How can the military best reduce active shooter threats (like Fort Hood)?
Active Shooter
Security
I have seen and read tons of responses to this poll and question, while I support SMs being allowed to be CCW and CCL, I don't think many who have promoted all properly trained and licensed SMs being armed have looked at the big picture.
As one of my fellow senior MPs (SFC D.) has already touched on, if you have weapons carrying SMs show up at the scene prior to LE/QRF/First responders, you run the risk of the wanting to help SMs being shot by the MPs/Police/SRT/TRT members because they have to react in a split-second when they see a person with a gun, while yes they have to give an order for someone to stop and drop their weapon, if the SM who is trying to help doesn't realize that he is the one they are focused on and doesn't respond but turns towards them with his weapon pointed towards them at the same time, the LE has to follow protocol and react to protect other human lives and themselves in a split second thought process, so that SM that is trained and capable of assisting has now been shot because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, something that would not happen if all SMs that are trained and certified were not walking around strapped ready for action.
While this and other incidents are tragic and painful for all involved, it is best to leave the reaction forces and disarming of an active shooter to the personnel that are trained via MOS or academy and assigned to the job to do it, we appreciate any and all help while deployed in combat, but in garrison without knowing who is who in an active-shooter incident and coming upon a scene with a call for one or more shooters possibly will only result in the wrong shooters being shot by LE forces if they are in the area and haven't been identified as shooter friendly by 1st responders.
Again I support every SMs right to their 2nd amendment rights and to achieve their CCW/CCL, but not when it comes to carrying a weapon on post for defense/assistance, it is more headache and problem than it is worth during a reactionary moment for all involved.
SFC Barber,
I agree that the reporting to higher, or in this case the MPs while
barricaded will likely prove ineffective. It can also prove to be beneficial if the active shooter has their plan well thought out.
That being said almost all states, some with more stringent requirements, are allowing their citizens to earn a conceal carry license (CCL). While earning a CCL it is taught that it is not an individual’s responsibility to go after someone. You do have a right though to defend yourself and those around you if the shooter poses an imminent threat. Example being: If you are to be in the same room or area with an active shooter that begins engaging Soldiers and civilians around you, why would it be any different than off-post in a store? The local police force is likely to respond in similar fashion to the MPs for an active shooter scenario. I understand it will not be the exact same, but it will likely use similar proven tactics and procedures. A person who is legally carrying their weapon concealed is not responding or progressing further into the situation. Rather, they are defending themselves and those around them if or when the threat is presented.
Lastly, I believe that the military does the best they can at mitigating
risks. They establish much more stringent rules, courses, and regulations for Soldiers to ride a motorcycle. Essentially, what I am getting at is, the military has more requirements than state laws for one to be qualified to ride a motorcycle. I believe the military again could require more stringent rules in order for Soldiers to be qualified to conceal carry on post. This would likely be in addition to a state CCL as well as registering your weapon on
post. It would again cover requirements and proper fundamentals that all Soldiers who bear arms should understand. If the proper courses are established and taken it should give those able the option to earn their CCL. These are obviously just my beliefs on the topics above. There are also many aditions or alternatives that can be done, because there is no real silver bullet that solves the issue as seen in many of the responses to this initial question. Some of which include arming staff positions that are posted throughout whether it be CQ or staff duty. All in all I do not see it as an immediate solution to allow anyone who has a state CCL to be allowed to carry on post, but I believe with the proper instruction and courses provided by the military Soldiers should be afforded the same opportunity they are given when traveling off-post and going about their daily business in the real world.
Very Respectfully,
LT Connor McCarthy
1. Arm BDE and BN SDO and SDNCOs with unit provided M9s and Ammo.
2. SDO/ SDNCO personnel will account for the firearms and ammunition during shift change through established accountability procedures. (DA Form 2062)
3. SDO/ SDNCO personnel will also wear a black Duty Brassard on his or her left shoulder denoting duty position (SDO/ SDNCO) while on duty.
4. Personnel determined by Mental Health Professionals as a threat to themselves or others will not be allowed (as they shouldn’t be currently) to perform SDO/ SDNCO duties.
If someone had a leg blown off would you just hand them morphine without trying to stop the bleeding?
Do people know about 1-800-CALLSPY and the iSALUTE reporting system? These are great ways to report your suspicions, hunches, etc., and have professionals - outside the chain of command - look into what may appear to be the smallest thing. Security is a team effort, and identifying insider threats takes an engaged team.
1) Putting more weapons into the hands of service members
who are the main proprietors of these shootings is absurd. What is to say these
people aren’t themselves going to start shooting? We are welcoming an all out
war onto installations. Yes, we would have the means to protect ourselves from
those who are wishing harm upon us. But it is also making shootings easier to
carry out. Catch 22.
2) Mental Health evaluations are all well and good when
people take them seriously. Take, for example, the Global Assessment Tool that,
at least on the Army side, is an annual requirement. When is the last time
anybody took that seriously and didn’t just click, click, click done? You do it
because you have to. We can put all the road blocks, surveys, and mandatory
counseling sessions in the way of a Soldier, but if they aren’t taking it
seriously, then it is nothing more than a time eater.
3) Echoing that last point is threat reduction training and
classes. We as a force are bombarded by class after class that degrades the
morale and time we have to train in order to be mission ready. While I will
admit that a lot of the classes like SHARP, EO, etc. are great for refreshers,
but enough is enough. If the population attending the class isn’t paying
attention, then it is nothing more than a waste of time.
4) While there may be signs in some instances, that will not
always be the case. Sometimes people can be just fine one day and overnight
they snap because too much has piled up. Once again, it is up to the individual
to be honest.
With that in mind, all that can be done, if anything at all,
is increase the security at the gate. I, for one, maintain that no privately
owned weapons should be on post at all. Also, with these new scan your ID card “rapid
entry systems” popping up all over the place, it is so easy to get on any
installation. Whether dependant, service member, or DoD Civilian, it is so easy
to get on post with anything and anyone. While I know my opinions may not be
the most popular, they make the most sense.
This is a hard vote as all of the choices are viable resources and could each in its own way help with the situation at hand and for the future as well.
Also each and everyone has its own drawbacks as well too.
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google