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.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Why aren't recruiters and soldiers off base armed all the time? simply put? because they aren't trusted enough with fire arms. My last year in the Corps we lost a Marine from my company who was assigned to guarding the main gate of Camp Lejeune. His guard buddy was playing around with his M16A4 and negligent discharged a round right into the kids face. He had been with our unit for all of 2 months and was killed. Im not saying all service members are bad with weapons im just saying do you really want a Plethora of 18-22 year olds running around with semi automatic assault rifles and M9 pistols? Furthermore, VERY FEW units have any where near enough M9 pistols to arm even a small percentage of their Marines. I deployed with an aging M16A4 that by the end of my deployment had a cracked barrel and a rather disturbing tendency to stove pipe.


As far as arming recruit stations? I think all services should move to the coast guard setup. 1 way windows with the door locked on a buzzer so the person has to wait to enter. Furthermore, I think every recruiting office should have an arms locker or at the very least 1-2 M9s for defense that are locked up inside the Gunny (or equivalent for Army/Navy/Airforce) office.

The Israelis manage to do it with conscripts. I'd like to think that a professional volunteer military like ours could manage at least the same.

Implement Israeli carry protocols (full mag empty chamber) on post/base/in uniform stateside and your number of accidents will be low and entirely based on stupidity.

Not to mention, we send them all over God's Creation armed to the teeth. It is just at home we seemingly don't trust them. Sounds more like a leadership issue than even a training issue in my opinion.

Imagine if he nailed a Chinese Buffet at lunch time M-F 1130 to 1300 like around Bragg

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Why aren't recruiters and soldiers off base armed all the time? simply put? because they aren't trusted enough with fire arms.

So what do they train it, and what are they deployed with?

 Ghazkuul wrote:
do you really want a Plethora of 18-22 year olds running around with semi automatic assault rifles and M9 pistols?

I wasn't aware that the M16A4 was semi-automatic. Is it no longer select fire?

An M16A4 is a SEMI automatic weapon, it has 3 settings, Safe, Single and 3 round Burst, No fully automatic mode.

Also your first comment, they are trained in combat operations and even then their are incidents. Guns are dangerous and when you have them loaded and held all day long accidents happen. As far as the trust part, well let me put it this way, when you come back to most bases you have to clear your weapon and keep it either at condition 3 or condition 4.

What makes me super mad is I learned about this from my "der gunna take er GUNS!" Facebook post. I'm like table flipping mad that the first thing people need to do is spread political nonsense.

I'm sorry for those who lost a loved one. That's also super upsetting.

 TheKbob wrote:
What makes me super mad is I learned about this from my "der gunna take er GUNS!" Facebook post. I'm like table flipping mad that the first thing people need to do is spread political nonsense.

Cool story, brah.

One of the first posts in this very thread was a "Americans need more gun control" post.

Thanks for chiming in.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I wasn't aware that the M16A4 was semi-automatic. Is it no longer select fire?

An M16A4 is a SEMI automatic weapon, it has 3 settings, Safe, Single and 3 round Burst, No fully automatic mode.

So it is select fire, and not semi automatic.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Also your first comment, they are trained in combat operations and even then their are incidents. Guns are dangerous and when you have them loaded and held all day long accidents happen. As far as the trust part, well let me put it this way, when you come back to most bases you have to clear your weapon and keep it either at condition 3 or condition 4.

But you still have your weapon. And guns are not usually dangerous in of themselves. They are dangerous when incorrectly maintained or operated.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Why aren't recruiters and soldiers off base armed all the time? simply put? because they aren't trusted enough with fire arms.

So what do they train it, and what are they deployed with?

 Ghazkuul wrote:
do you really want a Plethora of 18-22 year olds running around with semi automatic assault rifles and M9 pistols?

I wasn't aware that the M16A4 was semi-automatic. Is it no longer select fire?

An M16A4 is a SEMI automatic weapon, it has 3 settings, Safe, Single and 3 round Burst, No fully automatic mode.

Also your first comment, they are trained in combat operations and even then their are incidents. Guns are dangerous and when you have them loaded and held all day long accidents happen. As far as the trust part, well let me put it this way, when you come back to most bases you have to clear your weapon and keep it either at condition 3 or condition 4.

WTH..................
“The M16A4 is a 5.56 millimeter, magazine-fed, gas-operated, air-cooled, hand-held, shoulder-fired weapon capable of firing in semiautomatic or three-round burst modes.”

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Why aren't recruiters and soldiers off base armed all the time? im just saying do you really want a Plethora of 18-22 year olds running around with semi automatic assault rifles and M9 pistols?

How many recruiters, specifically fall into that 18-22 category though? the vast majority of recruiters that I know go into recruiting at around 8-12 years TIS, which would put them at a minimum, age 25.

Yah I thought recruiters needed to at least be an NCO of outstanding moral character.

Even then official military business off post rarely involves unattended lower enlisted.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Why aren't recruiters and soldiers off base armed all the time? im just saying do you really want a Plethora of 18-22 year olds running around with semi automatic assault rifles and M9 pistols?

How many recruiters, specifically fall into that 18-22 category though? the vast majority of recruiters that I know go into recruiting at around 8-12 years TIS, which would put them at a minimum, age 25.

Note the bold part, most recruiters I knew were E-5s and E-6s so around 6-8 years into service so yeah that part is right they would be 24-26ish though I did know a Marine to pickup E-6 in just over 4 years. SSgt Tenn, helluva marine.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Yah I thought recruiters needed to at least be an NCO of outstanding moral character.

Even then official military business off post rarely involves unattended lower enlisted.

Around the E6 level one has to make a career choice
Recruiter, Instructor at a MOS school, or Drill Instructor/Sargeant

 Ghazkuul wrote:

An M16A4 is a SEMI automatic weapon, it has 3 settings, Safe, Single and 3 round Burst, No fully automatic mode.

To be fair, at least in the US, a 3 round burst is still considered an automatic weapon by law. In more traditional terms, 3 round burst isn't exactly semi-automatic either.

It's really just mechanically enforcing what good training should do with fully automatic capabilities

 Jihadin wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Yah I thought recruiters needed to at least be an NCO of outstanding moral character.

Even then official military business off post rarely involves unattended lower enlisted.

Around the E6 level one has to make a career choice
Recruiter, Instructor at a MOS school, or Drill Instructor/Sargeant

The majority I've met were E6 but I had a Sgt that went recruiter at E5. That being said he was of outstanding moral character and a had a solid record.

Did he used legally obtained weapon?

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Did he used legally obtained weapon? I bet, no

By pure numbers almost certainly it was illegally acquired just by the probability alone.

I was afraid we wouldn't instantly politicize this. Silly me.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Did he used legally obtained weapon? I bet, no

By pure numbers almost certainly it was illegally acquired just by the probability alone.

Guns being rare here so not knowing much...

But who in their right mind would kill using their legally obtained gun? Instantly you are easier to find etc. I know I would steal a gun or use someone else's gun to commit crime over my own (if I had a gun and or wanted to commit crimes).

I too would be shocked if many people used their own guns in a crime.

 Swastakowey wrote:

But who in their right mind would kill using their legally obtained gun?

Possibly those who don't expect to survive the act they plan on committing, those not of sound mind or those who don't care if they are caught.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

The majority I've met were E6 but I had a Sgt that went recruiter at E5. That being said he was of outstanding moral character and a had a solid record.

When I was in, that's generally how it worked... You may see the "rare" E-5(P) fresh into recruiting, instructing or DS/DI duties... But they are there because their ratings show that they really are that outstanding and should've been made E-6 already.

Most typically, those duties are almost exclusive to E-6 and E-7 types. Though it is possible to escape doing any of those duties, if you are an NCO in a "smaller" MOS (such as my old MOS), you were basically guaranteed a spot in the schoolhouse instructing the newbies.

He was a (shooter) Naturalized US Citizen.
I've a feeling the weapons he had were legally brought or grandfathered fire arms that did not have to be registered

Honestly there isn't much to do about it at that point if true. Seems like any action is going to involve an equal loss to the gain.

 Alex C wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

But who in their right mind would kill using their legally obtained gun?

Possibly those who don't expect to survive the act they plan on committing, those not of sound mind or those who don't care if they are caught.

Indeed, although this type of criminal would make a very small portion of the gun crime rate. The vast majority of gun crimes will be committed by people who will actively attempt to cover their tracks by not using a legally purchased weapon.

 Soladrin wrote:
Oh, don't think we even have those here. Still I would qualify that as somewhat of a military target.

It is a military target - it's set up to be inviting so people will want to sign up. Armed guards might discourage some people.

This is not a "gun" matter. As with the attack on the church guns are not the issue here, but many people will try and make a grab for political points on both sides. This is a terrorist attack. There are issues with the gun culture in the US, but if guns were not available these people would make home made bombs, or attack with knives or do other things. This is not a gun culture issue, but as long as people frame it as one for their own gain the real issues of why people become radicalized will not be addressed.

I hope that the injured are recovering well and that we do not see another attack any time soon.

 CptJake wrote:
Arming recruiting stations is a bad idea. They would have to have an arms room which means $$$$, and in many of their current locations that means modifications to the building/office they lease which may not be permitted by the owners. Then you obviously need to supply them with weapons and ammo. Oh wait, they can't store ammo in the arms rooms without even more mods and waivers.

And, the recruiters are still soft targets when they go to the local school and mall and so on. So a lot of dollars spent and the security of the recruiters and potential recruits/actual recruits is not really made any better.

This, and I suspect it would cause many more legal issues. What rules would govern what they could do? Would they be able to use them just for self deference, or would there be an expectation that they would defend others. What would happen if there was a mugging in the mall? Would they feel obliged to intervene? At that point, would they be acting as police (which would legally be a big no no). And to what good. These are not fire fights, they are terrorists firing unexpectedly from a car and driving off. Better off trying to ensure that the recruiting posts are in sensible places, such as pedestrianized areas or indoor malls than arming anyone.

I think it might be more than just an issue of terrorism. I'm wondering at this point on why did he go from his normal life to the one that lead to him murdering 4 people and getting himself killed. Or rather what is so appealing to 20 somethings in the middle class about violent fundamentalism.

The killer seemed to have a pretty good life from what has been gathered. So why did he gravitate to the life that he choose.

 Steve steveson wrote:
This is not a "gun" matter. As with the attack on the church guns are not the issue here, but many people will try and make a grab for political points on both sides. This is a terrorist attack. There are issues with the gun culture in the US, but if guns were not available these people would make home made bombs, or attack with knives or do other things. This is not a gun culture issue, but as long as people frame it as one for their own gain the real issues of why people become radicalized will not be addressed.

I hope that the injured are recovering well and that we do not see another attack any time soon.

 CptJake wrote:
Arming recruiting stations is a bad idea. They would have to have an arms room which means $$$$, and in many of their current locations that means modifications to the building/office they lease which may not be permitted by the owners. Then you obviously need to supply them with weapons and ammo. Oh wait, they can't store ammo in the arms rooms without even more mods and waivers.

And, the recruiters are still soft targets when they go to the local school and mall and so on. So a lot of dollars spent and the security of the recruiters and potential recruits/actual recruits is not really made any better.

This, and I suspect it would cause many more legal issues. What rules would govern what they could do? Would they be able to use them just for self deference, or would there be an expectation that they would defend others. What would happen if there was a mugging in the mall? Would they feel obliged to intervene? At that point, would they be acting as police (which would legally be a big no no). And to what good. These are not fire fights, they are terrorists firing unexpectedly from a car and driving off. Better off trying to ensure that the recruiting posts are in sensible places, such as pedestrianized areas or indoor malls than arming anyone.

It could also run into the simple problem of many locations being inside "gun free" zones. We have recruiters inside the nearest mall, which doesn't allow guns. The office isn't exactly a military installation, it's just office space rented from the mall. So I would think that no special federal laws governing the recruiters office there and legally that space is no different than Hot Topic in the mall (I could be wrong about that).

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I think it might be more than just an issue of terrorism. I'm wondering at this point on why did he go from his normal life to the one that lead to him murdering 4 people and getting himself killed. Or rather what is so appealing to 20 somethings in the middle class about violent fundamentalism.

The killer seemed to have a pretty good life from what has been gathered. So why did he gravitate to the life that he choose.

Honest question - is this intended to be rhetorical?

I ask, because when we look at motivation, we can acknowledge that the Charleston shooter's motivation was that he was a racist who wanted to kill blacks, and that other racists who want to kill blacks deserve scrutiny. But, for some reason, we have trouble acknowledging that this shooter's motivation was that he was a Muslim who wanted to kill non-Muslims, and we are slow to apply equal scrutiny. The fact that the Ft. Hood shooting was labeled workplace violence is really perfect evidence of this dichotomy.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
[

I ask, because when we look at motivation, we can acknowledge that the Charleston shooter's motivation was that he was a racist who wanted to kill blacks, and that other racists who want to kill blacks deserve scrutiny, but we have trouble acknowledging that this shooter's motivation was that he was a Muslim who wanted to kill non-Muslims, and therefore is a member of a protected class.

(Godwin)

 d-usa wrote:

It could also run into the simple problem of many locations being inside "gun free" zones. We have recruiters inside the nearest mall, which doesn't allow guns. The office isn't exactly a military installation, it's just office space rented from the mall. So I would think that no special federal laws governing the recruiters office there and legally that space is no different than Hot Topic in the mall (I could be wrong about that).

Yes, you are wrong. Any space leased/rented by the feds to include the DoD (and that means recruiting offices) are 'gun free' due to being considered a 'federal facility' according to the regs they have to follow. In fact, you can see the 'No Guns' sign on the door of the recruiting station hit yesterday (surrounded by bullet holes).



So, regardless of if it is in a larger 'gun free' zone or not, current regs make any recruiting station/center/office a 'gun free' zone.

The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

In title 18. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I think it might be more than just an issue of terrorism. I'm wondering at this point on why did he go from his normal life to the one that lead to him murdering 4 people and getting himself killed. Or rather what is so appealing to 20 somethings in the middle class about violent fundamentalism.

The killer seemed to have a pretty good life from what has been gathered. So why did he gravitate to the life that he choose.

Honest question - is this intended to be rhetorical?

I ask, because when we look at motivation, we can acknowledge that the Charleston shooter's motivation was that he was a racist who wanted to kill blacks, and that other racists who want to kill blacks deserve scrutiny. But, for some reason, we have trouble acknowledging that this shooter's motivation was that he was a Muslim who wanted to kill non-Muslims, and we are slow to apply equal scrutiny. The fact that the Ft. Hood shooting was labeled workplace violence is really perfect evidence of this dichotomy.

Nither of them are the underling reasons. Yes, both seem to be driven by hatred for another group (at least as far as we can see), but we need to address why that hatred has arisen, and what means that it gets to the point that they feel this kind of violence is the right answer. What drives them to this level of hatred, and what drives that hatred to action? Until we address this and as long as we keep saying "racists be racist" then we will continue to have these problems. We need to address the root cause. We will always see some people that just want to see the world burn, but most of these attacks have much more that drives these people away from most of society and in to violence. People are not born racist, they are normally not raised violent (even if they are raised racist).