Comments on: Quote of the Day

By: ParatrooperJJ

ParatrooperJJ — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:11:28 +0000

RAH – Again she is employed by the Army. She is a DOA police officer. A federal employee.

By: RAH

RAH — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:51:07 +0000

The news stories did not clarify that she was employed by Department of the Army. They said she was a traffic cop and was driving by so she was off duty and heard the report and rant to the scene and caught sight of the guy coming out and around the corner.

Perhaps the local police have contracted with the Army but who signs her paycheck?

By: ParatrooperJJ

ParatrooperJJ — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:53:49 +0000

RAH – Most military bases have transitioned to civilian police from MPs. She was a Department of the Army civilian police officer.

By: RAH

RAH — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:53:28 +0000

It is not common today but officers have been fragged before by troops, mutinies used to be a big fear. So a lot of traditions of keeping troops unarmed on US bases is based on tradition.

What is ironic that a traffic cop who was a expert shooter happened to be there and she took the shooter down. All those trained troops and it was a cop that that did it.

I guess the MP’s were farther away.

To give a story,my father used to work on a base in a civilian capacity. One evening a shot came near his office. It was not a murder attempt but a young marine being stupid.

This stuff happens. My father never blamed the marine and fears that it was targeted were unfounded.

I accept the risk that people owning and carrying guns may act stupidly and I could get killed. But with good training that risk is managable.

I willingly assume risks every day. I drive and that has a higher risk of injury than being shot by a criminal or reckless shooting.

I have had gunfire come my way in the woods. There are protocals when coming upon shooters in the woods to avoid accidents.

It is not that bad, most people will stop once you let them know who are in the target range. Only once did the kids not stop and then I charged them and they ran. We never saw each other but did hear each other.

By: The Packetman

The Packetman — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:32:01 +0000

I would also point out the military firearms training and defensive firearms training tend to be at odds with each other.

And as someone in another thread I read (maybe RAH?), military personnel blow off steam by getting into trouble; made much worse if everyone has a personal firearm.

By: ParatrooperJJ

ParatrooperJJ — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:32:48 +0000

Actually under Army regulations, any commander in the grade of O-4 or above can give permission for any soldier under their command to carry a concealed weapon, including commercial flights.

By: Boat Guy

Boat Guy — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:11:18 +0000

Actually with a bit of pro-active lobbying and training that far exceeded Fleet norms (our guys shot about 400 rounds of .45 each, due to some “creative accounting” on my part) our Skipper actually let the security force on our “nuclear capable” ship ( we could “neither confirm nor deny”) stand watch armed – at least in condition 3 rather than the empty magazine wells I encountered upon reporting aboard.
Ain’t about sailors, Marines et al, it’s about training and LEADERSHIP.

By: Laughingdog

Laughingdog — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:55:24 +0000

“The military actually has a highly defective attitude when it comes to gun handling.”

I was in the Navy for four years. It used to infuriate me to no end that, when standing Petty Officer of the Watch onboard, we were not allowed to load the 1911 we carried.

Now, after learning proper gun handling, I realize that not letting your average sailor carry a loaded gun is probably a good thing, because firearms training in the Navy is pathetic.

Seeing the way that the shipboard security handles firearms makes me really miss the days when Marines provided the security on nuclear ships. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve had to describe to some of those sailors what dark place I would put their M4 if they swept me with it again.

By: Boat Guy

Boat Guy — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:37:09 +0000

Lawsuit ain’t gonna happen, however much the idiotic policies of DOD and Fed writ large contribute to these horrible events.
Those of us who work or live on Federal property effectively surrender our right to protect ourselves everytime we go through the gate.

By: Weer'd Beard

Weer'd Beard — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:52:34 +0000

I’m wondering if there would be potential for a lawsuit. The Army willfully disarmed a population of proficient, willing, and able people, and then did not supply adequate protection for those people.

I certainly think if somebody wants to create a gun-free zone they should be held responsible for the safety of all within that zone.