With the murder-suicide that happened at Lackland AFB, do you believe that on-base personnel should be authorized to carry weapons?

2016-04-10T07:09:53-04:00

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Apr 10 at 2016 11:54 AM

2016-04-10T11:54:45-04:00

This is neither a yes nor a no question. One criminal act does not have any bearing on our constitutional rights, nor does it reflect on the relative merits of the issues involved. Think about it: Would a criminal be dissuaded from breaking the moral, ethical, and legal injunctions against murder because of some statutory injunction against possession of a weapon? Yes, it's really that absurd of a question.

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Apr 10 at 2016 12:12 PM

2016-04-10T12:12:36-04:00

How would that mitigate the threat? Serious question.

Response by SSG James Elmore made Apr 10 at 2016 1:25 PM

2016-04-10T13:25:31-04:00

I believe we should.

Response by SSG(P) Ell Pizarek made Apr 10 at 2016 1:50 PM

2016-04-10T13:50:50-04:00

This is a touchy and politically loaded question especially after the event at lackland AFB. When I was serving, our unit or base cycled the different units through response levels, i.e rapid response, post support, and training. Let me further state that I don't believe that the MP's are capable of responding to every situation alone. I believe that the best combination would be to have each unit as they move thru the cycles be assigned a contingency force duty, and they would be armed. Further I believe that recruiters, being NCO's should be armed (may be legal problems with this however).
I don't believe soldiers in general should be able to conceal carry or be armed because for the most part, you have a lot of soldiers that are pushed to perform and may reach a snapping point. While I was deployed for example I had a soldier that threatened to kill me. When he came too my driver had already secured him in the back of the vehicle.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2016 1:57 PM

2016-04-10T13:57:41-04:00

I concur with SMSgt Hutchins' statement. The acts of one individual should not dictate the acts of many. Additionally, the individual who did this would have had a weapon regardless of the laws and regulations.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2016 8:22 PM

2016-04-10T20:22:02-04:00

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/643651/air-force-implements-additional-security-measures.aspx
This is an intersting article posted a few months ago regarding a promising new initiative installation commanders can put in place! One of the guys in my ALS class did a speech on this.

Air Force implements additional security measures

In response to tragic events that have taken place on and off installations over the past few years, Air Force commanders can take additional measures to secure personnel and property on their

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Apr 10 at 2016 8:40 PM

2016-04-10T20:40:08-04:00

Every time a criminal or a nut case uses a gun the PC Liberal Crowd cries for more gun control. And as usual they are wrong again. nothing, no law, no regulation would have prevented this from happening. A killer is going to kill. I will continue to carry where ever I go and avoid most businesses that don't want my weapon on their property. Shame that I do have to go to the school now and then. I follow the law and disarm myself before going but i don't stay as long as I should....

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Apr 10 at 2016 11:06 PM

2016-04-10T23:06:36-04:00

Criminals don't follow laws. No matter how many laws you put between them and their ultimate goals.

The victim of the murder, on the other hand may possibly have had a fighting chance with a weapon. Further, there is no higher absurdity than a disarmed armed forces, incapable of self protection.

Arm the Armed Forces.
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces

Arm the Armed Forces! | RallyPoint

The outcome of the discussion "Concealed carry for CAC holders?" by [~222148:SGT Bernard Boyer III]. Below follows my skeleton letter to congress, based on the edits RP members have suggested to the 10 points. Anyone and everyone is welcome to edit and personalize the letter for their own use in writing to their congressional representatives. We sent a mass email on 3 January, the swearing in of the new congress, now it's a free for all. You...

Response by CPL J Sannizzaro made Apr 11 at 2016 4:44 PM

2016-04-11T16:44:49-04:00

Every one should carry an issued firearm with accountability. No one would get stupid if every soldier was armed, unless they were suicidal. If they are suicidal there is really no way to prevent their action, but at least there would be an appropriate response.

Response by TSgt William Meyer made Apr 11 at 2016 5:41 PM

2016-04-11T17:41:15-04:00

Being both in Security forces and retired from the NYPD, I don't like seeing anyone carrying a firearm without the proper training. In both instances we train as a unit and know how to react to different situations. It's bad enough when you are confronted with an active shooter when you know who your working with, imagine what would happen if other people got involved just because they were carrying an authorized weapon. Just my H.O.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2016 5:47 PM

2016-04-11T17:47:37-04:00

Absolutely.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 9 at 2016 4:03 PM

2016-05-09T16:03:34-04:00

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1823?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22military+personnel+carrying+firearms%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=1

S.1823 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): A bill to safeguard military personnel on Armed Forces...

Summary of S.1823 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): A bill to safeguard military personnel on Armed Forces military installations by repealing bans on military personnel carrying firearms, and for other purposes.