Good Question
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
November 6th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Historically troops that not in active combat often release tension by getting in trouble. So that is one reason. Historically on ships there is an arms locker to prevent high tempers of trained warriors not to shoot each other. The officers are trusted but not the crew. But if they needed they can get arms from the locker.
So there is a long military tradition of preventing arms while not in actual combat.
It is different on the bases in a war theater. Then an attack from an enemy can come at any time. The expectation is that someone from your own side is not going to attack you. That is why those attacks are effective is that they have the element of surprise
November 6th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I asked this question, sort of, to The Donovan in email.
He was kind enough to bring it up for discussion on his front page. Why don’t y’all go over there and discuss it?
November 6th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
The best explaination that I ever heard, is that in the military, as a officer, you are responsible for all actions of the people under your command. This would include anyone getting hurt with a weapon. In order to protect themselves it is easier to remove the weapons and ammunition from their troops than to promote safe weapons handling.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I agree with your analysis Joe. This kind of reasoning is especially appealing when your dealing with non combat troops, who have only basic weapons skills. Anecdotally, I’ve heard that weapons policies got a lot stricter in Vietnam. Mainly due to concerns about drunk or high draftees shooting each other or their superiors. The military in that era was not noted for its professionalism.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
On ships officers aren’t trusted with weapons, any more than enlisted sailors are.
As the gunnery officer on a destroyer I did not have a keys to the ships armory, any of the magazines or the ammunition ready service lockers.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
If superior officers are responsible for the safety of their men, then the superiors responsible for the policy that disarmed these 43 victims should all be court-martialed.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
It was my experience that a lot of the guys I served with tended to be stupid.
I carried the keys to magazines, the armory, and ready service lockers many times, as did the other guys in my division. We were far better trained in small arms than anyone else on the destroyer where I served. Only guys who made shooting a personal hobby were close to being as good as the guys in the Ordnance Division.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
We can’t trust Soldiers with guns, most of them don’t know what to do with them anyway. I propose sending Marines to the Army bases to guard the soldiers from themselves.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
No Model Citizen this is clearly a job that should be left up to the professionals of Blackwater… errr Xe. They are non-biased. Ha
November 7th, 2009 at 1:09 am
As I’ve said elsewhere, any soldier who complies with state CCW laws (getting a CHL for example) should be authorized to carry on post.
Yeah, plenty of soldiers, even combat arms, are not well schooled in firearms handling. Whose fault is that? If you said their first line supervisor, you’re correct. When NCOs get lazy and don’t feel like teaching their soldier proper weapons handling and discipline, shit happens. By the way, my battalion commander had three negligent discharges in Iraq. Rank has fuckall to do with firearms proficiency.
I’m sick of hearing about soldiers getting drunk or pissed off and fragging their NCOs or officers stateside. GMAFB! Like anyone who wants to kill their first line supervisor is going to turn back at the post gate when they see the no weapons sign? That crock of shit doesn’t smell any sweeter when you apply it to soldiers instead of civilians.
Maybe now people will wake up. There is no safe zone in this war.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:58 am
My son was not allowed to carry a loaded pistol when he was deployed to LSA Anaconda in Iraq several years ago. He is a law enforcement officer in his civilian job. He can carry anywhere in the US, but couldn’t in Iraq.
November 7th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Apparently, the person responsible for security at Ft. Hood was a community organizer.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:38 am
Weambulance: I agree 100%
I wanted to scream at the TV every time I heard a reporter saying there was no reason for any of those soldiers to have a gun with them on base, because this is or was their home. Tell that to the dead & wounded from this incident! I can guarantee you every one of them was wishing they had not been disarmed by that idiotic “gun free zone” policy. I’m sure the same could be said for any who are mugged, raped, or murdered by thugs while on military bases. Sure, crime rate is low, but who cares what the stats are if you’re the one in a million being victimized while disarmed?
November 8th, 2009 at 5:12 am
I’m afraid you guys have it all wrong. The reason we disarm the military on stateside bases is in order to avoid more frequent incidents like the Ft. Hood tragedy. In fact, its rarity proves that gun control works. As much as you hate that, the military base is a fairly controlled environment in which to see the efficacy of disarming the regular people, and it works.
I recognize the difficulty this would present in the country at large, but there’s no reason to deny the validity of the theory. Maj. Hassan’s breakdown proved it by being the exception that proves the rule.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
That’s the first thing that came to mind! I asked my girlfriend, “Wait a minute.., it’s a military base! Why did the local police have to be involved? Don’t the soldiers deploying have guns?”
Remembering my 10 years in the Navy.., ammo was only issued when needed. I think this is a rule they need to seriously think about modifying!
November 8th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
“In fact, its rarity proves that gun control works. As much as you hate that, ”
Seems to have worked well for the gunman, which is the case in most scenarios. I am not sure what gun control success multiple dead and wounded provide? Can you please explain how gun control was a success?
November 8th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Markie Marxist sez: “Why do we disarm our military? So that our Marxist/warrior/hero/criminal/mass murderer/jihadi’s can massacre them. That’s why we disarm them. That’s what happens when we do. It’s just common communist sense. It’s politically correct according to Marxist values. We Marxists make the rules, so not surprisingly, things work out the way we want them to. Out of the Ft. Hood massacre, we got thirteen more bodies for the body count that we need to drive our Marxist gun ban agenda. It was a good day for us. Just ask Comrade President Obama or my commie compadres at the Brady Center. When we Marxists make the rules, we Marxists get what we want. Funny how that works out for us. Ha! Ha! All your dead soldiers are belong to us!”
November 8th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Our effete ruling class, with their gun control sensibilities, massacred us at Ft. Hood. Some might imagine that they need to bleed; that if they ignore what we say, perhaps they won’t ignore what we do. Some might imagine that.