Would arming soldiers in government offices create more problems?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:29:41 -0400

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." -GEN Odierno

Isn't this a bit disheartening? Isn't he confident in the military training that all soldiers receive in our training. How can be over arming someone when they are not armed in the first place? Was the sign on the door enough to stop the attack or were they even armed at all?

Aren't we going over sees in the worst conditions possible and handling a weapon 24/7 for a year at times? I think soldiers would be the most qualified than anyone else to handle a weapon. One of the Marines that was killed had two Purple Hurts. I think he could have figured out how to safely handle a gun if he was given one.

Do you think giving soldiers guys would bring more problems? I am talking about soldiers assigned to offices that are away from the military infrastructure. I wouldn't just give every soldier the ability to carry a weapon. Or is this more of a political statement?

Does this make sense? The National Guard is leading the way on this and several States are Arming their Full Time personnel. I don't see how this could be a bad thing.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2015 2:37 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:37:33 -0400

Then why do we carry our weapons loaded on FOB's for deployment. If we can do it there out of a matter of necessity, we should be allowed to do it here. My suggestion is just have clearing barrels by the buildings. Or, for instance, staff duty and CQ could be armed; and when they do their rounds take the weapon with you. Just figure out that you need a government vehicle, can't leave post, and any other little details to iron out the situation.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Jul 18 at 2015 2:38 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:38:25 -0400

We went to weapons immersion in Basic Training to ensure our Soldiers could effectively carry and employ the weapon, and saw better qualification rates. I agree with you CPT Private RallyPoint Member, weapons immersion would not be a problem and would probably do a great thing to remind our Soldiers that while we are in a Garrison environment, our mission is to train and be prepared to shoot the enemy in the face.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 18 at 2015 2:50 PM

PO1 John Miller — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:50:08 -0400

Sounds like a political statement from the General to me! "It might cause more problems than it solves..."
What's next, requiring all Soldiers to wear their PT belts 24/7, even off duty, in civilian clothes, on leave, while you're drunk in the middle of the woods?

Seriously though, even us regular Fleet type Navy guys receive weapons training. Look at my profile pic and you'll see I'm carrying an M16 (with a loaded magazine but no round in the chamber) and an M9 (with a loaded magazine and a round in the chamber). Did I ever have an accidental discharge? No I did not, and "workplace violence" was never even on my radar.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jul 18 at 2015 3:16 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 15:16:51 -0400

SM's can't be trusted to have loaded weapons? What does that say about the confidence our own leadership has for us? I'm sure cops have accidental discharges (extremely rarely) so do we put a target on their chest and send them into harm's way unarmed? We have opened our borders to these pecker -less jagoffs and we are at war. They have publicly proclaimed war against us and their threats to attack service members on the homefront have come to fruition. Make a threat to top elected officials and it is a felony. The secret service will be up your butt with a electron microscope. Threaten our military and shoot up the offfices as advertised and we will shoot ourselves in the foot if we try to allow our GI's to defend themselves. I'll keep saying it, being a service member in this climate of wussification sucks and I salute each and every one of you for what you do. Go to war multiple times and be happy to survive only to come home and be killed on the homefront because you can't be trusted with weapons?? As a honorably retired multi-combat veteran, I exercise my freedom of speech and say "SUCK IT, Ray!" Anyone drawing down on my heroes in AZ is going to meet Allah. I'll post myself in front of the recruiting stations in my right to carry state (after checking in with them of course) and stand a post.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Jul 18 at 2015 3:31 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 15:31:48 -0400

WTH? We the unknowing lead by the unwilling.....I think they've got it backwards. I'll trust anyone in military uniform to be carrying more than any civilian who took a 10 hour class......I have actually started to stay out of places I can't carry, as much as I can anyway....

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jul 18 at 2015 3:46 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 15:46:07 -0400

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I have to wonder if the word "over-arm" is important to understanding what he meant. If he's saying no weapons at all, its nonsense. If he's saying that everyone having a loaded weapon is going to increase the chances of an accident far beyond the chances of them being attacked...well, he has a point.

Of course, the answer might just be to increase the amount of weapons training time for non-deployable admin units so they actually remember how to properly handle their weapons.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2015 4:05 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 16:05:17 -0400

Anytime you put weapons anywhere it causes more problems(risks). Risks can be mitigated however, through training and proper supervision/leadership. Gen Odierno is correct about arming personnel, being a problem, but let's do some analysis of this before we just dismiss it as a non consideration. All problems are challenges to be overcome.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 18 at 2015 4:44 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 16:44:58 -0400

Former gun dealer here.

This is a math game. Allowing our service members to be armed "at their pleasure" likely would cause more issues just from a mathematical standpoint. This is not to say we don't trust them. This is not to say they are not capable. This is not to say they should not be armed. This is just to point out basic math.

When you have 1,000,000 Service Members and give them the option of anything, the chances of something going wrong increases by 1M. Firearms are "dangerous devices," just like hammers used improperly are "dangerous devices" just like cars used improperly are "dangerous devices."

The low number of incidents involving service members on base (or controlled access points), requiring firearm usage hasn't "quite" hit the point where the math "justifies" it yet.

I know this sounds cynical, but how many Negligent discharges could we expect out of the subset of 1 Million members? Is it 1? 10, 100? How many deaths? How does that compare to these attacks, and acts? That is the math the General is looking at "As a representative of the US Government."

He is absolutely correct to do so in that regards, even though it is counter to how we normally regard this civil Rights issue. He is looking at it as a Risk Management issue. One of his fundamental tasks.

Do I agree that we should be disarmed? No. Should this aspect be considered, just because it is a safety concern? Absolutely, just as all safety concerns should be considered. I look at it much like I do mandatory safety training for motorcycles for military. Sure you can have a motorcycle, but we need to make sure you're fully up to speed, if you're going to use it "on base." If you're going to use it out in town, it's none of the governments business.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Jul 18 at 2015 5:09 PM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 17:09:48 -0400

I was the Provost SGM at Bragg for a few years. If they would have made a blanket rule letting Soldiers be armed on base, I would have been very very worried. A lot of RP thinks it would be a great thing, but how many people actually know how to shoot a pistol, accurately? What would be the control measures for who could be armed? I ran ranges for Soldiers that were going to be my BMM and work the ACPs (gates). Man, most of them couldn't hit anything. I had to try and re-qual the majority over 3 times and some over 8. Would you want a person that cannot shoot a pistol accurately having a concealed permit? Before this would take someone would need to figure out what the qualifications would be and who could carry.

Be careful of what you wish for.

Response by LTC Marc King made Jul 18 at 2015 5:50 PM

LTC Marc King — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 17:50:57 -0400

The General sits in the Pentagon protected by the Pentagon Force Protection Agency armed with automatic weapons held in plain sight. It's no different than the CinC calling for gun control when he is surrounded by arme Secret Service agents. The war has come to the Home Land and our Soldiers, Sailors and Marines are as much a target as they were in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Israel all service members carry weapons in the general population at all times. So Gereral don't "over arm them" arm them enough to defend themselves - this war!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2015 6:24 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:24:20 -0400

This idea unfortunately has a very high probability of being a horrible idea. It's truly disappointing when you have to be scared of accidental discharges in the military because we are supposed to be experts with weapons but it's the sad truth. Not to mention single soldiers living in the barracks who have a little too much to drink over the weekend and have problems with one of the other soldiers (I am a single soldier living in the barracks so believe me I know and I'm sure all of you do too). There are a million and one things that could and probably will go wrong if we legalize guns on military bases. That being said I'm not advocating against more guns on military bases, in the world we live in everyone de severs a right to protect themselves or be protected. How we achieve this goal will be extremely difficult but it is possible. More weapon safety classes for those who CHOOSE to carry a weapon is a outstanding start in my opinion!

Response by SFC Charles W. Robinson made Jul 18 at 2015 6:24 PM

SFC Charles W. Robinson — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:24:27 -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 SFC Charles W. Robinson made Jul 18 at 2015 6:29 PM

SFC Charles W. Robinson — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:29:05 -0400

I had a person on another post suggest adding an armory to each recruiting station. I am not sure if they should have an armory or not. Seems like it would make them targets for theft at night. I would definitely put in several layers of bullet proof glass and reinforce the walls to prevent penetration by high powered rifles. I prefer that they carry handguns with them so they are protected on the way to and from the office. Indeed, many recruiters spend a lot of time on the road to complete their missions.

Response by SN Victoria Glover made Jul 18 at 2015 11:10 PM

SN Victoria Glover — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 23:10:33 -0400

We were and are trained on weapons in basics. Some even more with their jobs. If we can't use them to protect our jobsite, bases, staions, homes then why have them. Point of us being trained is part of our main duty of being a Soldier first, then whatever our specialties are. The bad guys will always have a way of getting guns. If our men and women can be armed then there will be less tragedy to tend to when we get attacked. I have a CHL and there are gun free zones and we all see how that goes. Thats where they hit first. How do you stop bullies? Stand up to them, thats how I was taught growing up.

Response by SGM(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2015 1:11 AM

SGM(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 01:11:04 -0400

As to the arming of service members, blanket arming CONUS, bad idea. Designated marksmen, great idea.

The reason this can work well immediately with the guard and reserves, we already have state certified law enforcement officers that responsibly handel firearms and shoot/dont shoot daily.

This training can be integrated into the active component. It is needed, but arming everyone is potentially dangerous.

Before you jump on the Combat Zone bandwagon, know this, there are booger eatin' oxygen thieves I wouldn't give a live weapon in an active fire fight to save my own ass in every component, but the Active Duty have children with terrible attitudes that only know the job the Army taught them, and they have issues with authority, thinking the world owes them something.

So for my 2 cents E6 and above designated marksmen......that is all.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2015 2:12 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:12:57 -0400

Perhaps the General has forgotten about the hundreds of thousands of U.S. Who have deployed and not had any ND's or any other issues? It boggles my mind that we can be entrusted with protecting our Country, but our individual personal safety is up for debate. Not allowing Military Personnel to carry side arms is void of every type of common sense reason for us to carry I can think of. It's like asking the police not to carry.
Fix this NOW!

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2015 7:33 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 07:33:46 -0400

sir,
As someone who is about to be a recruiting in within a few weeks. I would like something to protect myself besides a pocket knife, car keys and a tooth pick. I understand not letting all service member allowed to have weapons at all times (it's asking for trouble) but the ones that are not on a secure base, kinda need it.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2015 11:19 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 11:19:40 -0400

We must be careful in our responses to this. Arming our recruiters via assault rifles can create a whole slew of problems that we would not otherwise had. Likewise, it can increase the risk of violence.
I could accept allowing ALL Soldiers in uniform to perform concealed carry. There, you don't know if they are armed or not, but you DO know that if they are armed, they are proficient. This reduces the threat of violence. Carrying M16s and others can simply advertise "We have force, so you must overpower us". This could lead to creation of bombs and S-Vests that can be more deadly. As a response to that, we implement metal detectors and explosive dogs. Who in their right mind would sign up for the military that is "scared" of terrorism? Likewise, would you be willing to go through a "TSA-style" frisking to get to join the military to be shot at ??? We must create a measured response. As I said, enabling CCW is one thing, but if we go overboard, it will create both a recruiting problem and can send the wrong message to the public.
Likewise, people asked why we aren't armed while on our medical mission at ECT and other sections. Doing a public relations mission means that we must be careful that we provide SOME trust to the public, but still have measures in place to manage risks. For example, we could just as easily mitigate the risks by providing bullet proof plates going behind a desk (providing cover vs. concealment from high powered rifles such as the AK-47), but still having a CCW pistol for the recruiter to return fire in the event that they break through the doors to attempt to inflict further damage. This way the protection afforded is covert, not overt. There appears to be no change in daily practices, but we are now providing a means to protect our service members. There are many that have reservations about the uniform. In order for the 99% to trust us, we must recognize the evil, mitigate that, but be careful not to amplify our enemies by overreacting to a threat.
v/r,
CPT Butler

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2015 12:58 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:58:05 -0400

1) I think CSA is taking a very practical approach here. As others have said, there is substantial risk management to be done!
2) does DoD even have the legal, Constitutional authority to arm its personnel off of military facilities inside US borders? I definitely think there could be posse comitatus challenges to such action (and I note that PC does not apply to the National Guard).
3) Are we really all trained to use firearms in response to active shooter situations? If you think so, I'd love to see some data backing that up. I highly doubt most service members have anything more than basic qualifications, and that for lots of folks, required qualifications are either finger-drilled or simply not done.
4) how would we account for the weapons and sensitive items issued to servicemembers? This is hugely important---and hard enough for regular units on military bases. Without accountability, we'd end up with black market sales, these weapons being used in crimes, and etc, etc.
5) Wouldn't we be better off coordinating with local law enforcement to have them protect such facilities?
6) what about the tens of thousands of servicemembers overseas? Should we let them have weapons, too?

Response by SGT Douglas Blackwood made Jul 19 at 2015 3:14 PM

SGT Douglas Blackwood — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 15:14:04 -0400

It sounds as if General Odierno does not have any confidence in our abilities to handle weapons safely even with the extensive training and re-certification of training. We are trained from day one in the proper and safe handling of, and use of deadly force with, all forms of weapons. An officer who has no confidence in his Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines is not an effective leader and those in his charge will recognize this.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2015 3:45 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 15:45:34 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member Sir, If I recall correctly, you are a LEO during your civilian time. I know (or hope) you receive regular training on handling a weapon in a situation that may involve innocent bystanders in the immediate area. I am not sure that soldiers and Marines generally get that training. Additionally, I don't think most of the support units/MOSs, even active duty, get much weapon refresher training. I know as a reservist, it was 5 years before I put anything other then virtual bullets into a target. Beyond that, I recently fired a 9mm for the first time ever, this spring (qualified expert, but that is besides the point). How many recruiters are proficient with anything other then a rifle? I submit that in an active shooter situation, despite being soldiers who have some sort of weapons training, most recruiters do not have the training and skills to handle an active shooter situation. I may be wrong.

A few points about the attack I pulled from a news site.

1."Shortly after that, just a few seconds, the shooter began shooting more rounds. We realized it was an actual shooting," he said.
**The shooter had surprise on them. They did not even realize that it was a shooting in the initial moments.

He and his colleagues then got on the ground and barricaded themselves in a safe place. Dodge estimated there were 30 to 50 shots fired.

**This is current active shooter protocol that we are trained to follow. I'm sure that most of us have seen the "active shooter" film that was put out by, I think, the DOD?

He did not see the shooter or a vehicle. The Army recruiting office was not damaged, but doors and glass were damaged at the neighboring Air Force, Navy and Marine offices, he said.

**The shooting came from a car, in a drive by. It was quick. The Little Rock 2009 shooting was also a drive by. I don't see how arming the recruiters would have helped in either of those incidents, or would help in future shootings of this type.

Law enforcement officials told recruiters that the shooter was in a car, stopped in front of the facility, shot at the building and drove off, said Brian Lepley, a spokesman with the U.S. Army Recruiting Command in Fort Knox, Kentucky.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Jul 19 at 2015 4:30 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Sun, 19 Jul 2015 16:30:25 -0400

I've said the same in other threads about the same topic. How can we arm folks in combat, and then say they can't be trusted with arms at home? TRAIN AS YOU FIGHT... Why aren't every military member trained at least annually on small arms fire, so we can be trusted? What good does it do to carry a pistol in one hand and the clip in the other? If someone shoots at me in a case like that, I'd be dead before getting the clip loaded...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 20 at 2015 8:48 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:48:38 -0400

I think is some cases the question is moot. If an office of nine personnel, I may or may not know of 4 who already carry "illegally" or against regulation. This has been going on his Ft Hood. Let's face it, if you are an OIF or OEF vet, you remember being inside a secure FOB surrounded by HESCO and guard towers and having to most likely carry TWO weapons to the mess hall or showers. Why not authorized (at a minimum) SGT/E-5 and above to conceal carry POWs or even military issue sidearms? Would the four Marines be alive today if they had been armed against an AK-47 weilding terrorists? IDK, but they wouldn't have died cowering behind cover.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 20 at 2015 2:51 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:51:10 -0400

This coming from a guy with enlisted aides, his own cook, and his own security? Right. Anyways, his answer is the typical, lazy answer of a lot of leadership today, ie: don't change what might cause me more work with no extra benefit.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 20 at 2015 11:13 PM

COL Charles Williams — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:13:29 -0400

I think yes... an no. I think more Service members need to be armed... be everyone? Not sure that makes sense.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 10:35 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:35:01 -0400

Eh, I actually have to agree with him. I don't think that it's a matter of trusting a servicemember with a loaded weapon as much as it is just a hassle.

I remember what it was like carrying around a weapon when my unit was deployed overseas. All of the other units opted to store their weapons in the arms room, but our commanders decided they wanted to make us carry them around 24/7.

It was a hassle -- sleeping with the weapons sitting next to the bed, having another soldier watching them when you went to the shower, keeping track of them when off-duty.

Other considerations: We don't really have anything widely issued other than military grade M-16s and M-4s. Something as trivial as a comfortable sling isn't always on hand for every weapon. And, believe it or not, that's important when you have to lug the weapon around continuously for a year.

And, we haven't even gotten into the issue of how you secure these weapons in soldier's homes? Are we going to issue a weapon safe for every servicemember? Their homes suddenly become targets when someone knows there's a military grade M-16 and M-4 sitting in there. And, some of them have children. And, how to we transport them in vehicles? There is a slot you put them in when you're driving in a humvee, but that has to be custom-built in a personal vehicle. Are we going to do that?

All of that just seems to be a nightmare to me. It's hard enough to keep track of everything when soldiers are moving as part of a unit. But, sending them home individually with these weapons? I suppose it can be done. Law enforcement does it. However, we'd have to figure out how we want to do it and then there would be a significant price tag.

Finally, I think we also have to consider that there are a lot of training and legal issues that we have to deal with. Let's start with the Posse Comitatus Act. The military is not armed in domestic environments because it is a deliberate, conscious safeguard of our Constitutional form of government -- one of the many checks that have always been in place to ensure that this country never has a military coup. Do we really want to change that?

What are the rules of engagement going to be? Are we going to deputize servicemembers with the powers of special police? (Without that, some jurisdictions have restrictions on citizen's arrest and pesky "retreat to safety" requirements.)

And, what about the training requirements? A lot of servicemembers are trained as law enforcement officers when off duty. However, that's not the default training. Military are trained to immediately neutralize a threat ("two in the chest, one in the head"). That's a bit different than law enforcement.

Again, I suppose it can be done. However, it requires a bit more planning than just handing out all of the weapons in the arms room like a few state legislators seem to think . . . . A more practical solution might be to arm one officer or NCO at each recruiting station with a pistol. That probably wouldn't do much when someone is outside firing a rifle. (That scenario is hard to plan for.) But, it might be easier than issuing all of the M-16s and M-4s to everyone.