Posted on Jul 2, 2016
Strict military gun control should be our model
16K
100
26
5
5
0
The horrible, tragic, and all too common event that just tore apart Orlando, Florida, should reinforce a national determination to do something about it. The motivations for this outrage are clearly complex, may never be fully known and are resistant to any comprehensive public policy solution. But there are steps we can and must take, regardless of the entrenched opposition to them.
I spent four decades of my professional life in a subset of American society that very tightly controlled access to guns. Certainly, there were many guns and other weapons around, and at times they were quite visible. But within this society, there was also a comprehensive understanding that guns were dangerous and could be the central component of unfortunate — even fatal — circumstances, especially when combined with alcohol, drugs, heightened emotions or misplaced loyalties.
Because of this recognition, in this society where I was privileged to live and work, we controlled guns. Anyone who touched one had to be trained and, in effect, licensed. Guns had to be registered with a federal authority. Ammunition was tightly controlled and without exception fully accounted for. Should anyone show signs of mental or emotional distress, his weapons were typically withheld and only returned when there was high confidence that any troublesome problems had been controlled or cured.
What was this society that exercised a high degree of gun control? Well, it was the U.S. Army.
There is an image held by many that in the military, all servicemen and servicewomen have a weapon mounted on a rack above their bunk, ready for them instantly to reach up and grab when the alert siren sounds. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, when I was in the Army, all military weapons not in use for official duties were locked in a rack, which was chained to the floor, which was in a room secured by double doors, which were bolted shut with high-security locks. In addition, the room was monitored with alarm systems and checked hourly to ensure all security measures were in place and functioning.
Given that the military is a drug-free society, is made up of individuals who have education levels above the national norm, is closely supervised by a hierarchical and observant chain of command and is governed by its own specialized legal system capable of dealing with breaches of behavior quickly, why does the military go to such lengths to keep weapons from soldiers? Essentially, the answer is simple: Guns are dangerous. Moreover, military weapons, particularly assault rifles, are even more dangerous. They are designed to do one thing — kill a large number of human beings quickly — as we just witnessed in Orlando.
The Founding Fathers seemingly wrote the Second Amendment, with its infrequently quoted preamble, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” with the idea that those having arms would possess and use them with a degree of military-like responsibility and when serving as a militia. Because this is clearly not how circumstances have evolved, three military-like steps need to be taken.
First, there must be a renewal of the ban on assault weapons. Second, related to this ban should be a ban on large-volume ammunition magazines. Unless in an active combat zone, the military stores its large ammunition magazines separately from weapons.
Society should also. Magazines available to the public should be limited to something like eight rounds for pistols and five rounds for rifles. That would at least give those victimized by gun violence a chance to attack the gunmen, as some chiefs of police advocate, by forcing an attacker to stop to reload.
Third, there needs to be thorough background checks. The military does this when citizens enlist and closely monitors soldiers during their service. There will be those who still slip through, such as Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter in 2009, and Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, who left his post to murder 16 Afghan civilians in 2012. But a reasonably comprehensive effort is better than an unreasonably lax one.
Finally, as some have suggested, if weapons are hard to restrict because of political realities, let us levy a heavy tax on arms and ammunition, particularly the latter. As an enduring economic adage states, “What the government taxes, the government discourages.” Discouraging the purchase of arms and ammunition serves a clear public good. And the revenue generated could and should be used to enhance the national background check system and hire more agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The trail of blood stretching from Sandy Hook to Aurora, from Charleston to San Bernardino and now to Orlando is more than enough evidence to point the way forward. Regardless of opposition by the National Rifle Association and other groups, our society must demand — and our government must take — serious steps to make the controls on weapons look more like those of the Army and less like those of the Wild West.
M. Thomas Davis, a retired Army officer, commanded an artillery unit during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
I spent four decades of my professional life in a subset of American society that very tightly controlled access to guns. Certainly, there were many guns and other weapons around, and at times they were quite visible. But within this society, there was also a comprehensive understanding that guns were dangerous and could be the central component of unfortunate — even fatal — circumstances, especially when combined with alcohol, drugs, heightened emotions or misplaced loyalties.
Because of this recognition, in this society where I was privileged to live and work, we controlled guns. Anyone who touched one had to be trained and, in effect, licensed. Guns had to be registered with a federal authority. Ammunition was tightly controlled and without exception fully accounted for. Should anyone show signs of mental or emotional distress, his weapons were typically withheld and only returned when there was high confidence that any troublesome problems had been controlled or cured.
What was this society that exercised a high degree of gun control? Well, it was the U.S. Army.
There is an image held by many that in the military, all servicemen and servicewomen have a weapon mounted on a rack above their bunk, ready for them instantly to reach up and grab when the alert siren sounds. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, when I was in the Army, all military weapons not in use for official duties were locked in a rack, which was chained to the floor, which was in a room secured by double doors, which were bolted shut with high-security locks. In addition, the room was monitored with alarm systems and checked hourly to ensure all security measures were in place and functioning.
Given that the military is a drug-free society, is made up of individuals who have education levels above the national norm, is closely supervised by a hierarchical and observant chain of command and is governed by its own specialized legal system capable of dealing with breaches of behavior quickly, why does the military go to such lengths to keep weapons from soldiers? Essentially, the answer is simple: Guns are dangerous. Moreover, military weapons, particularly assault rifles, are even more dangerous. They are designed to do one thing — kill a large number of human beings quickly — as we just witnessed in Orlando.
The Founding Fathers seemingly wrote the Second Amendment, with its infrequently quoted preamble, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” with the idea that those having arms would possess and use them with a degree of military-like responsibility and when serving as a militia. Because this is clearly not how circumstances have evolved, three military-like steps need to be taken.
First, there must be a renewal of the ban on assault weapons. Second, related to this ban should be a ban on large-volume ammunition magazines. Unless in an active combat zone, the military stores its large ammunition magazines separately from weapons.
Society should also. Magazines available to the public should be limited to something like eight rounds for pistols and five rounds for rifles. That would at least give those victimized by gun violence a chance to attack the gunmen, as some chiefs of police advocate, by forcing an attacker to stop to reload.
Third, there needs to be thorough background checks. The military does this when citizens enlist and closely monitors soldiers during their service. There will be those who still slip through, such as Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter in 2009, and Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, who left his post to murder 16 Afghan civilians in 2012. But a reasonably comprehensive effort is better than an unreasonably lax one.
Finally, as some have suggested, if weapons are hard to restrict because of political realities, let us levy a heavy tax on arms and ammunition, particularly the latter. As an enduring economic adage states, “What the government taxes, the government discourages.” Discouraging the purchase of arms and ammunition serves a clear public good. And the revenue generated could and should be used to enhance the national background check system and hire more agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The trail of blood stretching from Sandy Hook to Aurora, from Charleston to San Bernardino and now to Orlando is more than enough evidence to point the way forward. Regardless of opposition by the National Rifle Association and other groups, our society must demand — and our government must take — serious steps to make the controls on weapons look more like those of the Army and less like those of the Wild West.
M. Thomas Davis, a retired Army officer, commanded an artillery unit during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
Strict military gun control should be our model
Posted from armytimes.comPosted in these groups: 
Gun Control
Gun Control
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 17
17
17
0
14
14
0
Sounds to me as though the officer spent too long on active duty and has zero concept of civilian RIGHTS.
(14)
(0)
11
11
0
There's all kinds of misinformation, flawed understanding, and tyrannical thinking in that little piece of prose.
Incidentally - were you aware that the FBI records show that there were no deaths at Sandy Hook on the day that the mass shooting occurred?
Or that the shooter in Orlando called 911 and swore allegiance to ISIS? That he told what his motivation was?
Let's push through all of the main points listed above... this is going to be as painful as reading it the first time...
"There is an image held by many that in the military, all servicemen and servicewomen have a weapon mounted..." Who / where is that image held?
"Given that the military is a drug-free society..." Umm... no. Ideally, it is; but even accepted drugs like caffeine, sugar, and chocolate count... plus all of the OTC meds issued by "Doc".
"...military weapons, particularly assault rifles, are even more dangerous ... - as we just witnessed in Orlando." Again, Umm... no. There was no "military assault rifle" used by the shooter in Orlando. This one comment is enough to make me doubt the character / position of this person's service... as do several other of his comments. But, when you add them all together - *whew* ...
"The Founding Fathers seemingly wrote the Second Amendment, with its infrequently quoted preamble, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” with the idea that those having arms would possess and use them with a degree of military-like responsibility and when serving as a militia. Because this is clearly not how circumstances have evolved, three military-like steps need to be taken."- this paragraph indicates that either the author has never read any of the founders' other writings, or that he doesn't comprehend what he's read. Every able-bodied person of fighting age is "the militia." Further, when the founders wrote about the individual people, the said "people", when they were talking about a group of people, they referred to "the state."
"Well regulated", at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights (and the centuries before and after) meant "in proper working order" or "trained" and competent.
"First, there must be a renewal of the ban on assault weapons." No, there must not be. More murders are committed with pistols than rifles, and very few are conducted with semi-automatic weapons... which are not assault weapons. As many murders that are committed with *all* firearms, even more are carried out by other means; baseball bats, tire irons, fists, bricks, rocks, frying pans, and poison. Even more people are killed by vehicles. Still more are killed by medical malpractice. Of all the tools used to deprive someone of their life, semi-automatic weapons (both handguns and long guns) are on the bottom of the list.
"Second, related to this ban should be a ban on large-volume ammunition magazines." With the ability to carry additional magazines, or even speed loaders for revolvers, a person who is dead set (pardon the pun) on killing as many as he can, can dump an empty magazine and reload in less than a second. If his firearm locks its feeding mechanism open when the magazine is empty, and if they've trained on their weapon, there is very little noticeable difference in the time between changing out magazines or using a large capacity magazine. The cycle of acquiring a target, sighting in, and squeezing the trigger two or three times, and repeating for each target, can be done even when changing out a magazine. Since the semi-automatic weapons don't give the user the "spray and pray" capability that a true "assault weapon" does, the thoughts behind this are fuzzy, at best.
"Unless in an active combat zone, the military stores its large ammunition magazines separately from weapons." ... or, while in training. Or, while on duty as a guard in an area with a reasonable threat. Or, when transiting to or from said post. Or, when guarding a piece of classified gear of extreme value to national or site-specific security.
"Society should also. Magazines available to the public should be limited to something like eight rounds for pistols and five rounds for rifles". As I pointed out above, someone who's trained with their weapon is going to be acquiring their next target even while changing out magazines.
"That would at least give those victimized by gun violence a chance to attack the gunmen, as some chiefs of police advocate, by forcing an attacker to stop to reload." A chance, yes - but, someone who has not been trained or tested in a live fire situation previously typically runs from a shooter. Very few people are willing to chance being the unarmed sacrifice that enables the rest of the unarmed victims to subdue the shooter.
"Third, there needs to be thorough background checks" - there are background checks done for every purchase before a firearm changes hands - except when one private citizen sells, trades, or gives a firearm to another private citizen. Even firearms bought and sold online without a background check have to be delivered to an FFL holder, who must run the check before they hand the firearm over to the recipient. The claim that there's a loophole for gun shows or online purchases is disingenuous, at best.
"Finally, as some have suggested, if weapons are hard to restrict because of political realities, let us levy a heavy tax on arms and ammunition, particularly the latter" So - he's in favor of curtailing our rights or financially punishing us if he doesn't get his way? I don't think so. The government steals quite enough money from us, as it is, to fund non-Constitutional expenditures... it's a completely anti-American idea to suggest that we be taxed in order to exercise a right codified (NOT granted) by any of the Amendments!
"The trail of blood stretching from Sandy Hook to Aurora, from Charleston to San Bernardino and now to Orlando is more than enough evidence to point the way forward." Even though, these high-profile tragedies notwithstanding, of the 280-some odd recognized countries in the world, we're not even in the top 100 for per capita deaths from people using firearms. If we were to omit the several DNC-run, gun restrictive cities like Baltimore, Chicago, D.C., New Orleans, Detroit, etc - we'd be in the lower 1/4th of all countries!
"...serious steps to make the controls on weapons look more like those of the Army and less like those of the Wild West." Speaking of which - other than the government sanctioned mass murders of the "indigenous peoples" during the "Wild West", do you know of *any* mass murders back then? At all? I don't, but I really am curious about that one.
How about this, "M. Thomas Davis": Let's look that the overwhelming majority of all mass shootings since - oh, say 1950. Let's take the common denominator of all of them, and address *that* issue. 98.8% of all mass shootings in the United States since 1950 do, indeed, have a common denominator: they were "gun free zones" - places where law abiding citizens were not allowed to carry instruments of self-defense.
Criminals like soft targets. We've seen around the world - in places like Paris and Australia, for instance - that strict and punitive gun control don't stop criminals. People who are hellbent on murder will acquire the tools to commit their crime. Until you can guarantee that no criminal has a firearm, it's criminal of *you* to make it more difficult or costly for someone who obeys the law to obtain a tool to give them at least an equal playing field as a criminal or terrorist.
Incidentally - were you aware that the FBI records show that there were no deaths at Sandy Hook on the day that the mass shooting occurred?
Or that the shooter in Orlando called 911 and swore allegiance to ISIS? That he told what his motivation was?
Let's push through all of the main points listed above... this is going to be as painful as reading it the first time...
"There is an image held by many that in the military, all servicemen and servicewomen have a weapon mounted..." Who / where is that image held?
"Given that the military is a drug-free society..." Umm... no. Ideally, it is; but even accepted drugs like caffeine, sugar, and chocolate count... plus all of the OTC meds issued by "Doc".
"...military weapons, particularly assault rifles, are even more dangerous ... - as we just witnessed in Orlando." Again, Umm... no. There was no "military assault rifle" used by the shooter in Orlando. This one comment is enough to make me doubt the character / position of this person's service... as do several other of his comments. But, when you add them all together - *whew* ...
"The Founding Fathers seemingly wrote the Second Amendment, with its infrequently quoted preamble, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” with the idea that those having arms would possess and use them with a degree of military-like responsibility and when serving as a militia. Because this is clearly not how circumstances have evolved, three military-like steps need to be taken."- this paragraph indicates that either the author has never read any of the founders' other writings, or that he doesn't comprehend what he's read. Every able-bodied person of fighting age is "the militia." Further, when the founders wrote about the individual people, the said "people", when they were talking about a group of people, they referred to "the state."
"Well regulated", at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights (and the centuries before and after) meant "in proper working order" or "trained" and competent.
"First, there must be a renewal of the ban on assault weapons." No, there must not be. More murders are committed with pistols than rifles, and very few are conducted with semi-automatic weapons... which are not assault weapons. As many murders that are committed with *all* firearms, even more are carried out by other means; baseball bats, tire irons, fists, bricks, rocks, frying pans, and poison. Even more people are killed by vehicles. Still more are killed by medical malpractice. Of all the tools used to deprive someone of their life, semi-automatic weapons (both handguns and long guns) are on the bottom of the list.
"Second, related to this ban should be a ban on large-volume ammunition magazines." With the ability to carry additional magazines, or even speed loaders for revolvers, a person who is dead set (pardon the pun) on killing as many as he can, can dump an empty magazine and reload in less than a second. If his firearm locks its feeding mechanism open when the magazine is empty, and if they've trained on their weapon, there is very little noticeable difference in the time between changing out magazines or using a large capacity magazine. The cycle of acquiring a target, sighting in, and squeezing the trigger two or three times, and repeating for each target, can be done even when changing out a magazine. Since the semi-automatic weapons don't give the user the "spray and pray" capability that a true "assault weapon" does, the thoughts behind this are fuzzy, at best.
"Unless in an active combat zone, the military stores its large ammunition magazines separately from weapons." ... or, while in training. Or, while on duty as a guard in an area with a reasonable threat. Or, when transiting to or from said post. Or, when guarding a piece of classified gear of extreme value to national or site-specific security.
"Society should also. Magazines available to the public should be limited to something like eight rounds for pistols and five rounds for rifles". As I pointed out above, someone who's trained with their weapon is going to be acquiring their next target even while changing out magazines.
"That would at least give those victimized by gun violence a chance to attack the gunmen, as some chiefs of police advocate, by forcing an attacker to stop to reload." A chance, yes - but, someone who has not been trained or tested in a live fire situation previously typically runs from a shooter. Very few people are willing to chance being the unarmed sacrifice that enables the rest of the unarmed victims to subdue the shooter.
"Third, there needs to be thorough background checks" - there are background checks done for every purchase before a firearm changes hands - except when one private citizen sells, trades, or gives a firearm to another private citizen. Even firearms bought and sold online without a background check have to be delivered to an FFL holder, who must run the check before they hand the firearm over to the recipient. The claim that there's a loophole for gun shows or online purchases is disingenuous, at best.
"Finally, as some have suggested, if weapons are hard to restrict because of political realities, let us levy a heavy tax on arms and ammunition, particularly the latter" So - he's in favor of curtailing our rights or financially punishing us if he doesn't get his way? I don't think so. The government steals quite enough money from us, as it is, to fund non-Constitutional expenditures... it's a completely anti-American idea to suggest that we be taxed in order to exercise a right codified (NOT granted) by any of the Amendments!
"The trail of blood stretching from Sandy Hook to Aurora, from Charleston to San Bernardino and now to Orlando is more than enough evidence to point the way forward." Even though, these high-profile tragedies notwithstanding, of the 280-some odd recognized countries in the world, we're not even in the top 100 for per capita deaths from people using firearms. If we were to omit the several DNC-run, gun restrictive cities like Baltimore, Chicago, D.C., New Orleans, Detroit, etc - we'd be in the lower 1/4th of all countries!
"...serious steps to make the controls on weapons look more like those of the Army and less like those of the Wild West." Speaking of which - other than the government sanctioned mass murders of the "indigenous peoples" during the "Wild West", do you know of *any* mass murders back then? At all? I don't, but I really am curious about that one.
How about this, "M. Thomas Davis": Let's look that the overwhelming majority of all mass shootings since - oh, say 1950. Let's take the common denominator of all of them, and address *that* issue. 98.8% of all mass shootings in the United States since 1950 do, indeed, have a common denominator: they were "gun free zones" - places where law abiding citizens were not allowed to carry instruments of self-defense.
Criminals like soft targets. We've seen around the world - in places like Paris and Australia, for instance - that strict and punitive gun control don't stop criminals. People who are hellbent on murder will acquire the tools to commit their crime. Until you can guarantee that no criminal has a firearm, it's criminal of *you* to make it more difficult or costly for someone who obeys the law to obtain a tool to give them at least an equal playing field as a criminal or terrorist.
(11)
(0)
PO1 Joseph Glennon
I'm waiting for the pain meds to kick in... and, I actually suffered through reading that tripe. What's a Boatswain's Mate supposed to do when faced with that much stupidity, Top?
(2)
(0)
Maj John Bell
PO1 Joseph Glennon - Excellent response, the only other thing I would add is:
"[military] Guns had to be registered with a federal authority." The military's guns are not registered with federal authorities."
"Should anyone show signs of mental or emotional distress, his weapons were typically withheld and only returned when there was high confidence that any troublesome problems had been controlled or cured."
_ The military weapons are owned by the federal government, thus there is no requirement for due process or violation of property rights should the government change access to them.
"[military] Guns had to be registered with a federal authority." The military's guns are not registered with federal authorities."
"Should anyone show signs of mental or emotional distress, his weapons were typically withheld and only returned when there was high confidence that any troublesome problems had been controlled or cured."
_ The military weapons are owned by the federal government, thus there is no requirement for due process or violation of property rights should the government change access to them.
(4)
(0)
1LT Brian Tychonski
Maj John Bell There's a bit of history that most people are unaware of. Until 1934, the citizenry were frequently better armed than the military. Custer's men at Little Big Horn had single shot rifles while 15 shot repeaters had been available to the citizens for over a decade. Until the National Firearms Act of 1934, you could order fully automatic weapons for home delivery through mail order catalogs like Sears or Montgomery Ward. The Supreme Court ruled in US v Miller that the only reason why the government could regulate automatic weapons, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns and suppressors was because they weren't in general issue to the military and therefore unsuitable for militia use (the government's argument) and hence not protected by the second amendment.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google