God forbid we should allow soldiers to carry GUNZ!

[Hawkmoon]

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Active-Shooter-Reported-at-Fort-Hood-253636461.html

Nope, just tell 'em to lock the doors and practice being targets.

[Cliffh]

At a minimum, E5 and above can/will carry a loaded sidearm.

This *expletive deleted*it has to be stopped.  Our guys & gals should not be targets in their own home.

[roo_ster]

What cliffh wrote.  If leadership is worried about nds it shows nothing more than a failure of that leaxership.

[makattak]

What cliffh wrote.  If leadership is worried about nds it shows nothing more than a failure of that leaxership.

I think it flows even higher than that. The immediate leadership aren't truly concerned about NDs. They are concerned that ANY blemish on their record ends their opportunity for advancement.

The chances of another Fort Hood (I do say that with more than a little irony) are much smaller than the chances of some numbskull having an ND on duty. Since both carry just as much weight in ending the careers of the responsible officers, where do their incentives lie?

(Military members, please correct me if I am wrong, but it has been my impression that anything less than a perfect record cuts a military career short.)

Think about how sick that is: having some moron "accidentally" discharge his firearm on his watch is just as detrimental to an officer's career advancement as dead soldiers on his watch.

Just because someone is an officer (or military in general) doesn't mean they are immune to the laws of economics. Want a different outcome? Change the incentives.

These leaders aren't especially cowardly or craven. They are faced with different incentives than the past. (Does ANYONE think that MacArthur would hold anyone other than the numbnut and perhaps his direct officer responsible for an ND?)

The answer for the military (as for the country) is to cut the bureaucracy and change the incentives so we actual try to protect these men and women who are willing to fight for us.

[Fitz]

I have had 3 soldiers in my platoon, one of whom was a direct report, have NDs throughout my career.

None had any adverse effect on the careers of anyone other than the Soldier.

It's not about NDs.

[dogmush]

Think about how sick that is: having some moron "accidentally" discharge his firearm on his watch is just as detrimental to an officer's career advancement as dead soldiers on his watch.

The quoted part is untrue. Like Fitz said ND's don't mess with the supervisor's career.

Honestly the issue is that at an institutional level, the Army is strongly anti gun.

[French G.]

I doubt NDs wreck careers, we have to wreck ships for that. That said, leadership is risk averse. DUI was much less of an issue before it became mandatory for any CO to report those incidents to the first flag in their CoC. Nobody likes going to see the boss.

[makattak]

I have had 3 soldiers in my platoon, one of whom was a direct report, have NDs throughout my career.

None had any adverse effect on the careers of anyone other than the Soldier.

It's not about NDs.

That's good to know at least.

I retract my defense of the leadership. It's a matter of high-level stupidity, rather than incentives. (Fortunately, human stupidity is an ever-welling source of explanation.)

More of that "social engineering?"

[zxcvbob]

A crisis (such as a shooting on base) provides a leadership opportunity for the commander. 

[Fitz]

That's good to know at least.

I retract my defense of the leadership. It's a matter of high-level stupidity, rather than incentives. (Fortunately, human stupidity is an ever-welling source of explanation.)

More of that "social engineering?"

Precisely