Four dead in mass shooting at military facilities in Tennessee

[Perd Hapley]

The .gov is no longer concerned with protecting the people.  It's concerned with protecting the .gov and ordinary people getting killed are just "Little things" that are an inconvenience on their way to building better worlds.

Actually, it was the high profile of the Chattanooga  incident that brings on the press conference, and the tough talk by the Feds. They don't care about the "government people" that were killed, obviously. The Marines are, to them, just Red-staters that couldn't get real jobs. Kate Steinle's murder, though it's gotten a certain share of press attention, is too embarrassing for them, and counters their narrative.

How would APSers reconcile military personnel being armed (duty issue weapons) while in uniform/on duty with the philosophical aversion of an armed standing army wandering around off base?

No contradiction there, at all. We already have the standing army, and that's not likely to change. We also have armed police, that have much more of a presence than the military, and have both the authority and the tendency to infringe on our liberties. Whether some of the military standing army get to have sidearms to protect themselves, just like the rest of us are allowed to do, will not affect my personal liberties.

[cordex]

No contradiction there, at all. We already have the standing army, and that's not likely to change. We also have armed police, that have much more of a presence than the military, and have both the authority and the tendency to infringe on our liberties. Whether some of the military standing army get to have sidearms to protect themselves, just like the rest of us are allowed to do, will not affect my personal liberties.

This exactly.

[Ben]

Interesting comment by the Chief of Staff of the Army:

Gen. Ray Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, told reporters that arming troops in those offices could cause more problems than it might solve.

"I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I'm not talking about where you end up attacking each other," Odierno said during a morning breakfast. Instead, he said, it's more about "accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/17/army-chief-urges-caution-on-calls-to-arm-more-us-soldiers-in-wake-fatal/

[lee n. field]

"Wild West Blood in the Streets or Offices or whatever.  !!"

[dogmush]

How would APSers reconcile military personnel being armed (duty issue weapons) while in uniform/on duty with the philosophical aversion of an armed standing army wandering around off base?

Has the threat level reached the equivalent of, for instance, Israel, where they carry their duty weapons (but with no magazine inserted)?  Are we going to turn our troops loose to deal with the (organized?) criminal element, side by side with the civilian police, like Mexico?

If the threat level is sufficiently high I do not think .mil personnel should have to shoulder the cost of arming themselves while on duty.  Once they are off duty the game changes to be more like you or I carrying for self defense.

stay safe.

Well, I've been thinking about that for the last day or so.

Let me first be clear: While I am a Soldier, I in no way speak for the Army, the DOD, or my COC.  These are my personal opinions.  No one quote me.

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)
3. As skid mentioned, our threat level is orders of magnitude below Israel,  and they don't even get to load their weapons.  Carrying an unloaded machine gun is stupid, and security theater and I don't support it.
4. Having the US military walk around loaded would be too much of a temptation to politicians the next time some Boston Bomber event happens and we go all "Martial Law".  Except that it really would be that time.

In short, while I mourn my brothers in arms, the actual, considered threat level of lone wolf ISIS douches is not worth the negatives of the US military loading up 24/7 when they are off base.

That said, there is a real residual risk to making service members such soft targets.  I would support, and think we should, remove any restrictions at the federal law, and DOD policy level of troops carrying weapons in any way that would be legal for a civilian in the state you are stationed in.  In an OC state (and have a holster that complies with 670-1); OC. CC state and have a permit?  CC.  Stationed in Cali or Chicago? Sorry.  Maybe we can work on Imminent Danger Pay.  Treat weapons like our knives, multi-tools or cell phones.  You can have your civilian one as long as you carry it in a fashion that works with the uniform regs.  (Sorry MSG in the motor pool, you can't have a lowslung gunfighter rig the same way you need to take that *expletive deleted*ing keychain off your belt).

I want to double tap Item 1 above.  Military Members are NOT a special class of citizens.  We get cool toys, in clearly defined roles, because we volunteered for a semi nasty job. A job that we get paid decently for, I might add.  I absolutely DO NOT support carving exemptions out of law for military members unless it's required for our job.  i.e. unless we are expecting ACTUAL COMBAT, the combat toys stay put away.  Sorry folks, being a victim of a crime, even a politically motivated crime, isn't combat.  Having seen first hand the real results of modern combat, I am not willing to unleash the dogs of war in this country (ala Mexico).  I almost don't care how many lone wolves show up.

[SADShooter]

Interesting comment by the Chief of Staff of the Army:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/17/army-chief-urges-caution-on-calls-to-arm-more-us-soldiers-in-wake-fatal/

Simultaneously astounding yet not surprising. We send military personnel into combat theaters carrying loaded weapons, often with highly restrictive ROEs, but those same personnel aren't to be trusted with weapons in domestic facilities.

"Paging Mr. George Orwell, please come to collect your prize for conceiving doublespeak."


ETA: dogmush, we cross-posted. I take your points. What about .mil carrying on .gov property while state licensed, or having designated individuals armed specifically for force protection/

[dogmush]

Simultaneously astounding yet not surprising. We send military personnel into combat theaters carrying loaded weapons, often with highly restrictive ROEs, but those same personnel aren't to be trusted with weapons in domestic facilities.

"Paging Mr. George Orwell, please come to collect your prize for conceiving doublespeak."


ETA: dogmush, we cross-posted. I take your points. What about .mil carrying on .gov property while state licensed, or having designated individuals armed specifically for force protection/

That's what I was talking about when I said "remove restrictions at the federal law level".  Make Federal installations much like the recent national parks.  Conform to the laws of the state they are in.  It's, of course, a little more complicated then that, as commanders have wide latitude under the UCMJ to do things that you couldn't in the civilian law, and many would still restrict firearms just to be contrary, or out of an aversion to risk.  But it'd be a start.

[Ben]

Very well said Dogmush.

I don't want to see the military walking around with weapons I can't have during normal stateside duties, and I think that's one of the Founding Fathers points for the Second Amendment. On the other hand, it's ridiculous that military personnel (and others in "gun free zones") can be sitting ducks. CC, OC, even a weapons locker with a couple of M4goreys or combat shotguns would seem to be common sense.

Instead, I predict that if anything is done, it will be adding a force protection person (or even contract security) to military offices outside of bases, just like the security guard at the bank, or else bars and a buzzer at the recruiting offices. I also expect more military folks will embrace "concealed means concealed" in the vein of, "better to be tried by twelve...", though I guess for the military, that would be, "Better Courts Martial than Arlington."

[TommyGunn]

How would APSers reconcile military personnel being armed (duty issue weapons) while in uniform/on duty with the philosophical aversion of an armed standing army wandering around off base?

Has the threat level reached the equivalent of, for instance, Israel, where they carry their duty weapons (but with no magazine inserted)?  Are we going to turn our troops loose to deal with the (organized?) criminal element, side by side with the civilian police, like Mexico?

If the threat level is sufficiently high I do not think .mil personnel should have to shoulder the cost of arming themselves while on duty.  Once they are off duty the game changes to be more like you or I carrying for self defense.

stay safe.

I have no problem with the idea of the military being armed. 
IMHO they all should be allowed a standard sidearm of the type in service if on duty.  Off duty, either that or some comparable handgun.
I don't think submachineguns or M-4s should be "standard issue" and regularly carried, but equiping recruitment offices and other facilities with a gunsafe with some longarms (military style) would be fine.
If the idea is for the defense of these men, then fine, and I don't think that violates posse comitatus at all.

[Perd Hapley]

Interesting comment by the Chief of Staff of the Army:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/17/army-chief-urges-caution-on-calls-to-arm-more-us-soldiers-in-wake-fatal/

I'm not sure how interesting it is. It's the same logic that has kept our military bases gun-free zones for decades, and has kept our military folks from having loaded weapons in other places where they ought to have them. He's just saying what the brass has been saying (or thinking) for a long time now.

Also, I agree with all of Dogmush's points.

I have no problem with the idea of the military being armed. 
IMHO they all should be allowed a standard sidearm of the type in service if on duty.  Off duty, either that or some comparable handgun.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you want the military to supply sidearms to every service member, while on duty, then I think you're talking about way more pistols than our military (or probably any military) has ever fielded before. I doubt the military has enough pistols to do that. But it would be money better spent there than on PBS and Planned Parenthood. Also, they would have to train every service member on pistol shooting, which they aren't doing now, and have them qualify regularly, as well.

If you mean they should be allowed to carry their own weapon, as long as it is a Beretta 92FS, then I could see that being a reasonable rule for OC. For concealed carry, it seems like an unnecessary restriction, and a gun that some people would have a hard time concealing, or would not want to carry every day.

Edit to add: I know magazine/ammo interchangeability would be kinda cool, but I doubt it would ever matter for this kind of short-term self-defense application.

[Ben]

I'm not sure how interesting it is. It's the same logic that has kept our military bases gun-free zones for decades, and has kept our military folks from having loaded weapons in other places where they ought to have them. He's just saying what the brass has been saying (or thinking) for a long time now.

Well, interesting to me in that he's taking the, "we can't trust these knuckleheads with guns" approach as a public talking point (versus an internal to DoD talking point). While public perception might swing that way when talking about civilians, most of the public (I think) thinks anyone in a uniform is a firearms expert. This is of course not the case, as you point out in your reply to Tommy.

[Scout26]

 Stationed in Cali or Chicago? Sorry.  

For those that didn't get the memo, Illinois passed CCW back in 2013 (effective 1 Jan 2014).  It included pre-emption, so if you have an Illinois CCW permit, you can carry in Chicago.    (I would think more folks here would have noticed hell freezing over.)

But yes, I agree, the issue weapons need to remain in the arms room.  However, if you have a permit (if required) that the state you are currently in recognizes, then you should be able to CCW, or OC, if your CoC permits OC and you have a holster which complies with 670-1.

And no coon-fingering the damn thing.   Put it on in the morning, and take it off at night.  No loading and unloading everytime you walk through a door.

And I'm whole-heartedly against longguns in some type of vault in recruiting stations.  Then they become nothing more then a target for theives.  (The cost of installing triple barrier protection in a bunch of strip malls across the country, along with all the BS Physical Security reporting requirements would be money better spent of more and better pistol training.)

[TommyGunn]

........I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you want the military to supply sidearms to every service member, while on duty, then I think you're talking about way more pistols than our military (or probably any military) has ever fielded before. I doubt the military has enough pistols to do that. But it would be money better spent there than on PBS and Planned Parenthood. Also, they would have to train every service member on pistol shooting, which they aren't doing now, and have them qualify regularly, as well.

If you mean they should be allowed to carry their own weapon, as long as it is a Beretta 92FS, then I could see that being a reasonable rule for OC. For concealed carry, it seems like an unnecessary restriction, and a gun that some people would have a hard time concealing, or would not want to carry every day.

Edit to add: I know magazine/ammo interchangeability would be kinda cool, but I doubt it would ever matter for this kind of short-term self-defense application.

Perhaps I didn't express myself  very well.
I wasn't concerned with whether the gun was .gov property or personal property.  Ok, the military doesn't  have enough handguns.  It can be personal guns then.
I really don't care what caliber but whatever caliber the service was using would be fine , ability to use .gov ammo or personal stuff would be a plus.

[Doggy Daddy]

I have sooooooo wanted to use one of these:

Could you elaborate on that part about being ejected with prejudice?   

[Andiron]

Could you elaborate on that part about being ejected with prejudice?   

Fired.  From a cannon.

[Doggy Daddy]

Fired.  From a cannon.

I keep finding more and more occasions where I'm really missing a "Like" button.

[Jamisjockey]

I suspect this tool and Roof have more in common than we'd like to admit.  Easy enough to just blanket label him a terrorist, and it's pretty clear that he was probably influenced by jihadi ideology, but I seriously doubt that he was immersed in being an IS jihadi.
I'm having trouble finding the report now but read last night where it was being reported by friends and family that he was "depressed".  
Where our esteemed trolling counselor is wrong is in that there isn't some large, wide spread movement among white Americans to kill blacks.  Radical racism is on the down trend. There IS a widespread movement among the Islamic population to change the world through terrorism and fear, and to initiate the caliphate.  And even much of the "moderate" islamic world is at a minimum silent over their barbaric acts.  Hell, even the stormfronters condemned Roof's church killing.  After 9/11? 
https://youtu.be/G-p1LEBAujE

[lee n. field]

For those that didn't get the memo, Illinois passed CCW back in 2013 (effective 1 Jan 2014).  It included pre-emption, so if you have an Illinois CCW permit, you can carry in Chicago.    (I would think more folks here would have noticed hell freezing over.)

Unless you're actual residence is out of state, in which case you're (essentially) SOL. Last numbers I saw, I think less than ten IL non-resident permits have been issued.

[Scout26]

Actually, if the OIC of recruiting in Illinois issued an order, then that would circumvent the CCW law.

[Hawkmoon]

Edit:  to be crystal clear, the point I am making is that you shouldn't try to make all Muslims responsible for this, just like you shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of crazed gun toting racists.  Not the other way round.

But we are trying to do something about crazed, gun-toting racists (if such exist).

What are the millions of purportedly moderate Muslims around the world doing to counter the threat of Islamist fundamentalists? Answer: nothing. They're like our police "thin blue line." Talk a good game about how terrorism is bad, yada, yada, but when some Islamist fanatic (or group thereof) starts killing people and then recruiting the young to swell the ranks ... what ARE you doing to (a) persuade young Muslims (and potential converts) that mass killing is not truly the way of Islam, and (b) try to wean some of those who are already militant fundamentalists back to the moderate stream?

[Tallpine]

But we are trying to do something about crazed, gun-toting racists (if such exist).

What are the millions of purportedly moderate Muslims around the world doing to counter the threat of Islamist fundamentalists? Answer: nothing. They're like our police "thin blue line." Talk a good game about how terrorism is bad, yada, yada, but when some Islamist fanatic (or group thereof) starts killing people and then recruiting the young to swell the ranks ... what ARE you doing to (a) persuade young Muslims (and potential converts) that mass killing is not truly the way of Islam, and (b) try to wean some of those who are already militant fundamentalists back to the moderate stream?

To be fair, I've read that some Muslims are appalled at this shooting.

We lived in town back on 9-11-2001, and there was a Middle Eastern doctor and his family lived two doors up from us.  I was actually keeping a real close eye on them, to make sure no idiot rednecks* from our little town tried to fark with them.  I figured one armed guy that could shoot back might back down a bunch of cowards.  A day or two later, I saw his wife on the street and waved at her.  You should have seen her smile 

* as opposed to a smart redneck like me 

[Ron]

We need to support and protect our American Muslim moderates without a doubt.

Unfortunately from my reading on the subject I don't think they really would be considered "orthodox" (borrowing a term used in Christianity) in theological practice.

Fortunately the majority are currently choosing to live in that state of cognitive dissonance.

[Tallpine]

state of cognitive dissonance

It's one of the fifty-seven 

[Boomhauer]

philosophical aversion of an armed standing army wandering around off base?

The current population of the military does not worry me at all in that regard.

It's when the politicians change the makeup of the military to their "ideals" that does worry me. Kind of how like they push affirmative action into effect in the civilian side of government employees. That's when you get the kinds of drones that are dedicated to the leftists that will happily attempt to enact martial law (or worse).

[Jamisjockey]

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.