HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Why Military Security Exp...

Mon Jul 20, 2015, 09:11 PM

 

Why Military Security Experts Know That Arming All Troops Is Not the Answer

The argument that all military service members should be armed with guns to protect themselves — proffered by GOP presidential candidates Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Donald Trump in the wake of the shooting deaths of four Marines and a sailor last week in Chattanooga, Tennessee — is so basic that there’s not much argument to it at all. Railing against “gun-free zones” last Friday, Trump summed the case up in this way: “This sick guy had guns and shot them down. These are decorated people. These are people who could have handled guns very easily. They would have had a good chance if they had a gun.” In making their cases, the presidential hopefuls echoed a Connecticut car repairman whose shop is near a military recruiting office, who told the Associated Press that arming its occupants made perfect sense to him. “Most of them are trained infantrymen,” the repairman asserted. “That definitely would make it a lot more safe.” They’re military, they know how to use guns, how could we not have every one of them be armed all the time, just in case?

The argument is intuitive enough for a political sound bite — and, like many sound bites, does not hold up well under fact-checking. It reflects a basic misconception about the average military member’s proficiency with guns, and it flat-out misses the reality that armed-forces installations are not “gun-free zones” by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, the military has fairly liberal guidelines empowering its commanders to arm members to defend themselves. It’s just that those guidelines prioritize personal safety and the high likelihood of gun mishaps over statistically rare tragedies like the Chattanooga shooting.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/military-bases-chattanooga-gun-free-over-arming/

29 replies, 3170 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Military Security Experts Know That Arming All Troops Is Not the Answer (Original post)
SecularMotion Jul 2015 OP
Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #1
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #2
Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #4
blueridge3210 Jul 2015 #3
Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #5
blueridge3210 Jul 2015 #6
Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #7
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #8
Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #9
blueridge3210 Jul 2015 #10
gejohnston Jul 2015 #11
sarisataka Jul 2015 #14
ileus Jul 2015 #17
sarisataka Jul 2015 #21
benEzra Jul 2015 #26
DonP Jul 2015 #27
ileus Jul 2015 #28
Duckhunter935 Jul 2015 #15
pablo_marmol Jul 2015 #12
hack89 Jul 2015 #18
gejohnston Jul 2015 #19
hack89 Jul 2015 #22
oneshooter Jul 2015 #23
DonP Jul 2015 #20
pablo_marmol Jul 2015 #29
pablo_marmol Jul 2015 #13
ileus Jul 2015 #16
Eleanors38 Jul 2015 #24
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #25

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Jul 20, 2015, 09:16 PM

1. Wow a blog commentary (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Jul 20, 2015, 09:25 PM

2. Blog fraud. There were no military experts cited in the article stating what the headline claims. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 20, 2015, 09:38 PM

4. I am sure the poster

 

Will be right by to meme the experts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Jul 20, 2015, 09:35 PM

3. So, who exactly

 

recommended arming ALL the troops. Big difference between saying no troops may be armed and saying all troops must be armed. This is the problem when trying to discuss issues of gun violence; one side comes to the table with falsehoods and straw man arguments which prevents any honest discussion of the issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 20, 2015, 09:40 PM

5. You think you are going to get an answer

 

To who is calling for ALL troops to be armed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 20, 2015, 09:43 PM

6. It's worth asking the question.

 

A lack of an answer is an answer in and of itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #6)

Mon Jul 20, 2015, 09:44 PM

7. I agree

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 20, 2015, 09:51 PM

8. I'd settle for knowing

which military experts were cited to come to the conclusion the headline claims. I read the entire article. I see one quote by a Special Forces operator claiming not every service member is a steely-eyed killer, which is true enough, but not what the headline claims. Then there are a lot of policy citations. It would be laughable if the OP asserted policy = expert advice so I don't think that is it.

Nowhere is there any military expert claiming that arming troops is a bad idea. No reason as to why that would be a bad idea is offered.

That article so absolutely relies on the gullibility of the reader it's rather insulting for it to be presented as serious discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 20, 2015, 09:57 PM

9. I would be embarrassed

 

If I had posted that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 20, 2015, 10:07 PM

10. It's not unlike the WaPo op-ed

 

about the Chattanooga shooter purchasing his weapons on-line while failing to mention that they still had to go through a FFL who conducted a background check. Or that neither weapon was fully automatic. As noted above; it's hard to engage in an honest debate when one side does not observe honesty and good faith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Jul 20, 2015, 11:40 PM

11. I call bullshit

The upshot is that your average service member is more qualified than most civilians to handle guns, but no more qualified to neutralize an active shooter than the average professional mechanic is to race the Daytona 500.
Seriously? The average deer hunter is more qualified than most cops.
Yes, most are technicians, including me, who shoot at pop up or paper targets a couple of times of year. Guess what, that is exactly what most police departments do.
If it is such a terrible idea, why were Air Force finance and administration types handed rifles and expected to guard base infrastructure?
BTW, they are Bloomberg's creation. The Joyce Foundation are the same people who astro turfs Brady Campaign, VPC, and funds Hemenway's chair and department.

The Trace is organized as a nonprofit corporation and is in the process of applying for tax-exempt status with the IRS. Our seed funding was provided by the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund and the Joyce Foundation; individual donors include Ken Lerer and Nick Hanauer. Interested in supporting our reporting? Donations can be sent to: Trace Media Inc., P.O. Box 3886, New York, NY 10017. (Until The Trace’s application for tax-exempt status has been approved by the IRS, we cannot provide advance assurance that donations will be tax-deductible.)


How well to they live up to their core values? Kind of reminds you of "fair and balanced" doesn't it?
http://www.thetrace.org/about-the-trace/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #11)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 01:57 AM

14. "no more qualified to neutralize an active shooter

than the average professional mechanic is to race the Daytona 500"

but they are sent to asymmetric wars where there is no "rear area" and may find themselves under attack at anytime.


Does Bloomberg own every gun control organization now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #14)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 06:54 AM

17. There must be money in disarming people; or at least future money, what's in it for Bloomy???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #17)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 10:32 AM

21. Two things

Elitism and politics

The elitism appeals to his ego. We saw he had no problem issuing Stasi- like orders to his "private army" when he ruled NYC. He seemed to take glee in his troops reminding dark skinned folk of their'proper place'. Was there ever one stop and frisk on Wall Street when billions were being stolen by men in suits?

It also supports his political position. He can target Democrats by attacking their gun control position. He gets Tea partiers elected to their seats while many Democrats cheer him on.

Check the results of the Arkansas and Alaska Senate elections last cycle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #17)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 07:14 PM

26. In Bloomberg's own words:

But if he senses that he may not have as much time left as he would like, he has little doubt about what would await him at a Judgment Day. Pointing to his work on gun safety, obesity and smoking cessation, he said with a grin: "I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us/bloomberg-plans-a-50-million-challenge-to-the-nra.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #26)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 08:39 PM

27. And what if St. Peter is cleaning his Garand when Bloomie arrives?

 

Now that's Karma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #26)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 09:51 PM

28. And I thought only Marion Barry was on crack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #11)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 06:45 AM

15. Bloomberg does get around

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 01:40 AM

12. We have Marines guarding embassies, but they're not equipped to guard enlistment stations?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pablo_marmol (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 09:02 AM

18. Embassy guards are highly trained combat troops

not every Marine, especially if they are not combat arms or assigned to a combat unit, get ongoing weapons training after they leave bootcamp. People forget that in the military, there are more admin and support types then there are trigger pullers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 09:52 AM

19. and even the admin an support types do firearms training

the exact same training as police departments, which is still less than many CCW holders pay for on their own. Chances are, they are better trained than the average Brinks driver.

No, embassy guards can be from any MOS, including electronics repair.
Also, Combat Camera are not viewed as "combat troops".

In the Air Force, and I'm certain the Marines and Army do as well, everyone does annual qualification and every one has to meet a higher standard than NYPD or Brinks. Also, infantry training and firearms training are two different things. Guarding a building does not require infantry training.
It looks like Bloomberg got bloggers from college or high school creative writing classes who don't know the basics of research, life in general, or even how to write well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #19)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 10:36 AM

22. Embassy guard can be from any MOS

but they undergo special training and are constantly training with weapons. The annual qualification does not prepare anyone to actually use a firearm in a stressful system. I understand very well why the military is reluctant to arm recruiters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #19)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 11:03 AM

23. Part of the requirements for Marines on

embassy duty is that they be 5'11" or taller.

Ever seen a "small" Marine as a embassy guard?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 09:58 AM

20. My jarhead friends remind me constantly that "Every Marne is a Rifleman"

 

Combat arms MOS or not, and their typical bluster aside, I have no doubt pretty much any of them are capable of standing a watch that turns a "soft target" into a "not so soft" target.

I could see allowing the OIC and NCOIC to carry, at any installation without gated and armed security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #20)

Wed Jul 22, 2015, 01:07 PM

29. Oh yeah......well aware of the point in your subject line Don.


Have some Marine friends, and work with a number of them as well. Of course the rest of your post is on target as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 01:46 AM

13. Strawman.


There is a sound strategy short of arming all of the troops. Posting armed sentries. Herp.....a derp.....derp.....derp derp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 06:52 AM

16. I know...I know let me answer; Because guns kill people????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 02:52 PM

24. When installing washerless sparkplugs, observe these rules:

 

1). Measure the reach of the new plug to ascertain that it is roughly equivalent with the old plug; that is, the distances from the beveled shouldersto the outside (negative-ground) electrodes are the same.

2). If possible, wipe the plug hole threads clean with a cloth. If a large accumulation of dirt/debris is present around the plugs, blow and clean this away BEFORE plug removal.

3). After removal of plugs, gap all new plugs to proper specs. If you drop one, check for damage. Reject the plug if the white insulator is cracked. Be sure to re-check gap.

4). Hand install using the plug socket wrench only -- no handles or other attachments. This will assure no cross-threading.

5). Use appropriate attachments and a "flex head" ratchet to keep the plug/socket assembly as close to perpendicular with the ratchet as possible. I've found tiny <1" extensions are far more valuable than some uncontrollable u-joint or wobbly.

6). CRITICALLY, tighten the washerless plug no more than 1/16 of a turn from where it bottoms. (Older washered plugs called for 1/8 of a turn to compress the washer.) Going beyond this turn will result in a cracked plug, an inevitable missfire and plug replacement. The effort you put into "tightening" a washerless plug is quite minimal.

NOTE: Some Ford models have a difficult and expensive procedure which is easily and expensively botched by home mechanics. Let the pros handle this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #24)

Tue Jul 21, 2015, 04:30 PM

25. I think the military experts from the OP would agree. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread