Ft. Hood: A Gun-Free Zone

[Missourian]

For the slow. The US military does not now and has not anytime in the recent past ( going back a lot of years) allow uniformed troops to carry personal weapons in the United States. They do not arm the base and send out soldiers on everyday jobs and missions with loaded weapons and have not in quite some time.

Each Command identifies critical areas and establishes security for those areas. This includes things like arming the personnel that work there, providing separate armed Guards for the facility or area, creating reaction forces of armed troops with communication and weapons to react to assigned hot spots as needed.

No command authorizes uniformed personnel to conceal carry personal weapons nor to openly carry loaded weapons that are not issued for the express purpose of a duty assignment.

And to further break your balls, I seriously doubt that a deployment center before this shooting had any reason for Commands to even CONSIDER an armed guard there or a reaction force. I doubt they change their opinion on that either.

Anyone that actually thinks arming every soldier and Marine with loaded weapons in the United States is either stupid or crazy or both. Hell in conflict zones they have so many accidental discharges as to boggle the mind. All you do by allowing them all to go about armed for no good reason is increase the number of accidental shootings.

Now I would be all for a return to pre World War Two conditions where the weapons and some ammunition was stored at the barracks. In case needed.

You aren't busting my balls RGS. I know the regs. I registered and secured my personal weapons at the armory like ever other soldier who lived in the barracks.

I'm saying the regs are outdated.

Service personnel should have the same right to personal self protection as civilians do.

Some would take advantage of it, the vast majority would not, just like those on the civilian side of the fence.

As for accidental shootings and accidental discharges, there are 600,000 current CCW holders in Florida (one of the few states that publishes these statistics) alone, yet there are no statistics showing a definitive increase in accidental shootings or discharges.

There are only 1.5 million personnel on active duty in the US. If Florida is any indicator, the number of CCW permits nationwide could easily be 15 to 20 times great than the total number of active duty servicemen and women....perhaps more.

And yet, no rash of accidental gunfire, and as I posted earlier...the lowest rates of violent crime, murder and police deaths from firearms in America for the last 35, 43 and 50 years respectively.

Links to Florida CCW stats Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And Total U.S. active duty personnel United States armed forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Contumacious]

For the slow. The US military does not now and has not anytime in the recent past ( going back a lot of years) allow uniformed troops to carry personal weapons in the United States. .

The Swiss Armed Forces perform the roles of Switzerland's militia and regular army:

The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personal weapons, at home.

.

 

[Paulie]

They were civilian security FOR the base.

I've never heard of civilian security on a military installation, stateside at least anyway.

All the AF bases I was at had plenty of SP's (MP's) to handle the load.

Maybe other branches are different.

The Military with cuts in manpower from Congress over many years has left most installations hard press to man all security points on installations especially with the deployment rate as it is. For our SP (now referred in the AF as SF)and MP's to be able to man priority resources the DoD went to civilian hire so to speak. These people only man the Entry Points to installations and nothing else. The stand at the gate and check ID's basically.

I was stationed at 6 different Air Force bases in my enlistment period, and I never saw one civilian performing security. The gates were always manned by SP's as well.

This was as long ago as 2003 though, so I don't know if it has changed since.

Article-15 here might know of some, he was in around the same time I was, and was at different bases than me.

 

[Paulie]

Well, I owe you one RGS, I've given out too much in 24.

And I owe YOU rep for apparently being able to do it without puking

 

[garyd]

There is not one single shred of eveidence that gun control equals crime control.

Your average toddler has more to fear in the presence of a five gallon bucket of water than a hand gun.

Place I used to work had a sign on the door that said no guns allowed. I asked the boss one day to remove the sign. He wanted to know why. So I told him " on the off cnace that some loon shows up trying to shoot people I'd just as soon he not be informed that no one in here will be able to shoot back.

 

[Terry]

I've never heard of civilian security on a military installation, stateside at least anyway.

All the AF bases I was at had plenty of SP's (MP's) to handle the load.

Maybe other branches are different.

The Military with cuts in manpower from Congress over many years has left most installations hard press to man all security points on installations especially with the deployment rate as it is. For our SP (now referred in the AF as SF)and MP's to be able to man priority resources the DoD went to civilian hire so to speak. These people only man the Entry Points to installations and nothing else. The stand at the gate and check ID's basically.

I was stationed at 6 different Air Force bases in my enlistment period, and I never saw one civilian performing security. The gates were always manned by SP's as well.

This was as long ago as 2003 though, so I don't know if it has changed since.

Article-15 here might know of some, he was in around the same time I was, and was at different bases than me.

Would you believe me if I told you that it is so, and that I know the former and current ACC SF manager?

 

[Care4all]

There is not one single shred of eveidence that gun control equals crime control.

Your average toddler has more to fear in the presence of a five gallon bucket of water than a hand gun.

Place I used to work had a sign on the door that said no guns allowed. I asked the boss one day to remove the sign. He wanted to know why. So I told him " on the off cnace that some loon shows up trying to shoot people I'd just as soon he not be informed that no one in here will be able to shoot back.

Did he take your advice? (which to me makes sense)

 

[Paulie]

The Military with cuts in manpower from Congress over many years has left most installations hard press to man all security points on installations especially with the deployment rate as it is. For our SP (now referred in the AF as SF)and MP's to be able to man priority resources the DoD went to civilian hire so to speak. These people only man the Entry Points to installations and nothing else. The stand at the gate and check ID's basically.

I was stationed at 6 different Air Force bases in my enlistment period, and I never saw one civilian performing security. The gates were always manned by SP's as well.

This was as long ago as 2003 though, so I don't know if it has changed since.

Article-15 here might know of some, he was in around the same time I was, and was at different bases than me.

Would you believe me if I told you that it is so, and that I know the former and current ACC SF manager?

It has nothing to do with not believing you, I just don't think it was happening back when I was in. I separated in '03, and at that point there were still enlisted SP's manning gates and patrolling the bases.

I certainly don't doubt that they have civilians manning gates these days, but I haven't driven up to an AF base gate in almost 7 years. A lot could have changed.

 

[Terry]

I was stationed at 6 different Air Force bases in my enlistment period, and I never saw one civilian performing security. The gates were always manned by SP's as well.

This was as long ago as 2003 though, so I don't know if it has changed since.

Article-15 here might know of some, he was in around the same time I was, and was at different bases than me.

Would you believe me if I told you that it is so, and that I know the former and current ACC SF manager?

It has nothing to do with not believing you, I just don't think it was happening back when I was in. I separated in '03, and at that point there were still enlisted SP's manning gates and patrolling the bases.

I certainly don't doubt that they have civilians manning gates these days, but I haven't driven up to an AF base gate in almost 7 years. A lot could have changed.

Only a few bases in 03 started it, and it really took hold more so in 07, now almost all I would say went to civilian hire

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Instead of more people carrying firearms on bases wouldn't it make more sense just to keep the muslims out?

 

[eots]

Instead of more people carrying firearms on bases wouldn't it make more sense just to keep the muslims out?

no because if you followed that logic you would have to keep everyone out given the list of murders and rapes committed historical committed by white military personal..fuck in the same day some disgruntled white business guy was was offing people does that mean we should keep white guys out of the business world

 

[logical4u]

The mindset was FIRMLY entrenched with Maj. Hassan. Have a look at this slide deck he did.

Some background on the deck first.




Here's the slide deck: Hasan on Islam - washingtonpost.com

Note the following slides:

Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote:

"If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]

The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"

Under the "Conclusions" page, Hasan wrote that

"Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam," and that "Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly -- will vary!"

The final page, labeled "Recommendation," contained only one suggestion:

"Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."

Let us remember that 'he' did not use peace to object. He, as an officer could have resigned his post; he did not. He volunteered for military service knowing the state of the world and that we were involved with military actions 'against muslim areas' at the time he joined the military. He chose 'not' to be a conscientious objector, but a weapon for jihad, based on his previous words and actions.

He is a loser and the people that he shot are the ones that should have their stories told. "They" are the true victims here, and their families.

Not defending the man, but HE DID PURSUE RESIGNING, and even spoke to a lawyer about arranging such, but the lawyer told him, in his situation because the military spent soooooo muchhhhhhh on his schooling to become a doctor and the shortages of such, the lawyer advised that he could not get out of his contract....is what i heard on the 24/7 news.

Would this be the lawyer that is defending him?

There are ways out of the military. He chose one that would glorify 'him', not Allah, to get out of the military. He is a LOSER.