Chattanooga shootings

This forum is for discussions on the noteworthy events, people, places, and circumstances of both the past and the present (note: pop culture etc... is on the back porch).
Post Reply
User avatar
JAG2955
Posts: 3044
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:21 pm

Re: Chattanooga shootings

Post by JAG2955 »

Netpackrat wrote:
Yogimus wrote:
Netpackrat wrote: It was my understanding that the military has already established procedures for issuance of weapons to its personnel.
Indeed. it is incompatible with standard recruiting operations.
How so? If a recruit is scared off by the sight of an armed recruiter, then perhaps he was not fit for service in the armed forces to begin with.
The challenge lies in the security of said arms. The military requirements fall into the "overly stupid" category for security. Sight counts, access control, Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives screening forms, physical security, inspections, etc. For example, an "amnesty box", for troops to drop rounds they forgot to turn in must be a lockable ammo can welded to a large steel pipe which is buried in a 6 foot concrete cylinder in the ground. That's for loose rounds, .50 cal and smaller.

The only way that I see it happening is 1. The recruiting center is close enough to a base that a duty recruiter can swing by and pick up weapons for the recruiting personnel for that day, or 2. A model similar to The Basic School, where there is always a duty on post, who is armed and conducts sight counts, and the personal weapons for each individual are secured in a Tufloc gun rack. Recruiters work long hours already, so adding a duty post to their job further complicates it.

I am unsure if NCIS is authorized to keep their issued pistols at home, but that may be another viable model for solution. Of course, the number of cops, both federal and local, that are allowed to have their go-happy enabled M4s at home prove that it can be done, but please see my "overly stupid" statement.
User avatar
randy
Posts: 8335
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: EM79VQ

Re: Chattanooga shootings

Post by randy »

IOW, no routine carry by military personnel due to the Zero Defect Up or Out promotion/retention system. And the (related) fact that the style of warfare for the last 20+ years has not resulted in enough combat deaths of senior officers to clear out the dead weight politicians and allow warfighters to advance into command slots.
...even before I read MHI, my response to seeing a poster for the stars of the latest Twilight movies was "I see 2 targets and a collaborator".
Precision
Posts: 5272
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:01 pm

Re: Chattanooga shootings

Post by Precision »

randy wrote:IOW, no routine carry by military personnel due to the Zero Defect Up or Out promotion/retention system. And the (related) fact that the style of warfare for the last 20+ years has not resulted in enough combat deaths of senior officers to clear out the dead weight politicians and allow warfighters to advance into command slots.

That tells me the military rating system sucks. (I know big revelation there) and we need to use this as an excuse to go to war and take some senior casualties OR build the size of the military which will require promotions from below. #2 is probably the better choice.
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
My little part of the blogosphere. http://blogletitburn.wordpress.com/
User avatar
JAG2955
Posts: 3044
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:21 pm

Re: Chattanooga shootings

Post by JAG2955 »

randy wrote:IOW, no routine carry by military personnel due to the Zero Defect Up or Out promotion/retention system. And the (related) fact that the style of warfare for the last 20+ years has not resulted in enough combat deaths of senior officers to clear out the dead weight politicians and allow warfighters to advance into command slots.
I don't blame the promotion system for this, no matter how much it sucks. It's society in general. Now we believe that schools should be gun-free zones, because somehow that keeps people from getting shot there, right? Too many have come to rely on the government for support, and instead turn to them to create solutions. Even in the military, there's lots of "good enough for me, but not for thee". I've had conversations where an infantry gunnery sergeant said something about arming personnel, but wouldn't let pogues stay armed. I replied that I had outscored him on both pistol and rifle, and please stand by a second, so I can pull a list of the pogues in the battalion who also outscored you. Oh, seems like it's a pretty long list. Want me to read them all off to you?

It simply needs to go back to having a weapon is part of your uniform. It worked for hundreds of years.
User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 13987
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: Chattanooga shootings

Post by Netpackrat »

JAG2955 wrote: The challenge lies in the security of said arms. The military requirements fall into the "overly stupid" category for security. Sight counts, access control, Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives screening forms, physical security, inspections, etc. For example, an "amnesty box", for troops to drop rounds they forgot to turn in must be a lockable ammo can welded to a large steel pipe which is buried in a 6 foot concrete cylinder in the ground. That's for loose rounds, .50 cal and smaller.
That's insane. A guy I work with is a retired AF maintainer (his service ended less than a decade ago), who described having to be armed on certain duty, while traveling with the aircraft, etc. He mentioned having to pass shooting qualifications above and beyond the standard minimum requirements. I can't imagine the above controls being workable at all in that type of situation where a guy is traveling overseas on special duty, so I'm assuming there is already some alternate, less stupid set of protocols in place to cover that sort of requirement.

And even if the record keeping requirements are stupid, so what? The recruiter is issued a sidearm and appropriate defensive ammunition, and has to be able to produce each for inspection upon demand. Issue him a lock box where it will be kept when not on duty or traveling to or from duty.

Ultimately, if there's no way to reconcile the need for military personnel to be able to defend themselves with any set of existing procedures, then the procedures need to be modified. That's kind of the point here, anyway. It's not an insurmountable problem; it's a change in how paperwork is handled, and providing for longer term issue. If the people running things can't or won't modify procedures, then again, the need to adjust their attitude is part of the point.
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati

"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Aesop
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Chattanooga shootings

Post by Vonz90 »

mekender wrote:
scipioafricanus wrote:And I, for one, am tired of the Confederate flag being responsible for these tragedies.
It is worth noting that the very same people who have been emulating the Taliban when it comes to confederate statues and monuments will adamantly oppose similar actions towards anything Islamic related.
...because they are on the same side.
toad
Posts: 2645
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: Chattanooga shootings

Post by toad »

Since 2009 there have been seven shootings by Islamist at or on military installations. 35 people killed and 51 seriously injured.
User avatar
g-man
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Chattanooga shootings

Post by g-man »

JAG2955 wrote:It simply needs to go back to having a weapon is part of your uniform. It worked for hundreds of years.
This. Right. Goddamn. Now.

While I understand Yogi's "How do we implement" question, the answer needs to be "Weapon within arm's reach at all times unless you're in the damn shower". The issue with sight counts is more to do with inventory accountability than anything else, and if I provided my own damn weapon, what does the Army care about replacement cost? Army recruiters already got raked over the coals with the added POSTA (Positions of Special Trust and Authority) screening nonsense, so it's not like they haven't had procto-scopes jammed in their business forty ways from Sunday already. If you're trustworthy enough to be a recruiting station chief, by God we should be able to trust you with a damn sidearm. And if some nancyboy doesn't want to come in because seeing a recruiter carrying a gun ruffled his sensitive feathers? Fuck that guy, we don't want him anyway.

Based on some of my interactions with staff for high-ranking DVs (of the 4-star variety), there are a number of those guys that go armed EVERYWHERE. So, it's okay for you to have your goon-squad armed to the teeth to defend YOU, but recruiters can't defend THEMSELVES? I'd imagine it's the same way on Capitol hill, much less that there's an entire 'Service' dedicated to being the POTUS' 100 years ago, if a NYFC Policeman had asked an Army officer to surrender his sidearm, it would NOT have gone the way it does now. Hell, they never would have asked.
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Aesop
Posts: 6149
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:17 am

Re: Chattanooga shootings

Post by Aesop »

toad wrote:Since 2009 there have been seven shootings by Islamist at or on military installations. 35 people killed and 51 seriously injured.
Thanks for that cheery factoid.

If someone were to get a terminal cancer diagnosis and end up in a bell tower across from a mosque some Friday afternoon, it'd be nice to know the score to beat.

Personally, I'm going to start backing "Draw The Funniest Picture Of The Prophet Mohammed The Baby Rapist" cartoon contests, with Koran-printed toilet paper rolls as the door prizes, while advertising for Bring Your Own Rifle Security for the events at the local NRA meetings and shooting clubs.

Laying on a water tanker full of pig's blood for the after party washdown of the occupied kill zone will simply be a happy coincidence. 8-)

As for arming recruiters (and anyone else), for the Corps, you simply announce that anyone who qualifies Expert with service pistol may elect to carry off duty anyplace anytime, and on duty anytime they're off-post. And tell them if they fuck up, they'll be skinned, but if they perform well without otherwise screwing the pooch, they'll be recognized appropriately.

Let the ragheaded bastards wonder who's packing heat.

I note for the record that after waxing a would-be Baader-Meinhof firebomber planting incendiaries in the regimental tank pool's M-113s, Baby Brother, all E-3 of him, was fully authorized by specific Bn CO's letter to carry his choice of a .38 Detective Special snubby or a service .45 auto anytime he left post in Europe, and was told if he ever failed to do so on every foray off-base, he would be turned over to the tender ministrations of the Bn Sergeant Major for failure to take proper precautions. He was an ordinary treadhead, not some JSOC ninja. But Big Green didn't have its head 3 feet up its ass back then.
"There are four types of homicide: felonious, accidental, justifiable, and praiseworthy." -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
User avatar
randy
Posts: 8335
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: EM79VQ

Re: Chattanooga shootings

Post by randy »

JAG2955 wrote:I don't blame the promotion system for this, no matter how much it sucks. It's society in general.
Well, the military does reflect the society it serves. I don't think the promotion system is so much a cause as a symptom of excessive Politically Fashionable projects overriding the need to be effective at the .mil's primary mission.
...even before I read MHI, my response to seeing a poster for the stars of the latest Twilight movies was "I see 2 targets and a collaborator".
Post Reply