp bc that’s about all AF and Navy folks get. (USMC probably requires the least given their “every person a rifleman” mantra)

And what are we going to give up to make room for that time needed? SWO shiphandling time for the SWO’s who all the sudden need to be proficient in being a law enforcement officer as well? Corpsmen education on trauma resuscitation? Pilot pattern work?

Now if someone wants to trade my online training requirements for this I may have to switch sides [emoji23]

 

[OldRetSWO]

Remember it’s going to have to be geared to someone whose entire history with a weapon is a range familiarization shoot at Boot Camp bc that’s about all AF and Navy folks get. (USMC probably requires the least given their “every person a rifleman” mantra)

Not sure where you're getting that from but I was a ship's gunnery and missile officer and all of our small arms came under me and that included personnel training and qualification. For your information, NOBODY on the ship touched a weapon that had not been at least fam fired by MY PEOPLE. Even that was short lived as during my time we moved to a range qual requirement for armed watchstanders. For a while, the fam fire qual was allowed only for the Petty Officer of the Watch (inport quarterdeck watch) but that is someone who is always supervised by the OOD. Due to our loadout and equipment, we had lots of people who were Security Alert, Backup Alert and/or Roving Sentry and all of them required periodic range quals. No, that is not the same thing as a law enforcement professional but is FAR from a simple fam fire at bootcamp.

 

[kp2001]

Not sure where you're getting that from but I was a ship's gunnery and missile officer and all of our small arms came under me and that included personnel training and qualification. For your information, NOBODY on the ship touched a weapon that had not been at least fam fired by MY PEOPLE. Even that was short lived as during my time we moved to a range qual requirement for armed watchstanders. For a while, the fam fire qual was allowed only for the Petty Officer of the Watch (inport quarterdeck watch) but that is someone who is always supervised by the OOD. Due to our loadout and equipment, we had lots of people who were Security Alert, Backup Alert and/or Roving Sentry and all of them required periodic range quals. No, that is not the same thing as a law enforcement professional but is FAR from a simple fam fire at bootcamp.

I got it from my 18 years and counting of Naval service. It appears our experiences have differed.

 

[Tbpxece]

Lots of insider attacks on bases in Afghanistan over the past decade. I've certainly been armed (and carrying real ammo) every time I've gone, as were all those around me.

One of the challenges with everyone being armed is that it is quite difficult to distinguish who is "good" and who is "bad" when both are shooting at each other and wearing the same uniform.

And yes, that happens here-- See Fort Hood (2009), Fairchild AFB, Fort Bragg (1995), Fort Hood (2014), etc.

I hold the same sentiment that cowering under a desk during an active shooter seems bizarre for a member of the uniformed services, and am glad to have seen the guidance shift over the years to also instruct service-members to fight back when they are able.

Agreed that base defenders should be armed. Not so much all personnel-- at least in locations not designated combat zones.

Remember it’s going to have to be geared to someone whose entire history with a weapon is a range familiarization shoot at Boot Camp bc that’s about all AF and Navy folks get.

@kp2001 , FYSA-- I'm AF and I qual every year (and I'm not SF or SOF). I think our longest duration is 2 years for some AFSC's, but most folks seem to fall into the annual requirement now.

Granted, back in the early part of OEF/OIF, it was a 4-year/JIT requirement to qual. But with the ops tempo as it was, most of us were still qualifying every year or two in line with AEF rotations. Most folks I worked with back then when I was enlisted also shot regularly in their free time with their personal AR's and AK's (after the goofy AWB expired, of course).

Familiarization, in my experience, was pretty high. Not Full Metal Jacket "This is my rifle, this is my gun"-style cleaning of rifles while blindfolded, but sufficient to exercise proper muzzle control, shoot accurately, and correctly safe a weapon. One of the perks of commissioning in the AF-- it's also nice now to not have to lug an M4 or M16 around on deployment-- the M9 is a lot easier to carry all day.

Now if someone wants to trade my online training requirements for this I may have to switch sides [emoji23]

Geez, you aren't kidding-- sign me up as well...

 

[Chockstock]

This is a scathing article on security on base.

"The instructor pilots said the incentive to arm was obvious. “We need to protect not just the pilots, but our aircraft that are worth millions.”

One pilot called base security at NAS Pensacola and other Navy bases “mall cops,” because protection on the base has been outsourced to private security and many were “fat and out of shape.”

“I have zero confidence the guy I show my ID card to at the gate could save me,” one pilot added. Fox News spoke to three Navy instructor pilots Tuesday.

It’s an opinion shared by many across the military, including the U.S. Army; more than a dozen soldiers and an unborn child were gunned down at Fort Hood in 2009.

“We trust 18-year-old privates in combat with grenades, anti-tank missiles, rifles and machine guns, but we let service members get slaughtered because we don’t trust anyone to be armed back here in the United States,” a senior U.S. Army officer told Fox News.

“Why are we cowering in our offices, it’s insane,” the officer added.

The first responders to the shooting at the military base were cops off base, not members of the military, which the instructor pilots found insulting. "


I carry everywhere.

The problem we are seeing is the bad guys are already armed, and our soldiers are sitting ducks. I'm not suggesting that every soldier on base should be required to carry, but at least give those who are comfortable with it the option. There is a reason mass shootings always seem to happen in gun free zones - shooters are cowards.

“We trust 18-year-old privates in combat with grenades, anti-tank missiles, rifles and machine guns, but we let service members get slaughtered because we don’t trust anyone to be armed back here in the United States,” a senior U.S. Army officer told Fox News."

That quote pretty much sums up my view of it. I don't want my son waiting on some mall cop to come and save him in the event of a problem.

It was brought up before but I don't think even allowing those "comfortable with the option" to be armed 24/7 on any military base. No Soldier should have to be armed 24/7. Force protection is not their job but that of military police. Like it was said before, there is too much liability with giving Soldiers weapons. Lower enlisted get in trouble - sometimes serious trouble. Alcohol already makes it hundred times worse, having multiple weapons lying around the barracks doesn't sound like a good idea.

Violence needs to be controlled, even on a military base and like our civilian communities. I would even say especially on a military base, given the nature of the population that reside on military installations.

Now, the outsourcing of force protection and law enforcement on military bases is something I have never understood and something I imagine the MPs or other service-equivalent LEOs find highly offensive. We have an entire branch of the military dedicated to fulfilling that role for Soldiers and their Families...if cutting costs is the answer, it should not be done at the expense of force protection and Soldiers' jobs.

Installation commanders should direct a threat analysis and identify active shooter vulnerable areas...if such an analysis can be conducted accurately. And then saturate those areas with MP/service-equivalent patrols. Active shooters seem to come out of nowhere and seem impossible to predict suspects and their targets... I can't really think of any other way to improve our security posture...

 

[justdoit19]

I’ve been following, as OP. Great discussion. But after a week of thinking about all of this, I have the following on my mind:

-Joshua Kaleb Watson, last hour of his watch duty, was an expert rifleman...Captain of the USNA rifle team (I have no idea the credentials of the other two on watch duty).

-Many here have posted their firearms expertise.

-Outsourced guards aren’t necessarily better trained than some on base military personnel (Watson).

Why....just why....absent the administration issues surrounding such (as I believe ‘where there is a will, there is a way’ that rules and regulations could be figured out and drafted), if a marksman is deemed worthy to carry, isn’t this allowed? Not overall, en mass, but those deemed worthy? It seems like stripping all bc of a few buffoons isn’t any more ‘safe’ anymore in current times that we live in, than allowing those deemed worthy (and also figuring out how to deem them worthy) to carry. IMO it makes sense. And I don’t understand WHY it’s NOT allowed.

Have we NEVER allowed weapons on bases? If so, we live in different times. Post 911 is different.

I really have appreciated the discussion. The irony of Kalebs lack of ability to defend himself and brothers/sisters still makes me shake my head.....

 

[Tbpxece]

Have we NEVER allowed weapons on bases? If so, we live in different times. Post 911 is different.

DODD 5210.56 (1992) was implemented during the final year of President George HW Bush's presidency. This was the first policy that provided for the on-base firearms restrictions in place from the 1990s to the mid 2010s. You can find it here.

The 2016 revision of DODD 5210.56 relaxed this restriction and enabled unit commanders (O-5 and up) to establish policy allowing concealed or open carry for non-duty personal protection reasons.

Whether an installation allows non-duty, personal carry (open or concealed) is generally the prerogative of that installation commander.

In a nutshell- weapons are allowed on most installations (they are sold at most Exchanges).