Should military on bases be armed standing watch?

www.foxnews.com

NAS Pensacola shooting leads Navy instructor pilots to tell top brass: 'Arm us'

EXCLUSIVE: A group of U.S. Navy instructor pilots asked top military brass for permission to arm themselves in the wake of the shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Fla., where a Saudi military pilot gunned down three American sailors and wounded eight others.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

Interesting. Also that all Saudi student pilots are grounded currently.
 
justdoit19 said:
www.foxnews.com

NAS Pensacola shooting leads Navy instructor pilots to tell top brass: 'Arm us'

EXCLUSIVE: A group of U.S. Navy instructor pilots asked top military brass for permission to arm themselves in the wake of the shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Fla., where a Saudi military pilot gunned down three American sailors and wounded eight others.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

Interesting. Also that all Saudi student pilots are grounded currently.
Click to expand...
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. "

Old Navy BGO said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Old Navy BGO said:
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. (
Click to expand...
Some servicepeople live in states where there are little or no no Law Enforcement CCW permits issued. When I lived in Massachusetts, I was not able to get a gun permit of any kind because my local Chief of Police did not believe in issuing them to regular citizens and he had that authority under Massachusetts law. At the time, my Reserve mobilization job included Weapon Release authority on a Frigate which employed nukes among those weapons. Thus, I was trusted by my nation with nuclear weapons but could not own a personal firearm where I lived. By the way, if the Chief had made his policy about training/expertise, I had previously been Gunnery Officer of a ship which included being responsible for the firearms training for approx 500 people which fit well with me being a multiple time Navy Expert Rifle and Pistol shooter.
 
The interesting part is that the Air Force also trains hundreds of Saudis and it doesnt seem they were grounded. Its not like the Saudi Navy pilots are any more or any less in danger of being radicalized
 
mcfamilyof4 said:
does "grounded" mean sent home? or do we have to keep them here amongst our sailors?
Click to expand...

The report I saw on TV said there are 300 'grounded', 100 each at 3 different bases. Not sure actually if they are all navy, or also airforce to be honest. They are still doing classroom stuff, but not flying.
 
OldRetSWO said:
Some servicepeople live in states where there are little or no no Law Enforcement CCW permits issued. When I lived in Massachusetts, I was not able to get a gun permit of any kind because my local Chief of Police did not believe in issuing them to regular citizens and he had that authority under Massachusetts law. At the time, my Reserve mobilization job included Weapon Release authority on a Frigate which employed nukes among those weapons. Thus, I was trusted by my nation with nuclear weapons but could not own a personal firearm where I lived. By the way, if the Chief had made his policy about training/expertise, I had previously been Gunnery Officer of a ship which included being responsible for the firearms training for approx 500 people which fit well with me being a multiple time Navy Expert Rifle and Pistol shooter.
Click to expand...

At the risk of turning this thread into a Gun Control forum, I feel your pain.... The trend is going toward "shall issue" instead of "may issue." My state changed several years ago, and I was able to get a CCW permit issued in 15 minutes based upon my DD214. I'm not complaining, but I didn't even need any training even thought he last time I had handled a handgun was in the Navy 20 years prior . I did have to go through refresher training when I renewed a few years later, I emphasized Trained and Trusted in an earlier post, and your background certainly qualifies on both accounts --but that doesn't mean I would feel he same for every O-1 or junior enlisted that puts on the uniform. (There is a world of diffference in arming that 18 year private roam under the supervision of his Lt/senior NCO's than letting them keep a handgun in a crowded barracks stateside).
 
I do firearms training in my State, and I wish I had a nickel for every person who said "I was in the <insert branch of service here>, why do I need this training?". I usually just say "Because the State says that you do."

It's sort of akin to why the Marine Corps has you go through 6 months of TBS after graduating from USNA.
It's like an ISO 9000 thing. ;)
 
If we start arming all watches I will request to be PCSd to a location that doesn’t have watches stood anywhere near me. I don’t need some Seaman Snuffy who’s been in the Navy for all of 6 months mishandling a weapon near me. Police officers/MAs/MPs don’t always get it right and they train to be the experts how in the world can I expect dude who stands a watch maybe once ever several weeks and probably gets zero range time/training to do it right.

Now, let’s look at the number of deaths that would potentially be saved vs the possible number of deaths from accidental discharge, improper handling, and increased access to weapons for those who maybe have a medical condition where you would want to remove access.

Want to have all watches stood by folks with combat arms MOS/specialty....ok, then I’d be a bit more ok with arms, but I’d rather they not waste time sitting answering phones and more time ensuring they are ready to prosecute the next war.

Gate guards are a mix of law enforcement at most places I’ve been. That change happened many years ago when it was realized you don’t need an active duty person standing there all the time and can hire civilian law enforcement. I’m ok with that. We are limited to a certain number on active duty, one more gate guard is one less corpsman, rifleman, etc etc.
 
I'm not for the mandatory arming of ill-trained people. I do support respecting the local concealed carry laws (e.g. if you can carry at Walmart, you should be allowed to carry at the BX). CCW is for self defense, which is supposed to be an inherent right. This is a different topic than base/post security. More patrols would probably be a good thing, and more training for our military police would be good, as well.
 
Just as a point of information, I work part-time at a joint Army-Air Force base and I cannot bring a weapon on base despite having a CCW for 25 years. And the private security guards at the gate may look like they are armed, but their weapons are not loaded.
 
kpmom2013 said:
Just as a point of information, I work part-time at a joint Army-Air Force base and I cannot bring a weapon on base despite having a CCW for 25 years. And the private security guards at the gate may look like they are armed, but their weapons are not loaded.
Click to expand...
Curious how you would know whether their weapons are loaded or not?
 
I am a college professor on base and several of the guards, as well as base MP's, are in my classes. They uniformly agree that base security is a joke.
 
I’m sure COs will love to carry out NJP knowing the accused may have a weapon just around the corner...

(And yes that could happen (and has happened )now, but there is at least some deterrent to access currently)
 
kpmom2013 said:
Just as a point of information, I work part-time at a joint Army-Air Force base and I cannot bring a weapon on base despite having a CCW for 25 years. And the private security guards at the gate may look like they are armed, but their weapons are not loaded.
Click to expand...

[emoji15] Not Loaded??!!!
 
raimius said:
Generally, people who intend to commit murder don't tend to care about felony possession of a firearm...
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top