How would you feel about arming recruiters?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 23:03:23 -0400

Last night as I lay thinking about the massacre in Tennessee, I thought if the recruiters can't carry weapons, why can't private citizens protect the recruiters, by carrying our weapons, and standing at the entrance to the various recruiter offices. Then, low and behold, I find out I'm not the only one thinking this way.
Americans stepping up for recruiters

Jonn Lilyea | July 18, 2015
Hiram GA

Fox News reports that Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno says that the Army has no plans to arm recruiters;

Gen. Ray Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, told reporters that arming troops in those offices could cause more problems than it might solve.

“I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I’m not talking about where you end up attacking each other,” Odierno said during a morning breakfast. Instead, he said, it’s more about “accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries.”

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=60905

Americans stepping up for recruiters

Fox News reports that Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno says that the Army has no plans to arm recruiters; Gen. Ray Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, to

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2015 11:31 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 23:31:29 -0400

I think arming recruiters is a great idea. If we do nothing, are we not inviting another attack?

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 18 at 2015 11:44 PM

COL Charles Williams — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 23:44:55 -0400

SGT Private RallyPoint Member Unfortunately I think it is necessary, and a side arm is not useful in most of these situations.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jul 18 at 2015 11:48 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 23:48:51 -0400

It is a sorry turn of events when armed civilians must turn out to protect our unarmed soldiers.
In what world does that make any sense?

Response by PVT Robert Gresham made Jul 19 at 2015 12:36 AM

PVT Robert Gresham — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:36:41 -0400

I don't like blanket permission to carry weapons. Not everyone in a recruiting station is ready for that kind of responsibility.

Do you give everyone a CCW permit? What type of weapons are you going to have there? Do you lock the weapons in a safe? Who has the combination? What is going to happen when those, "up to no good", learn there are weapons locked up in the recruiting stations? You could be making recruiting stations even more of a target.

I agree that recruiting stations need to be protected, but where does it start, and where does it end? A pistol is a poor protection against an automatic weapon. If you want to have automatic weapons, once again, the question of safety and security must be asked and answered first.

Response by SFC Charles W. Robinson made Jul 19 at 2015 2:10 AM

SFC Charles W. Robinson — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:10:22 -0400

Options for arming and protecting our Service Members within the U.S. homeland:

1. It has become clear that we need to do more to protect our service members here within the U.S. homeland.

2. What we have told our Service Members is that they always have the right to defend themselves.

3. I have never understood the paranoia of letting trained personnel properly arm themselves; I remember being told that we could not have combat knives while deployed because we might hurt each other but most the people I knew kept them anyway and never tried to stab each other - time for our leadership to lead.

4. Our leadership actually said that they are more worried about accidental discharges than about the lives of our personnel, really?!

5. Issue weapons to NCO's and Officers only.

6. Issue full load of ammo to each as well.

7. Weapons will be on green status, not loaded and on safe.

8. If service members come under attack then they are authorized to go to red status and defend themselves.

9. On bases, service members who have passed safety training and have concealed carry licenses can openly carry (not concealed carry) personal hand guns in a green status (ammunition carried separately).

10. There you go, KISS rules for arming and protecting our service members within the U.S. homeland from terrorist attacks from outside our ranks (Chattanooga) and within our ranks (Ft. Hood).

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Jul 19 at 2015 3:37 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:37:19 -0400

Wrong answer here. I appreciate the concern, but we cannot allow bubba to stand watch outside our recruiting centers, pretty soon they will screen the recruits! Wrong answer here!

Response by PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2015 9:16 AM

PVT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:16:03 -0400

There's some recruiters id feel safer if they were armed but then there's a few who id be scared to be around them if they were armed.

Response by SSgt Dan Montague made Jul 19 at 2015 10:11 AM

SSgt Dan Montague — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:11:23 -0400

I was a recruiter in Colorado before and after 9-11. Two of the recruiters carried a pistol with them in the car. So when they are in the office it was in the desk. One time an unrepeatable looking gent came in wearing a long over coat. As soon as he entered the office he looked at me, whipped open his coat and said "I've ben looking for you all day" The other recruiter had his hand on his pistol ready to draw. Turns out he pulled an envelope out with his paperwork to join. the moral is, if he had been some psycho there would have been a great chance he could have been dropped before he did anything.
We shared a building with many other businesses. after 9-11, some of the civilians said they felt safe because we were around. At that point I wish we did have access to more weapons. We didn't tell them that being in a government building made us a higher target.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2015 12:05 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:05:38 -0400

I was a recruiter, I got done with my duty in July of 2013. I couldn't imagine some of them having weapons. Some of them probably haven't used a weapon since basic training. So in order for them to effectively use a weapon, most of them will need a lot of training, training that they don't have time to do. I just don't see it happening.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jul 19 at 2015 2:44 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:44:40 -0400

The answer is to arm the entire Armed Forces. https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces

Response by SN Victoria Glover made Jul 19 at 2015 9:07 PM

SN Victoria Glover — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:07:50 -0400

Arm them! I would not stop my son from going in just because there are guns in there. If anything that would show more protection! We are all trained in handling weapons. I wouldn't give a rats a** about what Mommy says. I am a mom! I am a US citizen and a US Vet! By now most if not all youth are exposed to the guns simply walking in a store, restaurant, etc. Would you stop your son or daughter from going into Academy or Gander Mountain simply because there are guns there? Of course not. At least I know that the recruiters know how to handle the weapons and the threat.

Response by Sgt Matthew Sullivan made Jul 19 at 2015 9:20 PM

Sgt Matthew Sullivan — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:20:41 -0400

As a former recruiter and a grunt, I have always posed this question in the office and we all agreed. We agreed that we needed at least one rifle and one side arm, plate carriers at every desk, and bullet proof glass. Every Marine would be currently rifle and pistol qualified, with at least one Marine that went to Coaches Course. If push comes to shove, there are plenty of reservists that are looking for work. We can activated them individually on ADOS orders. The reservists do this anyway for events like Toys for Tots and Funeral Details. Send them to all the prerequisite courses needed before working at there local recruiting office. This allows them to have a job, and stay close to home, while looking for more work elsewhere. Last choice is to deploy active duty Marines that are not in cycle for deployment or awaiting for their unit to return from deployment. Once we have spread the word globally that we are armed and dangerous everywhere, we hope to see things calm down. Maybe then we won't be a target like every other gun free zone in this country. And how many times have you been to those little shitty ass bases with one armed main gate and two side or back entrances with some debacle of gate. Damn it!!! Excuse me, but I am still furious, been running 3 miles every time I think about it, and have been giving everyone the stink eye. Semper Fi

Response by PO1 Shahida Marmol made Jul 19 at 2015 9:59 PM

PO1 Shahida Marmol — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:59:33 -0400

If the recruiter qualifies consistently as sharpshooter, then yes. But I don't think each person in the office should carry. I know in the Navy, most people qualified only need to do one shoot every six months. For someone who isn't a great shooter, that isn't enough to improve skills. I for one wouldn't feel comfortable carrying a gun in such small quarters without more effective training, but give that gun to my brother... definitely.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2015 10:25 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:25:43 -0400

I believe that a recruiters protection is something that we should definitely keep in high regard, just as I agree that we should be quite careful about over arming ourselves, especially in this seemingly unstable world.

It might be worth looking into having a SP/MP post at a recruiting center (as a way of controlling arms distribution and utilization), and maybe even consolidating the branches to single, shared locations as a method of asset protection. I'm sure that with a solution such as this one could find ways to increase protection and possibly reduce costs simultaneously.

Response by SGT Glenn E Moody made Jul 19 at 2015 10:29 PM

SGT Glenn E Moody — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:29:02 -0400

i say yes they are full time Military and should carry firearms. even more so now that the ISIS threat level is so high. and even if it was not if they had the firearms they would still be alive today. so everyone that served should carry firearms and go to the range to Qualify every year. just in case of an ISIS or like minded group tried to take over we could stop them.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 19 at 2015 10:37 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:37:01 -0400

I feel terrible that it is now necessary to arm recruiters, indeed all service members. It is insane to send them onto the battlefield unarmed. What battlefield? The one that has opened here in the US.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2015 10:55 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:55:03 -0400

I'm all for us being armed. I hate that feeling of being vulnerable. Doesn't matter if i'm in the office or on the road in the gov. Anyone who's a recruiter has been in the military for over a minute and has extensive training on how to handle a weapon.

Just my $0.02

Response by CMSgt Mark Schubert made Jul 20 at 2015 1:47 PM

CMSgt Mark Schubert — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:47:39 -0400

Forget arming just recruiters - ARM everyone serving or served in the ARMED FORCES!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 8:15 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:15:59 -0400

Turns out they were armed.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/22/navy-officer-murdered-marine-fired-back-at-chattanooga-gunman/

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 1:28 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:28:59 -0400

I feel that our Government is embarrassing itself, when citizens feel they have to protect the military. How can any elected official say that members of our military are not trained to carry a weapon?