Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I mean really? They are the military. If anyone's is trustworthy enough to carry a gun while on duty its the military. So what was the logic behind banning them from carrying on base? It would've prevented things like Fort Hood.
Because the reality is that a considerable portion of the military (especially in the Navy and the Air Force) do not touch weapons outside of basic training and their annual qualifications.
The only military personnel who carry weapons on a daily basis outside of combat zones are Army & USMC Military Police, Navy MAs, Air Force Security Police, Army CID, Air Force OSI, and a few other misc MOS's and duty assignments.
I mean really? They are the military. If anyone's is trustworthy enough to carry a gun while on duty its the military. So what was the logic behind banning them from carrying on base? It would've prevented things like Fort Hood.
Do you carry a weapon in your own home? There are armed guards at the gate to prevent a threat from getting in. I don't want some grunt getting ticked off at his C.O. and going postal when he snaps.
Do you carry a weapon in your own home? There are armed guards at the gate to prevent a threat from getting in. I don't want some grunt getting ticked off at his C.O. and going postal when he snaps.
^ this IMO is the reason why weapon access is restricted in stateside garrisons. Look, I have alot of respect for the military but at the end of the day the military is still a microorganism of the society it defends ... and people need to understand this.
Police are not forced to live together in most cases. Tend to be older and more mature and undergo more psychological screening
There's many problems with that logic. First of all you're talking about the same people who operate M240/249s, grenade launchers, anti tank missle launchers, and full on tanks and they're not mature enough to be allowed to carry a gun? If they're not trust worthy enough to carry a gun then maybe its about time we reevaluate the vetting process. Secondly I'm not saying all soldiers will be forced to carry, I'm saying that if they want to then let them. And thirdly those of us in the civilian world who have CCW permits are less likely to commit a crime than peers of the same age. There are states that allow 18 year olds to carry and we don't see a spike in crime. I like to see actuall studies proving that soldiers can't be trusted. Not only that but you realize as soon as they step off base they are allowed to carry per state regulations so that crushes your argument right there.
There isn't exactly a law against the armed forces carrying weapons.
The decision to allow the military to carry weapons on bases is actually up to the military. That policy is dictated by an official whose position I cannot call to mind right now.
Because the reality is that a considerable portion of the military (especially in the Navy and the Air Force) do not touch weapons outside of basic training and their annual qualifications.
So? This is about personal protection. If someone feels the need that he should be the one protecting his own life then he should have that choice. Not only that but he will also most likely to train and invest in his proficiency.
Quote:
The only military personnel who carry weapons on a daily basis outside of combat zones are Army & USMC Military Police, Navy MAs, Air Force Security Police, Army CID, Air Force OSI, and a few other misc MOS's and duty assignments.
That doesn't answer my question. Why should the armed forces be forced to be unarmed?
Do you carry a weapon in your own home? There are armed guards at the gate to prevent a threat from getting in. I don't want some grunt getting ticked off at his C.O. and going postal when he snaps.
First of all a lot of people carry at home. I won't disclose whether I do it because I consider that a security issue. As for your comment a soldier going postal is exactly why we should allow them to be armed as Fort Hood has proven. Had those men been armed then they could've stopped it. I like to see actual data that shows by not allowing soldiers to be armed it reduced murders. Also I like to point out that this is very reminiscent to the hysteria surrounding Florida when it passed its shall issue law. The claims were that Florida would turn into a Wild West. Guess what? Not only did that NOT happened but also crime went down.
I've been told that it would present an extreme logistical challenge to all units. The order is just by limiting weapons to those in necessity in order facilitate mission capability.
I suppose they trust PMO, SRT, and the numerous OODs, CDOs.
Ask my active duty soldiers and Marines, their answer will perhaps surprise you.
Perhaps, based on the Ft. Hood incident and civilian terrorism, it allowing, if not requiring, military personnel to be at all times armed, should be carefully considered. Wars are no longer being fought along a defined front. This has resulted in our military, not to mention our civilians, to be subject to the dangers of terrorism. All the time.
Be Aware, Be Alert, Be Armed. Be safe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
