Should military on bases be armed standing watch?

justdoit19

Proud parent of an ANG, USNA X2, and a MidSib
5-Year Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2017
Messages
9,151
I just watched the Fox and Friends interview with Joshua Watson’s family, USNA graduate. Absolutely heartbreaking. The three sailors standing watch had a 11pm-7am duty watch shift. Towards the end of their shift, the shooter arrived. And we lost 3 brave, selfless men who without a doubt saved lives.

Joshua Kaleb Watson was the Captain of the USNA rifle team, and expert marksman. He was shot at least 5 times, unable to defend himself with arm. That is such an ironic thing. Doesn’t seem right. Bases aren’t able to check every vehicle that enters. This has happened before. It will happen again.

I can’t think of a better place to ask what people think about this situation: should at least those standing watch and protecting their charge be armed? They are sitting ducks for those with intentions to destroy. Yes I know this happens other places and I’m not addressing that point, but the fact that these are trained military soldiers, who will defend our country against enemy....foreign and domestic...seems to me they should be able to do just that. Defend.
 
Watch standers should absolutely be armed. Otherwise, what’s the point? Every properly certified soldier should have the option of carrying their sidearm no matter where they are, including military bases.
 
I am guessing that the watch they were standing was considered more like a "fire watch," which, as I understand it, is a somewhat archaic concept where someone always needed to be on duty to look out for fires in the days before modern fire/smoke alarms. But that kind of watch is somewhat outdated. Any watch at a military installation should be considered a full security watch and those standing watch should be armed. Just my non-military, civilian, common-sense opinion.
 
I am curious whether those that are responding are veterans themselves, or a are familiar with carrying weapons.

There are a lot of factors that go into determining the appropriate defensive posture, including arming watch standers while in CONUS. Leadership must make a decision whether the threat is outweighed by the risk of negligent discharge, blue on blue engagement, or the bad guy overwhelming the watchstander, taking the gun and using it. The truth is (particularly in entry level schools like Naval Aviation Schools Command) , the person on watch may not have appropriate training in the use of firearms to be more help in a firefight than an additional risk factor. Sure, its a deterrence .,.and most mass shooters aren't any better trained --but these are considerations that the senior leadership must decide.

This is an age old question -- it is my recollection that Marine sentries in Beirut when a truck bomb exploded near a barracks were armed, but weapons were either unloaded or not "cocked and locked" the sentries were unable to engage the bomber. I think we had a similar issue with one of the ships that got bombed in the Persian Gulf ( that did lead to significant changes in ships protection posture in overseas ports).

Personally, I would be in favor of arming a watchstander if they have adequate training to be effective. Of course, that adds another training and qualification requirement at the command level. While that may be feasible at the operational level (ships and squadrons), it really is unrealistic in something like a Schools command. However, I also think that a better solution (in both military and civilian applications) would be to have persons who are trained and trusted to respond carrying concealed whenever there is a large gathering of people that are an inviting target for bad guys of any flavor.
 
Yes. And I don't think it should be limited to those just standing watch. If one has completed the training for concealed carry, I don't see why that right should end once one enters a military installation. In the past, military personnel couldn't even store personal weapons in military housing and had to store them at the armory (think I have the correct name for that). I think that is no longer the case except it may still apply to those living in the dorms. Pres. Trump had asked for the policy to be reevaluated in 2018. It's always easy to second guess, but how many more tragedies like this have to happen before the policy is changed.
 
Watch should probably be armed, but as mentioned above it's not a simple or easy step to expand that too much further. There's a lot of room for chaos if everyone has the potential to be legally armed. These on-base shootings are not being committed by outsiders, they are soldiers and sailors in good standing who could easily have been approved for carry. Even when trained well it's hard to separate ad hoc good guys from malevolent shooters in uniform, so as bad as this was it could have been even worse with friendly fire mistakes.
 
Watch should probably be armed, but as mentioned above it's not a simple or easy step to expand that too much further. There's a lot of room for chaos if everyone has the potential to be legally armed. These on-base shootings are not being committed by outsiders, they are soldiers and sailors in good standing who could easily have been approved for carry. Even when trained well it's hard to separate ad hoc good guys from malevolent shooters in uniform, so as bad as this was it could have been even worse with friendly fire mistakes.

Agree, there are no easy answers!

Also concur that watch members should be armed. However, in the Pearl Harbor case, it was the sailor who was on watch duty for a submarine that was the perpetrator!
 
If one has completed the training for concealed carry, I don't see why that right should end once one enters a military installation

This statement presumes a common standard for CCW training. I don't think that's the case in my state- I went through my renewal CCW class last year, and there was a very wide spectrum of training in that class alone.

Allowing personal weapons on base a whole different set of issues. While I would be fine with Officers and Senior Enlisted keeping personal weapons in on base housing, anyone who has ever done a walk through of a junior enlisted barracks/housing on a weekend night (imagine a Freshman college dorm, without any filters :eek:) can imagine what could go wrong if there was a blanket right to carry. (
 
there is a big difference between watch standers and sentrys. on a large base like NPA, there are many different commands, each one has a variety of watch standers. the VT squadrons have SDO's (squadron duty officers), the training commands, the blue angels, NAMI, etc etc. the jobs of those watch standers is more administrative, it's not a security detail.
the big assumption is that the security at the perimeter is working.
at the main gate (there are two at NPA), the sentrys are armed, like they are at any other base, and they are trained to defend the perimeter. there are plenty of defenses at the main gate for things like truck bombs etc, as well as unauthorized persons trying to enter, either sneaking in or by force, just as there are at usna.

the problem here is that the terrorist was an authorized person, had been vetted, so the vehicle was not subject to search. same as a parent driving through the gate at usna.
the terrorist was able to bring a concealed weapon on base the use it when he decided to. he could have just as easily walked right past the duty office, and gone into his classroom and started shooting there, probably harming many more people.

adding more dedicated security personnel on base would be one answer. in my opinion, arming SNAs and SNFOs who pull duty maybe once a month isn't the answer. you would have to train them to be a security officer at the same time they are full time students learning to fly.

i wouldn't be opposed to re-evaluating the carry rules, and allowing those individuals who are trained and certified to carry, but the key here is TRUSTED and TRAINED. from my experience, i would assume that most of the people on base would not be interested in jumping through those hoops in order to carry on what should be a secure base.

i also wouldn't be opposed to stricter rules for foreign nationals on base or stricter vetting, and maybe not treating them all as trusted, maybe not grant them unescorted access through the gate, maybe make them go through the metal detector , etc etc
 
I dont know what standing watch means but I do know that when I went to my son' base at Vance and Barskdale, the people manning the checkpoint where you enter are armed.
 
AROTC-dad said:
...in the Pearl Harbor case, it was the sailor who was on watch duty for a submarine that was the perpetrator!...

In my day, I swear that only Marines provided security for submarines in port. When did this change?

And to the other point, you can't (or don't want to) arm all those standing watch. As previously mentioned, "watch" typically means that you're hanging out at a desk, and occasionally doing a lap around whatever area is under your control. If you see anyone who doesn't belong, you approach them and ask what their business is. If you see someone acting like a chucklehead, you approach them, make them get their mind right, and carry on. There are 11 general orders of a sentry. None of them specifically require a firearm. They are;

  1. To take charge of this post and all government property in view.
  2. To walk my post in a military manner, keeping always on the alert, and observing everything that takes place within sight or hearing.
  3. To report all violations of orders I am instructed to enforce.
  4. To repeat all calls from posts more distant from the guard house than my own.
  5. To quit my post only when properly relieved.
  6. To receive, obey and pass on to the sentry who relieves me, all orders from the Commanding Officer, Command Duty Officer, Officer of the Deck, and Officers and Petty Officers of the Watch only.
  7. To talk to no one except in the line of duty.
  8. To give the alarm in case of fire or disorder.
  9. To call the Officer of the Deck in any case not covered by instructions.
  10. To salute all officers and all colors and standards not cased.
  11. To be especially watchful at night, and, during the time for challenging, to challenge all persons on or near my post and to allow no one to pass without proper authority.
 
THP -- did you type that up from memory, or cut and paste ? You forgot
12) To walk my post from flank to flank, and take no cr@p from any rank !

That #12 is strictly a Navy thing. It makes them feel like Marines, for a day.

Ba dum bump.
 
Watch should probably be armed, but as mentioned above it's not a simple or easy step to expand that too much further. There's a lot of room for chaos if everyone has the potential to be legally armed. These on-base shootings are not being committed by outsiders, they are soldiers and sailors in good standing who could easily have been approved for carry. Even when trained well it's hard to separate ad hoc good guys from malevolent shooters in uniform, so as bad as this was it could have been even worse with friendly fire mistakes.
Uhhhh.... Ft Hood shooter was not an outsider. He was a member of the US Military.
 
That #12 is strictly a Navy thing. It makes them feel like Marines, for a day.

Actually, that one comes directly from my father, who served a short stint as a Army 2nd Lt in the 50's ! I think thats the only General Order of the Sentry that he remembered !
 
Back
Top