Four dead in mass shooting at military facilities in Tennessee

[wmenorr67]

Well so far a lot of the Southern state governors, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana are the first ones to come to mind have given the state TAG's permission to grant authority to certain National Guard members to carry while on duty on state property.

So far nothing has been put in writing here in Oklahoma but one thing I do know is that it won't mean that I can strap on and go onto an active duty post.

As for any other time, while out of uniform I have to abide by state laws.  While in uniform it so far sounds like it might become an out of sight, out of mind, concealed means concealed policy.

As of now I'm just taking a wait and see approach.

[Tallpine]

The story popped back up in my feed
http://news.yahoo.com/family-spokesman-mental-issues-dogged-shooter-killed-5-223709844.html#
Mental issues, drugs, depression.  Sound familiar? 
Made him an easy target for radicalization anyway.

Yeah, that's just the sort of fellow that the Redneck Extremists target.  Start plying him with reruns of Dukes of Hazzard and we have a crazed killer. 


 

[KD5NRH]

Ever notice that there is no mention of Catholics becoming "Radicalized", or Lutherans, Protestants, Buddhists, Jews, or even Hindus...

Well, it gets reported that way on the occasion that one of those religions gets tired of being attacked by Muslims and fights back.

[KD5NRH]

After some thought, I don't feel we should issue duty weapons and ammo to US Military state side. Here's why:
1. Those are controlled weapons.  Civilians can't have M16's, M4's and M-249's to "protect" themselves.  Military members are not special.
2. The US Military is not a police force, we suck at it when we try, and giving us duty weapons is a step a lot closer to using us as a domestic police force then I am comfortable with. (See Mexico)

I don't think anybody was really pushing to have every random soldier lugging a -249 into Taco Bell, or playing cop.  More like an M9 on the hip, for defense of self and others only when deadly force is truly necessary.  Fixed installations like the recruiting offices might also have a SA rifle or two tucked away somewhere, but not carried.

[dogmush]

I don't think anybody was really pushing to have every random soldier lugging a -249 into Taco Bell, or playing cop.  More like an M9 on the hip, for defense of self and others only when deadly force is truly necessary.  Fixed installations like the recruiting offices might also have a SA rifle or two tucked away somewhere, but not carried.

But the were. They just didn't know it.

The VAST majority of individual weapons are m16/m4's. There are more troops issued -249's then there are issued M9s. When folks say "issue soldiers their weapons" they are talking long guns. That's what we actually have.

To my knowledge there are no semi auto rifles in the Army inventory. It's possible there are a couple some where, but even the DMR rifles I've seen are auto.

You can forget about a "vault" with .mil weapons in a station in a mall. The stoarage requirements for AA&E preclude any feasibility of that.

[Perd Hapley]

But the were. They just didn't know it.

The VAST majority of individual weapons are m16/m4's. There are more troops issued -249's then there are issued M9s. When folks say "issue soldiers their weapons" they are talking long guns. That's what we actually have.

I think the majority of us are just talking about opening military installations and offices, recruiting offices, etc, to civilian-style concealed carry.

[T.O.M.]

Thinking this through, I know that there are JAG types screaming about the liability concerns of issuing sidearms, or even authorizing standard CCW.  Allow everyone to carry, and a ND occurs, and suddenly .gov will be sued for millions.  From a pure cost/money analysis, it is cheaper to keep the guys as unarmed targets than to lose a lawsuit when some O2 shows off to a potential recruit and fires a round through the nail salon next door.

[Firethorn]

You can forget about a "vault" with .mil weapons in a station in a mall. The stoarage requirements for AA&E preclude any feasibility of that.

Why?  Are you thinking about mall requirements or military requirements?

I've seen enough gun stores in malls that that can't be a universal difficulty, as for the military side all that really needs is the appropriate GSA rated container.

And yes, when I figure on arming our soldiers for self defense, I'm picturing an M-9 most of the time.

Worst case, give the soldiers some rules on what they can carry and how, and let those that care figure it out.

Now, I'm something of a traditionalist, so 'open carry while in uniform' would be a thing, but other than that I'm pretty open.

[dogmush]

Why?  Are you thinking about mall requirements or military requirements?

I've seen enough gun stores in malls that that can't be a universal difficulty, as for the military side all that really needs is the appropriate GSA rated container.

And yes, when I figure on arming our soldiers for self defense, I'm picturing an M-9 most of the time.

Worst case, give the soldiers some rules on what they can carry and how, and let those that care figure it out.

Now, I'm something of a traditionalist, so 'open carry while in uniform' would be a thing, but other than that I'm pretty open.

.mil requirements. Container, and IDS. Expensive and monitored.

We don't have that many M9's.

"Carry your own piece" I'm all in favor of, as long as civi's  can carry the same thing.

[Fitz]

Why?  Are you thinking about mall requirements or military requirements?

I've seen enough gun stores in malls that that can't be a universal difficulty, as for the military side all that really needs is the appropriate GSA rated container.

And yes, when I figure on arming our soldiers for self defense, I'm picturing an M-9 most of the time.

Worst case, give the soldiers some rules on what they can carry and how, and let those that care figure it out.

Now, I'm something of a traditionalist, so 'open carry while in uniform' would be a thing, but other than that I'm pretty open.

Goes beyond a GSA container. They have to have an alarm, be monitored 24x7, there's all kinds of other regs

bah. Dogmush beat me

[Ben]

Well, six states have armed their National Guard Recruiting Center personnel. Are there many (or any) Recruiting Centers that have a mix that includes NG, or are Guard centers separate? Arming the Guard recruiters in a mixed office could be one workaround. I know when I was in High School and the recruiters were looking for fresh meat, the local Recruiting Center was a single office with Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. I can't remember if there was any National Guard.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/states-arm-national-guard-members-in-wake-chattanooga-tragedy/

[French G.]

Most cost effective solution is a cop. Federal budget feed the state the salary for one full-time cop for every locality that has a recruiting office. Sit there armed, eat donuts, swap war stories with the recruiters. Way cheaper than the burden of arming recruiters, dealing with lawsuits, whatever. Assign limited duty Marines or soldiers to security details for MEPS centers.

[roo_ster]

Or as Sen. Frank Nicely puts it: “In a twist to recent controversies, Southern States’ militias arming quickly to defend Federal (Union) troops.”

[Ben]

Most cost effective solution is a cop.

I agree a cop, or private security like at base gates, would probably be the most cost effective (of any solution our .gov could come up with anyway) but I can't help but want to be a smart guy and ask where my personal cop is.

[Balog]

I agree a cop, or private security like at base gates, would probably be the most cost effective (of any solution our .gov could come up with anyway) but I can't help but want to be a smart guy and ask where my personal cop is.

At least here in Seattle if you pay for them you can essentially have your own cop. The large buildings hire cops to direct traffic in and out at peak times.

[Firethorn]

At least here in Seattle if you pay for them you can essentially have your own cop. The large buildings hire cops to direct traffic in and out at peak times.

It's an old tradition in many areas - for cops to earn a little more money they can take a private security gig where they retain their uniform and full police powers.  Something 'mere' armed security can't match.

I think they're still covered under the police healthcare system as well, so no need for separate worker's comp insurance either.

[French G.]

Very common, that's how a lot of small racetracks manage security and EMS. Slip them $100 and some cheeseburgers.

[Ben]

This is the first I've read of it, but one of the marines may have been armed:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/20/marine-may-have-been-armed-during-chattanooga-attack/?intcmp=trending

[Scout26]

Well, six states have armed their National Guard Recruiting Center personnel. Are there many (or any) Recruiting Centers that have a mix that includes NG, or are Guard centers separate? Arming the Guard recruiters in a mixed office could be one workaround. I know when I was in High School and the recruiters were looking for fresh meat, the local Recruiting Center was a single office with Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. I can't remember if there was any National Guard.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/states-arm-national-guard-members-in-wake-chattanooga-tragedy/

To answer your question:  Yes, the recruiting stations also have National Guard (Army and Air) recruiters there in the same station with the full-time recruiters.  So yes, they would be/could be armed in the station when they are there.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

, in the 48 hours since Chattanooga there were 2 they going to the negligent discharges by recruiters who decide to carry a gun in their pocket Outasight

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Hawkmoon]

I think the majority of us are just talking about opening military installations and offices, recruiting offices, etc, to civilian-style concealed carry.

I wasn't. I was under the impression that most "troops" (at least Army) are now issued an M9 pistol along with the M16 or M4 long gun. My thought was to allow carrying the M9 at all times. If deployment of the M9 is not as widespread as I believed, then some other strategy is called for.

[Hawkmoon]

This is the first I've read of it, but one of the marines may have been armed:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/20/marine-may-have-been-armed-during-chattanooga-attack/?intcmp=trending

From the article:

U.S. military officials have said security at recruiting and reserve centers will be reviewed, but the Army's top officer, Gen. Ray Odierno, said it's too early to say whether the facilities should have security guards or other increased protection.

My local Social Security office has armed security. It doesn't make me feel very secure. It's a middle-aged rent-a-cop wearing a revolver. There doesn't seem to be any particular awareness of threat potential and the individuals who have been on duty when I have visited seem to be there mostly to direct people to the electronic sign-in kiosk. Mostly he just sits there and reads the newspaper.

[wmenorr67]

I wasn't. I was under the impression that most "troops" (at least Army) are now issued an M9 pistol along with the M16 or M4 long gun. My thought was to allow carrying the M9 at all times. If deployment of the M9 is not as widespread as I believed, then some other strategy is called for.

We wished, usually reserved for staff officers, medics, mortars, sniper teams, and company leadership.  A company might get bumped up on the number of M9's they can issued on a deployment situation and then NCO's might get issued one.

[zahc]

Pistols are worthless anyway. So what if they all have  M9s? This  guy rolled up with a battle rifle. M9s would do about as much good as the gunbuster sign. Defending against this particular threat would require someone or 2 equally armed and vigilant persons with good defensible positions and  decent lanes of fire. I hate to join the side of the  anti-arm-them camp, but sidearms would not have acted as magic talismans to keep everyone safe. Issue  PDWs and you are getting close.

[Perd Hapley]

Pistols are worthless anyway. So what if they all have  M9s? This  guy rolled up with a battle rifle. M9s would do about as much good as the gunbuster sign. Defending against this particular threat would require someone or 2 equally armed and vigilant persons with good defensible positions and  decent lanes of fire. I hate to join the side of the  anti-arm-them camp, but sidearms would not have acted as magic talismans to keep everyone safe. Issue  PDWs and you are getting close.

Is that sarcasm?