I disagree with soldiers carrying their own guns, unless it's confined to instances when the soldier isn't uniformed. I'm still hazy on the details, is the DoD allowing soldiers to carry while in uniform? If so, I have an issue with their policy to allow personal firearms, which type and carry method may vary wildly.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
DoD Releases Plan to Allow Personnel to Carry Firearms on Base
- Thread starter actaeon277
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I disagree with soldiers carrying their own guns, unless it's confined to instances when the soldier isn't uniformed. I'm still hazy on the details, is the DoD allowing soldiers to carry while in uniform? If so, I have an issue with their policy to allow personal firearms, which type and carry method may vary wildly.
^^^THIS^^^
FWIW in the IDF we always carried our rifles. I personally saw 4 ND/ADs
The first two were in basic
1) With the Galil manual of arms being dropping the hammer on an empty chamber, when we went to the firing line the first time, one soldier did like pavlov's dog and pressed the trigger after racking the bolt.
2)A soldier forgot to remove his magazine while "unloading" his rifle
Both times muzzle discipline was maintained and no one was injured
3)While in an APC, behind a machine gun, a soldier slipped and reflexively gripped the gun--including the trigger. I won't credit him for maintaining muzzle discipline, but he managed not to shoot anyone.
4)A soldier had a slam fire. Muzzle discipline maintained, no one hit.
OK, the military is big on control, and they don't want troops carrying private handguns on base; I still don't get prohibiting them from having their rifles. If they're concerned that soldiers in support units don't have the same level of training as infantry, they can mandate empty chamber or even completely unloaded with a magazine on their person. IIRC that was the drill in "operation desert shield". The terrorists are bringing the war here and disarming troops is asinine.
As for drunkeness, I can't relate. Alcohol wasn't available and heavy drinking isn't part of the culture there. Likewise, except for the Sabbath, we didn't didn't really have much down time. We were enlisted and not on our own time. There was always time for PT, cleaning or painting things, etc
So then I assume that the military should allow free speech protests during drills too? Surely you understand the workings of a professional volunteer military, and the ability of those that command them to restrict the rights of those that serve under them.
He did ask "If it's handguns that are the problem, why not allow them to carry their rifles?"
I certainly don't see the connection between unarmed soldiers and military preparedness, and they're being armed isn't a limitation on 'command&control'
It may certainly be an command and control issue. If you allow soldiers to carry, then there will be rules regarding that carry. If there are rules, then there will be punishments associated with them. If there are soldiers, there will be someone who is going to be punished.
I have to agree with those expressing concerns about the level of firearms "training" and "qualification." While I was on active duty, in the 101 ABN (AASLT) no less, our high speed, low drag weapons training consisted of two one-day range trips, and we stayed out until the last soldier finally qualified. Granted, this was back in the cold war, but my subsequent experiences in the Guard and Reserve didn't convince me that anything was any better. As pointed out above, a student in hunter's ed in Indiana receives more real training about safe weapons handling.
AND... as for the post vs. base issue, IT IS A POST!
AND... as for the post vs. base issue, IT IS A POST!
Currently a Soldier that lives in the barracks has to store POW in the arms room and has to request to remove it to go to a range or hunting. Weapons are not authorized in the barracks. If you live in housing or off post you have register your weapons at the MP office. I see a multitude of challenges in everyday carry.
As far as training I am sure you would have to attend training in order to carry.
Pistols are a secondary weapon and not issued if not needed you could do 20 years and never be issued one. Medics, Tankers, Machine Gunners and Pilots are usually issued one for personal protection.
If you are on a special team in the Middle East it is issued more for intimidating proposes than anything else. It is seen as a badge of rank more than anything.
As far as training I am sure you would have to attend training in order to carry.
Pistols are a secondary weapon and not issued if not needed you could do 20 years and never be issued one. Medics, Tankers, Machine Gunners and Pilots are usually issued one for personal protection.
If you are on a special team in the Middle East it is issued more for intimidating proposes than anything else. It is seen as a badge of rank more than anything.
So, then why do they not ban knives?
That's pretty much one of the same arguments than the anti-gun rights people used when states were considering implementing carry licenses/permits for people.
I suspect that young civilians consume comparable amounts of alcohol to young soldiers.
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
It's different. You take a bunch of young men, you teach them that they are trained killers (even if they are cooks), you surround them in a culture that's steeped in booze, and then you have them live together in tight quarters. It is not comparable to the civilian world. Note the number of active duty and vets in this thread who are expressing that concern.
Allow me to regale you with a tale. The military has "mandatory fun", which is a day "off" that you are required to attend an event that's billed as being fun. This can be a company picnic, or it could be a field trip, so to speak. Once upon a time in a land far far away...in Kansas City, there is an amusement park called "Worlds of Fun". My unit took a mandatory fun trip there. There were coolers of beer in the back of the buses that took us. One may assume that a portion of us were intoxicated upon arrival. One could further assume that the intoxication level increased from there. For reasons that are not important to this story, security took an interest in our First Sergeant. 1SG Peterson was having none of it and said something to the effect of "I'm 1SG Peterson of C Co, 1st Eng Bn, 1st Inf Brigade, US Army. I have with me a company of Combat Engineers who, if I were to order them to, when disassemble your park, so kindly leave me be." Now, you'll need to pepper it with your own profanity and remove any shred of politeness, but that's the point. I, along with several others in ear shot, simply nodded and awaited orders. We would literally have trashed that park had we been ordered to. We *wanted* to fight. We *needed* to fight. It was our purpose. He was our leader, not simply our superior, but someone we truly wanted to fight for and along side of. In an amusement park, for no better reason than some rent-a-cops had disrespected our "Top".
Drunks do dumb things with guns. As I've previously opined, in the civilian world that's the price of freedom. NDs/ADs, etc. In the military, where the goal is keeping deployable troops, then freedom is of a secondary concern. It is *not* the civilian world.
rugertoter
Master
Does not seem that everybody should need to carry, in a non-combat zone. If they are going to carry, then it should be with an issued weapon, and then only certain people...like NCO's on up.
When I was in the Marines, looking back on it now with a much more mature mind, having every non-rate armed (24/7), could propose some issues. JMHO.
When I was in the Marines, looking back on it now with a much more mature mind, having every non-rate armed (24/7), could propose some issues. JMHO.
I have to ask, BBI, what would happen to a civilian that did this to another civilian in similar conditions?
Did that same thing or similar happen to the knife-wielding soldier, above?
Why did the rest of the "trained killers" in that unit need to *talk* him down? (Please understand that this is not asked in malignant sarcasm...sarcasm, yes, but not malignant)
Basically, I know the answer to what would happen outside of the military. The man would be disarmed and charged/tried/jailed as per the criminal justice system. There might be mental health people involved. Please, if you would, fill in the gaps in this basic outline.
Knowing that that penalty awaited him did not deter your knife guy. I'm not sure if it ever does, anyone. I'm guessing that the UCMJ is a little less forgiving of such nonsense.
They say that some people are alive only because it is against the law to kill them. I'm not so sure that's true (at least not in MOST cases.)
Blessings,
Bill
Are you sitting on a Clydesdale because you've been on an immense high horse with this thread? I'm guessing it may have been a few years since you've been to basic training? The trainees now receive their rifles within days of arriving at their BCT/OSUT companies and not right before BRM like it used to be. In some instances I have seen them get their rifles on day two. They have an extremely lengthy class on all aspects of the rifle from nomenclature/parts to disassembly, maintenance and BRM fundamentals and yes even safety and proper handling. In my companies the trainees were always observed for unsafe acts like fingers on the trigger or poor muzzle awareness and they paid the price. Weapons handling and safety are definitely not just glossed over anymore. Depending on the company many will have their rifles present 24/7, (ours just hung them on the bunks at night), some may lock them up in racks in the bays while other may lock them up in the arms room and draw them everyday. In our company, on the range, the trainees were expected to clear their own stoppages and make sight adjustments etc. Gone were the days of raising your hand and have the DS fix your stoppage for you. A lot more trust and expectations are put on the trainees compared to years ago because within months of arriving at their units they could deploy. Our trainees also did two live fire exercises that entail shooting and moving and communicating with both a buddy or as a team through a fairly lengthy course. As far as ND's go it's always a possibility but you can never have a 100% prophylactic society when firearms are involved. If I recall a cop recently had an ND and killed another cop so having ND's is not something that your 'highly trained' brethren don't do, and that was just one example. There are many PD's that their level of training doesn't go much beyond an annual or semi-annual qualification yet you probably wouldn't have a problem with them carrying 24/7. If the proposal is to allow them to carry on their civilian permits/licenses then in most state's they've had additional training to get their permit and usually have to be 21 with IN being one of the few exceptions. It's not like it was years ago when you had E3's and E4's well into their twenties, promotions and responsibility happen quicker now so you often get 21 and 22 year old E5's. Criticisms about service members and handguns are justified and there is very little training with handguns but with their general knowledge and the outside training they can do fine, certainly no worse than a civilian in IN who doesn't have to have any training whatsoever. Just like with motorcycles, if you want to ride a bike on post there are particular mandated courses and hoops you have to jump through and then specific regulations you need to abide by to ride on post. I'm sure carrying a firearm would be just as micromanaged if this even saw the light of day.
About 1% of the population serves and about 30% are eligible. You take the 1% that enlist shave their heads send them though 9 weeks of training. You teach them everything from how to brush their teeth to throw a hand grenade. Then they go to MOS training after that a regular unit.
All freedoms are lost you become part of a larger group you function as part of that unit. You individual needs are secondary to the unit Regardless of race,reglion ect. This has worked well for over 200 years.
The culture is far different than the civilian world on post housing is like living in the 50,s a playground on every street kids riding bikes running around playing. The Barracks are a different story two men to room subject to inspection at all times most of the junior enlisted are usually between 17 and 25. They have disposable cash they are young and in good physical shape and do what young people that age do. Junior enlisted are also the steam engine of the Army they do all the hard jobs from kicking in doors to painting lines in the motor pool.
As a 1SG I was responsible for everything my unit did or did not do. I made sure they were fed had ammo and the tools needed to complete the mission. Enlisted Soldiers have extreme loyalty to the 1SG they know that good or bad I will always take care of them. I was also responsible for the units discipline this was normally achieved though "non judicial " methods. Minor infractions were left up to the NCO,s. The UCMJ is reserved for the challenges that were considered out of the realm of "corrective training".
Holding a knife to another Soldier would fall into the UCMJ category if it was reported.
All freedoms are lost you become part of a larger group you function as part of that unit. You individual needs are secondary to the unit Regardless of race,reglion ect. This has worked well for over 200 years.
The culture is far different than the civilian world on post housing is like living in the 50,s a playground on every street kids riding bikes running around playing. The Barracks are a different story two men to room subject to inspection at all times most of the junior enlisted are usually between 17 and 25. They have disposable cash they are young and in good physical shape and do what young people that age do. Junior enlisted are also the steam engine of the Army they do all the hard jobs from kicking in doors to painting lines in the motor pool.
As a 1SG I was responsible for everything my unit did or did not do. I made sure they were fed had ammo and the tools needed to complete the mission. Enlisted Soldiers have extreme loyalty to the 1SG they know that good or bad I will always take care of them. I was also responsible for the units discipline this was normally achieved though "non judicial " methods. Minor infractions were left up to the NCO,s. The UCMJ is reserved for the challenges that were considered out of the realm of "corrective training".
Holding a knife to another Soldier would fall into the UCMJ category if it was reported.
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
No one above E-4 knew it happened. Nothing official happened. We did not view it as anything worthy of getting an NCO or law enforcement involved in.
Drillsgt,
I'm not going to bother to multiquote. If you think it's "high horsing", that's not how I meant it. However, I'm not going to ignore the con's and go with the romanticized view of military life that many here (most of which can't claim any prior service) seem to have.
1) Yes. It's been awhile. As you state, though, handgun training is still quite lacking. Comparing them to civilians is not a winning statement, as in my county alone we are close to 80 AD/NDs resulting in injury or death. Would you care to guess how many have been veterans, reservists, etc? I'll give you a hint, you'll need more than one hand. Like the young man who was drunk and "cleaning" his guns who shot himself through the hand, and was mostly upset about how "I should know better, I was an armorer in the Marines?" How many non-deployable troops would that be if extrapolated DoD wide? Will concealed weapons save or cost more injuries and lives? In the civilian world, who cares, that's the cost of freedom. In the military, freedom is secondary to the needs of the military.
2) Yes, even well trained people have NDs...although I'd argue there are a lot of cops out there that aren't particular well trained. This is why departments often limit the allowed weapons. You must carry the issued handgun, or from a set list. I, for example, am not allowed to carry single action only pistols due to no official training available and concerns with NDs. Only those who've gone through a week long rifle school can carry a rifle, etc. Surely you understand the threat profile vs the cost of the training accidents and other NDs/ADs.
3) Motorcycles are a great example of the extra restrictions placed on troops. And you know why. How much emphasis is placed on DUI prevention? Or avoiding STDs? Does that risk assessment not apply to firearms?
4) Personally, I'm all for arming recruiters. Their threat profile is different, for one, and the beans may tilt in their favor. A basic handgun defense course could be included in the recruiter training, an M9 issued, and RoE set and adhered to. You and I both know that the DoD is never going to do that for the rank and file, but specialty troops could be an option.
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
What makes you think they don't?
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.riley.army.mil/Portals/0/Docs/Units/Garrison/DES/FRReg190-1.pdf?ver=2014-01-13-090244-237
There's Ft. Riley regs. No concealed knives with a blade over 3" long. No tasers. No batons, other than LE. No brass knuckles, etc.
Unit and post commanders have extremely wide authority to ban and/or restrict weapons. Note nothing in this proposal changes that. Which is why you won't see authorization granted. It's too risky, career wise.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
KellyinAvonBlue-ID Mafia Consigliere
Members online
- Dirty Steve
- Twinsen
- jspy5
- MarylandTacomaRider
- slims2002
- Magyars
- Squid556
- Jnward
- Cavman
- NHT3
- KellyinAvon
- TJ Kackowski
- edwea
- ChooterMcGavin1973
- JimH
- DoggyDaddy
- blain
- BeDome
- dshaf
- Rburney
- Mgderf
- OneBadV8
- KG1
- chuckp
- 2roosters
- Jndturner317
- medavis428@
- brizzad
- led4thehed2
- Talkinghalls
- XDdreams
- SEIndSAM
- Hopper
- BR8818
- Slow Hand
- Zjhagens
- junglerogue
- target64
- Rouzer
- Steel and wood
- 55fairlane
- Whatsupdoc912
- mike4sigs
- hammerd13
- MCgrease08
- Wstar425
- PTinbound
- cmamath13
- mo381
- Demoderb1989