Should soldiers be armed?

I don't remember any military personnel carrying guns on base other than the MP's and this for a 20 year period of being allowed on base?

I'm not certain how I feel about it?

Maybe as Hossfly says, with key personnel perhaps?
 

There is a reason the military believes that to be a bad idea. The military puts a great deal of stress on many of those who serve, many of them being very young. On top of that, drug use in the military is quite high. Yes, they kick them out if they are on drugs, but sometimes it takes a while. I think having everyone armed on base would lead to more multiple shootings where our own soldiers just go off and lose it. I might be wrong, but I do think that this is the reasoning behind them not being permitted to carry firearms. In this most recent incident, I don't think it would have mattered as this guy was shooting from his car.
 
I foresee certain designated individuals or officers and NCOs carrying weapons in their workplace and on the installation.

That could be a sensible solution.
 
At least arm the freaking Military Police. When the jihad Major murdered a dozen of his own Soldiers at Ft. Hood there wasn't a gun on the base and they had to call 911 while he was reloading. I had occasion to visit Ft. Myer in Washington a couple of years ago and the sloppy security company that checks the visitor cars was armed to the teeth.
 
The wake of the September 2013 fatal shooting of 12 people by a civilian military contractor who went on a rampage at Washington Navy Yard saw the recirculation of a rumor that gained currency after the November 2009 fatal shooting of 13 people by a U.S. Army psychiatrist at Fort Hood, Texas: that one of the reasons these mass shooters had not been stopped earlier in their killing sprees was because President Bill Clinton had issued an executive order back in 1993 that prohibited personnel on military bases from carrying firearms while on duty.

While there was at least a small kernel of real information underlying such claims, the gist of the rumor was wrong on two major counts.

It was during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, not Bill Clinton, that the U.S. Department of Defense issued a directive in February 1992 affecting the carrying of firearms on bases by military personnel. That directive was eventually implemented through a regulation 190-14 issued by the Department of the Army (not via executive order) in March 1993, just two months after President Clinton assumed office.

Additionally, that change in regulations (which applied only to the Army, not other branches of the U.S. armed forces) did not ban the carrying of weapons by soldiers on Army bases; rather, it restricted the authorization to carry firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement and security duties, and to personnel stationed at facilities where there was "a reasonable expectation that life or Army assets would be jeopardized if firearms were not carried":



a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm will be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms.

b. DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be armed.

c. DA personnel are authorized to carry firearms while engaged in security duties, protecting personnel and vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners.



snopes.com Clinton Disarmed Soldiers on Military Bases





 
April 03, 2014

Last month, Defense Department officials released a report examining security in the wake of the Navy Yard shooting. The department concluded it had done a poor job securing the facility, screening personnel, and recognizing and addressing the mental health issues of the shooter.

The review included 14 recommendations for improving security. Letting soldiers carry weapons on base wasn't one of them.

The report recommended instead that signage be "posted conspicuously" at installations as reminders of the prohibition against carrying firearms in federal facilities.

"I don't think soldiers should have concealed weapons on base," Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, the commander of Fort Hood, said at a news conference on Wednesday.

Should Soldiers Be Armed At Military Posts NPR
 
Last edited:
Last month, Defense Department officials released a report examining security in the wake of the Navy Yard shooting. The department concluded it had done a poor job securing the facility, screening personnel, and recognizing and addressing the mental health issues of the shooter.

The review included 14 recommendations for improving security. Letting soldiers carry weapons on base wasn't one of them.

The report recommended instead that signage be "posted conspicuously" at installations as reminders of the prohibition against carrying firearms in federal facilities.

"I don't think soldiers should have concealed weapons on base," Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, the commander of Fort Hood, said at a news conference on Wednesday.

Should Soldiers Be Armed At Military Posts NPR



Tightening Restrictions


It wasn't always the case that soldiers had to disarm while on post. Prior to the first Bush administration, base commanders determined what the rules were at their facilities. But regulations formalized in 1993 block personnel who are not on security duty from carrying firearms.


Further restrictions have followed. In the wake of the 2009 shootings at Fort Hood, which left 13 people dead, the installation requires soldiers to register their weapons with commanders.


"The carrying of privately owned firearms on Fort Hood is prohibited unless authorized by the installation's senior commander," according to guidance offered to soldiers stationed there. "The carrying of a concealed weapon on the installation is prohibited regardless of whether a state or county permit has been obtained."


But will a person intent on killing others care about violating such restrictions?
 
Actually, the concept of arming key personnel has a lot of merit.... After the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they would undoubtedly have combat experience, and they would have had to prove to be stable to attain their rank....

That would also help keep weapons out of the hands of green kids, or drug users that just haven' t been caught by a drug test yet....
 
Valerie

But who says someone intent on shooting up the base will follow regulations??? It obviously isn't happening.
 
Absolutely they should be armed. What good is an unarmed military? And, with as many crazies as we have in society, it would be stupid for soldiers to walk around unarmed. If we can't trust our soldiers with weapons, who can we trust. I'd trust a soldier any day over a cop.
 
It is like having an unloaded weapon, great mythical concept supported by anti gun nutz, sucks in reality when the bad guys is loaded.

The soldier is just a fancy gun, don't arm them they are just for show.

No, when the lead is flying is not time to realize the radio you brought to the gun fight is going to get your killed.
 
Valerie

But who says someone intent on shooting up the base will follow regulations??? It obviously isn't happening.


true, but on the other hand who is to say that arming ALL of the soldiers will lead to less shootings?


it sounds like it is still up to the base commander and that the 1992 change sort of let the base commander off the hook by making NO the default and YES up to the commander, as opposed to the opposite... YES by default and NO at the commander's discretion. so the change seems optimal for the base commander IMO
 
Valerie

Actually, a blanket policy of arming ALL soldiers (even unproven ones) may be a mistake... I agree that qualifications to carry a weapon on post should come into play....

Even a few armed individuals in a crowd can stop an incident before it gets too far.
 

There is a reason the military believes that to be a bad idea. The military puts a great deal of stress on many of those who serve, many of them being very young. On top of that, drug use in the military is quite high. Yes, they kick them out if they are on drugs, but sometimes it takes a while. I think having everyone armed on base would lead to more multiple shootings where our own soldiers just go off and lose it. I might be wrong, but I do think that this is the reasoning behind them not being permitted to carry firearms. In this most recent incident, I don't think it would have mattered as this guy was shooting from his car.

This is an absolutely bullshit liberal reply,

The truth is simple: urged by his military hating wife, Bill Clinton issued an executive order denying military personnel from carrying weapons on AND OFF base in 1992. Only security forces carry weapons and only a few of them are actually ready to fire! Most carry empty weapons with the clips in their belt pouches.

Get it right or shut up!
 

Forum List

Back
Top