Because of Active Shooter research, Air Force will now allow concealed carry by Airmen...

[2aguy]

The Air Force is following FBI Research into active shooters after the attacks on military bases....and have decided that Commanders can now allow Air Force personnel to carry guns on and off duty.....

AF Reminds Commanders: Authorized Conceal-Carry, Open-Carry OK on Base | Military.com

Jan 21, 2016 | by Bryant Jordan
The attack last July on a recruiting office in Tennessee has prompted the Air Force to remind commanders they may authorize qualified airmen to carry weapons on base while off duty and out of uniform.

The Air Force on Wednesday said its review of "active-shooter incidents across the country" found that many ended without police intervention because someone present with a weapon stopped the shooter.

-------

The Air Force also did not release the data showing how many active-shooter incidents were stopped by someone on the scene carrying a weapon. A spokeswoman said the data came from the FBI, and cannot be released by the Air Force.



this article links to information coming from the FBI on active shooters...

CPRC at Fox News on the Air Force telling commanders they can OK guns on base - Crime Prevention Research Center

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Good thinking. What took them so long?

 

[saveliberty]

Good thinking. What took them so long?

Liberal research "scientists"?

 

[Fueri]

The Air Force on Wednesday said its review of "active-shooter incidents across the country" found that many ended without police intervention because someone present with a weapon stopped the shooter.

Who gets to tell Obama.

I think that rape victim from his town hall would be an excellent choice...

 

[Searcher44]

Good thinking. What took them so long?

You guys should maybe read the linked article before commenting, it clearly states;
"Three programs authorize commanders at all levels -- as long as they have authorization from the base commander -- to allow conceal-carry or open-carry on the installation.
"None of these programs gives the installation commander authorizations they didn't already have the authorization to do," Maj. Keith Quick, the Air Force Security Forces Integrated Defense action officer, said. "We are now formalizing it and telling them how they can use these types of programs more effectively."
Anyway if you can't trust members of the armed forces to be armed who can you trust? Makes sense to me as long as they have some procedure to screen out Jihadi sympathizer types who have been a problem in the past.
Also an article linked on the same page says "But the data, which the Air Force said came from the FBI, states that only 5 of the 160 active-shooter incidents between 2000 and 2013 -- or 3.1 percent -- ended "after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters."
I'm wondering if those stats really justify this statement,
"The Air Force on Wednesday said its review of "active-shooter incidents across the country" found that many ended without police intervention because someone present with a weapon stopped the shooter."

With stats like that I think somebody could legitimately ask "Were there incidents of accidental shootings of innocents that put in question whether concealed carry and armed response led to a negative or positive overall outcome"? Whatever, it still makes sense to me that a member of the armed forces should be allowed to be armed.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Good thinking. What took them so long?

You guys should maybe read the linked article before commenting, it clearly states;
"Three programs authorize commanders at all levels -- as long as they have authorization from the base commander -- to allow conceal-carry or open-carry on the installation.
"None of these programs gives the installation commander authorizations they didn't already have the authorization to do," Maj. Keith Quick, the Air Force Security Forces Integrated Defense action officer, said. "We are now formalizing it and telling them how they can use these types of programs more effectively."
Anyway if you can't trust members of the armed forces to be armed who can you trust? Makes sense to me as long as they have some procedure to screen out Jihadi sympathizer types who have been a problem in the past.
Also an article linked on the same page says "But the data, which the Air Force said came from the FBI, states that only 5 of the 160 active-shooter incidents between 2000 and 2013 -- or 3.1 percent -- ended "after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters."
I'm wondering if those stats really justify this statement,
"The Air Force on Wednesday said its review of "active-shooter incidents across the country" found that many ended without police intervention because someone present with a weapon stopped the shooter."

With stats like that I think somebody could legitimately ask "Were there incidents of accidental shootings of innocents that put in question whether concealed carry and armed response led to a negative or positive overall outcome"? Whatever, it still makes sense to me that a member of the armed forces should be allowed to be armed.

Of course they have had the authority, they simply didn't act upon it. The question is why not?

 

[007]

OMG... really... the MILITARY... of all people... carrying GUNS? RUN FOR THE HILLS... A SOLDIER HAS A GUN... [/sarcasm off]

 

[bucs90]

Has Obama told them yet that a gun may not help them at all....and in fact....could be taken and used against them??? I'm sure he'll correct the USAF soon.

 

[JimBowie1958]

OMG, airmen killing themselves and each other will SKYROCKET!

Oh, the huge manatee!

 

[saveliberty]

The Air Force on Wednesday said its review of "active-shooter incidents across the country" found that many ended without police intervention because someone present with a weapon stopped the shooter.

Who gets to tell Obama.

I think that rape victim from his town hall would be an excellent choice...

 

[2aguy]

Good thinking. What took them so long?

You guys should maybe read the linked article before commenting, it clearly states;
"Three programs authorize commanders at all levels -- as long as they have authorization from the base commander -- to allow conceal-carry or open-carry on the installation.
"None of these programs gives the installation commander authorizations they didn't already have the authorization to do," Maj. Keith Quick, the Air Force Security Forces Integrated Defense action officer, said. "We are now formalizing it and telling them how they can use these types of programs more effectively."
Anyway if you can't trust members of the armed forces to be armed who can you trust? Makes sense to me as long as they have some procedure to screen out Jihadi sympathizer types who have been a problem in the past.
Also an article linked on the same page says "But the data, which the Air Force said came from the FBI, states that only 5 of the 160 active-shooter incidents between 2000 and 2013 -- or 3.1 percent -- ended "after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters."
I'm wondering if those stats really justify this statement,
"The Air Force on Wednesday said its review of "active-shooter incidents across the country" found that many ended without police intervention because someone present with a weapon stopped the shooter."

With stats like that I think somebody could legitimately ask "Were there incidents of accidental shootings of innocents that put in question whether concealed carry and armed response led to a negative or positive overall outcome"? Whatever, it still makes sense to me that a member of the armed forces should be allowed to be armed.

Guy……there were only 5 because almost all public spaces, and all military bases are gun free zones….notice, the 5 were stopped by people who happened to be on the scene with a gun……..imagine if more public spaces were not gun free, more mass shooters would have to look for different targets.