Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A review of active shooter cases by the Air Force has confirmed what gun rights advocates have long been saying: Firearms in the hands of good guys are often the best bet for stopping massacres.

The military branch earlier this month sent out a letter to its base commanders around the nation reminding them that they can authorize subordinates to carry guns, even while off-duty and out of uniform. It also established three programs to help ensure that armed service members are in a position to protect their bases.

"None of these programs gives the installation commander authorizations they didn't already have the authorization to do," Maj. Keith Quick, the Air Force Security Forces Integrated Defense action officer, said in a statement according to Military.com. "We are now formalizing it and telling them how they can use these types of programs more effectively."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/25/air-force-tells-brass-can-ok-guns-on-base-citing-2015-shooting-that-left-5-dead.html

Huge news in my opinion. A government organization stating that an armed citizenry is the best defense from active shooters, based on studied data. The fact that the Air Force of all branches being the one to be first on this is big as well.

In terms of how it will change how the Air Force does things, we'll see. This "reaffirming" strikes me as the big AF trying to tell Wing Commanders to start allowing it, without directly telling them to do so. Being stationed on an Army base, I doubt I'll be seeing much change anytime soon. The way the Army treats its soldiers like big children, I highly they'll ever trust them with something like this.

 djones520 wrote:

The military branch earlier this month sent out a letter to its base commanders around the nation reminding them that they can authorize subordinates to carry guns, even while off-duty and out of uniform. It also established three programs to help ensure that armed service members are in a position to protect their bases."

This does not translate to "armed citizenry." There's a big difference.

 Obrek wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

The military branch earlier this month sent out a letter to its base commanders around the nation reminding them that they can authorize subordinates to carry guns, even while off-duty and out of uniform. It also established three programs to help ensure that armed service members are in a position to protect their bases."

This does not translate to "armed citizenry." There's a big difference.

Huh? In terms of the society involved, a.k.a. the Air Force, it does. We Airmen are the the citizenry of these communities.

I worked on tinker AFB in Oklahoma city for about 5 years, but as a civilian contractor, so take my opinion for what it's worth - that of a useless civilian.

First off, I didn't know that service members were disallowed from carrying on bases in the first place.

I honestly don't have strong feelings about this policy change one way or the other, but I feel as if the one place you shouldn't have to worry about concealed carrying is on a military base, because......it's a military base. Full of armed service members.

I also find it odd that in the case they referenced as justification (which I missed hearing about completely, strangely enough), one of the murdered marines had a concealed gun on him.

If anything, it seems like the concealed weapon didn't help, in that particular instance.

But if service members want to carry on base, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do so. It's not like armed people are a rarity on military bases.

It also seems like random civilians cannot CC on bases, which I'm also ok with - this only applies to service members.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Additionally, the shootings used as justification for this policy change, unless I'm missing something from the reports, happened off-base at a recruiting center.

So, a shooting that happened off base with a concealed weapon holder as one of the victims is used as justification to concealed carry weapons on military bases? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Again, I don't disagree with the policy, but it just seems like an odd justification.

djones520 wrote:Huh? In terms of the society involved, a.k.a. the Air Force, it does. We Airmen are the the citizenry of these communities.

This has nothing to do with the claim of armed citizens stopping bad guys with their concealed carries. Trained military personnel carrying while off duty is not the same as your average Joe doing so, that's the difference. I don't think most people who are against concealed carry or who claims that it isn't that useful are making that argument about the citizens of an army base. They're talking about the other 99% who are traditionally known as citizens.

Kap'n Krump wrote: I worked on tinker AFB in Oklahoma city for about 5 years, but as a civilian contractor, so take my opinion for what it's worth - that of a useless civilian.

First off, I didn't know that service members were disallowed from carrying on bases in the first place.

I honestly don't have strong feelings about this policy change one way or the other, but I feel as if the one place you shouldn't have to worry about concealed carrying is on a military base, because......it's a military base. Full of armed service members.

I also find it odd that in the case they referenced as justification (which I missed hearing about completely, strangely enough), one of the murdered marines had a concealed gun on him.

If anything, it seems like the concealed weapon didn't help, in that particular instance.

But if service members want to carry on base, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do so. It's not like armed people are a rarity on military bases.

It also seems like random civilians cannot CC on bases, which I'm also ok with - this only applies to service members.

Yes, this seems fine. I also assumed this was already happening.

I don't get it: the USA want to allow the military to wear their guns when they aren't in service ?

 godardc wrote:
I don't get it: the USA want to allow the military to wear their guns when they aren't in service ?

The article says just pistols and I think just on military bases.

The article inflates this and pushes its own agenda by saying "See? The military says we should all carry our guns everywhere, it will make us safer!"

 godardc wrote:
I don't get it: the USA want to allow the military to wear their guns when they aren't in service ?

Many U.S. citizens can apply for a permit to carry a concealed handgun in many public places -exact laws vary from state to state, but government buildings and facilities, banks, schools, and the like are all places that concealed weapons are always forbidden.

This law is looking to change the law to allow military members to carry concealed handguns on military bases (if they apply for the liscense), which they currently cannot because it is a government facility.

But doing so is a choice by the service member, it's not like they're being required to be armed when off duty.

 Obrek wrote:
This has nothing to do with the claim of armed citizens stopping bad guys with their concealed carries. Trained military personnel carrying while off duty is not the same as your average Joe doing so, that's the difference. I don't think most people who are against concealed carry or who claims that it isn't that useful are making that argument about the citizens of an army base. They're talking about the other 99% who are traditionally known as citizens.

The uninformed usually make the claim that armed citizens dont stop crimes. It just goes under reported by an agenda driven media.

That said, military service does not equate to efficiency with an arm. Depending on their MOS, it may only require a qualification with the arm. Almost like your concealed carry class or yearly LEO qualification. Im a strong advocate for those who chose to exercise their right to self defense to seek out training beyond your CCW class or range qualification.

Kudos to USAF for exercising some "common sense" gun laws.

Ok thanks !

There is a difference between a military organisation authorising certain of its members to carry arms -- which frankly is the basic purpose of military organisations -- and everyone everywhere carrying guns.

As a side note, the ability for local commanders to authorize carry on base was signed into law by President Obama and counters the original directive issued by George H. W. Bush precluding it - it also authorized the CMP to start selling surplus 1911s to the general public, finally.

As usual, B. HUSSEIN Obama is terrible at everything, including taking away our guns.

It's almost like someone realized that shooting back is an exceptionally good way to make someone who wants you dead reconsider what he wants to do with his time.

But seriously, why are they even bothering with those nasty guns? DHS says what you should do is run, hide, or maybe use something like scissors or thrown desk objects to fight the lunatic. Why is this advice suddenly not good enough?! The police will be along shortly I'm sure.

Why do they need to be concealed carry?

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/01/24/fbi-data-belies-air-force-claim-that-open-carry-stops-shooters.html?ESRC=family.nl

FBI data on the number of active shootings thwarted by armed citizens appears to contradict an Air Force argument for authorizing off-duty airman to open-carry and conceal-carry weapons while on base.

In a reminder to commanders on Wednesday, Maj. Keith Quick, an Air Force Security Forces Integrated Defense action officer said national data analyzed by the Air Force showed that "many [active-shooter incidents] ended without police intervention because there was somebody there who had a concealed carry permit or somebody interdicted the active shooter."

But the data, which the Air Force said came from the FBI, states that only 5 of the 160 active-shooter incidents between 2000 and 2013 -- or 3.1 percent -- ended "after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters."

The FBI report can be found here. An Air Force spokeswoman on Friday said the officer may have used other data, which officials are now trying to identify.

And the actual report:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law
enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters
were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.

Unarmed individuals have a better success rate:

In 21 incidents (13.1%), the situation ended after unarmed citizens safely and successfully
restrained the shooter. In 2 of those incidents,24 3 off-duty law enforcement
officers were present and assisted.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Why do they need to be concealed carry?

They don't need it, but they want it. They ache for it.

I'm not against firearms but the idea this will do almost anything to crime is ridiculous and fantastic in a way only Tracy Hicks would really appreciate.

I wonder what the base commanders are more worried about.

An event so rare you're more likely to win the lottery than to have your base attacked, OR a bunch of drunk airmen running around with guns? As one who's lived in a barracks with these "good guys" I shudder at the thought of the trouble they would have gotten into if they brought their guns onto the base.

I highly doubt this would ever be tried on a navy base or ship. Where bar room brawls are common, gang fights have broken out on ships, or after a few months being underway where the calmest and more rational of people are plotting the death of someone.

A welcome move by this Administration.

 Obrek wrote:
Trained military personnel carrying while off duty is not the same as your average Joe doing so, that's the difference.

You guys really think your average dude in the military gets great pistol training, don't you?

Seaward wrote:

 Obrek wrote:
Trained military personnel carrying while off duty is not the same as your average Joe doing so, that's the difference.

You guys really think your average dude in the military gets great pistol training, don't you?

I don't - feel free to let me know if that IS the case - but I bet they know a little more about trigger discipline.

Which isn't to say that they don't, but I remember a lot of people in the military criticizing the way police were holding weapons during Ferguson, and then you have stuff like that lady who opened up on a fleeing shoplifter's vehicle...

 Spinner wrote:
I don't - feel free to let me know if that IS the case - but I bet they know a little more about trigger discipline.

Which isn't to say that they don't, but I remember a lot of people in the military criticizing the way police were holding weapons during Ferguson, and then you have stuff like that lady who opened up on a fleeing shoplifter's vehicle...

It's far from only military guys who'll jump on pictures of people holding firearms with their fingers on the trigger. The civilian gun spaces I tend to haunt on the internet are more rabid about it than any of the military ones.

Pretty much nobody gets more than basic familiarization with pistols. It'd be a smaller fraction of that already tiny amount that get anything like decent training regarding stuff like drawing from concealment. I wouldn't trust Seaman Chubbs to be any better in a "bad guy with a gun" scenario than a civilian who bothered to go through the process of getting a concealed carry permit.

Hilariously, this is the ONLY situation where i think the proliferation of firearms may make things safer. Everyone is trained ect. and barring a little PTSD ,everything should work out ok in an emergency.

Civillians in a shopping mall are another kettle of fish...probably rotten fish...shooting each other in a confused barrel of who shot who first.

Concealed carry on a military base?

Forgive my naivety, but I was under the impression that military bases had things like armed guards, guard dogs, personnel walking around with weapons etc etc

Why the need for CC when most people could probably carry a weapons with them anyway.

Very strange.

Thats was the bit I did not get- why concealed and not just open?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Thats was the bit I did not get- why concealed and not just open?

I agree, it does sound silly. After all, people can drive tanks around military bases, and other heavy weapons. A pistol won't dent a tank if somebody goes mad and starts blasting the main gun at random targets!

Thats was the bit I did not get- why concealed and not just open?

Why wouldn't you? Seriously, there is no advantage to open carry in a retention holster versus concealment.

Civillians in a shopping mall are another kettle of fish...probably rotten fish...shooting each other in a confused barrel of who shot who first.

Keep hearing this meme, yet it continues to not actually happen.

Everyone is trained ect.

Yea, that 45 round M9 qualification exam they had in/just after basic years ago is some serious business. Far more intense than a 50 round CHL qualifier. Stunningly so.

What this does is legalize what a lot of servicemen do already. A welcome move. Its always a PITA especially for us guardsmen who travel cross states and have to take the guns out of our vehicles(if we were doing it the correct way) when we drive onto post.

Hopefully the army will follow suit since my unit is on an army base.

Col. Dash wrote:
What this does is legalize what a lot of servicemen do already.

Truly, criminals don't obey gun laws, so there is no need for more of them, eh?

When I was in the military we didn't walk around base carrying our M16/M4/machinegun/rocket launcher everywhere we went. Unless your training, deployed, or in a combat zone your gun is in the armoury. And we also weren't carrying personal weapons either. Yes there are armed guards at certain posts but they aren't everywhere. And most military personnel don't get that weapon training. No more than a ccw class offers.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Why do they need to be concealed carry?

Because there are regulations that control how a uniform can look when worn