View Full Version : Demilitarization of the Military
https://www.thetacticalwire.com/features/201b03e9-5f3b-40ec-ae32-dd7839102801
As pro-gun groups continue to win lawsuits nationwide that overturn rules and regulations designed to make lawful ownership difficult -if not downright impossible- a new study forwarded to me last week had me doing a double take.
No, it wasn’t another report on the origins of COVID-19…that’s this generation’s Warren Commission Report. There will never be a clear answer to either question that will be acceptable to everyone.
This latest piece of “rigorous investigation” came to the conclusion that the Defense Department should implement a series of “gun safety measures” to reduce suicides in our “armed” forces.
Among their suggestions:
raising the minimum age for service members to buy guns and ammunition to 25,
require the registration of anyone living in military housing to register all privately owned firearms,
restrict the possession and storage of privately owned firearms in military barracks and dormitories.
waiting periods for the purchase of guns and ammunition by service members on military property.
The Suicide Prevention and Response Independent Review Committee was formed by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in May of last year to study the issue of military suicide. The recommendations are only three of the 127 overall recommendations. Additionally, the Committee recommended the Defense Department take steps to “slow down” troops access to guns - more specifically those bought in stores on bases -so “people under stress” can survive periods of high risk.
Their rationalization for the involuntary curtailment of that pesky 2A thing? Requirements the DoD puts on motorcycle use -mandated helmets- which are “often more strict than some state laws.”
One member of the committee said that troops should be “more receptive to such limits than civilians may be.” In other words, orders is orders and soldiers are trained -rigorously- to obey them.
The limit of personal firearms until age 25 was, ostensibly, driven by “historical patterns and data” that showed more than half off military suicides happen between ages 21 and 25. And the use of guns for suicides by service members -particularly men- increased after age 21.
In the same recommendations, the committee concluded that alcohol use and financial problems are often connected to suicides. Naturally, it concludes, the department should fix pay systems to avoid delays and address excessive alcohol use.
And that “complex and rigid hierarchical structure” of the military…well, these mental health experts feel that impedes the ability to “do” effective suicide prevention.
To someone my age who recalls outraged drill instructors when they were told corporal punishment as a “motivational technique” was no longer acceptable, this reads as something that might be written by The Babylon Bee under a headline reading “Military to Add Rigorous and Mandatory Warm Milk and Cookies Regimen to Basic Training” -but it’s not.
And my intent is definitely not to make fun of the serious issue of suicides in the military - or anywhere else.
It is not a joking matter. But it is, however, an area where the NSSF has worked alongside mental health professionals to try and create effective ways to prevent suicides with firearms.
The problem, unfortunately, isn’t the means of suicides - it’s recognition and intervention before a person is driven to that point.
That’s a mental health issue.
The recommendations of Secretary Austin’s Independent Review Committee also ignores an important fact: suicides in the active-duty military declined from 2021 through June 2022. There were sharp drops in the Air Force and Marine Corps last year -and a similar decline among Army soldiers during the first six months of 2022. Those numbers, FYI, are from the Pentagon, not the “independent review committee.”
We’ll doubtless see this “study” cited as a recommendation for actions by the DoD to further restrict weapons on military bases. It will likely also be the basis for more innocuously-titled piece of legislation ultimately designed to disarm “average Joes”- beginning with Joes of the G.I. variety.
We’ll keep you posted.
— Jim Shepherd
The willingness to trade dangerous freedom for the illusion of safety...
As dumb and frustrating as this is, restricting personally owned weapons, right or wrong, is not demilitarizing the military. I can’t get past how anyone comes to that conclusion for a title.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Averageman
03-01-23, 07:34
I found it amazing just how anti-gun the Army was while I served.
If you own a POW, it's sitting in an arms room being finger banged by every PFC in your unit. It's a pain in the behind because when you have time to shoot, the arms room will be closed because the Armorer is off duty also. You'll not have access to your guns unless the Commander says so.
Want to train your Soldiers on the range? Good Luck with that, you'll face the most unrealistic restrictive training possible.
The Army is anti privately owned weapons friendly.
As dumb and frustrating as this is, restricting personally owned weapons, right or wrong, is not demilitarizing the military. I can’t get past how anyone comes to that conclusion for a title.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
“Always has been” isn’t inflammatory enough for clickbait.
Privately Owned Weapons are already prohibited in every barracks/dorm I was in. The military being anti-gun is nothing new, it was like that the entire time I was in. Hell, even airsoft guns were banned. If you wanted to "keep and bear" your own weapons, you either found ways around the rules, such as an off-post storage unit, or you broke them.
Privately Owned Weapons are already prohibited in every barracks/dorm I was in. The military being anti-gun is nothing new, it was like that the entire time I was in. Hell, even airsoft guns were banned. If you wanted to "keep and bear" your own weapons, you either found ways around the rules, such as an off-post storage unit, or you broke them.
Yup and of course still is. Not everyone buys a case to keep their weapon locked up in so the armorer or anyone else can molest someone else's POWs. The article also mentions registering the weapons of those who live on post. Obviously, he did little to no research because that is also already a thing. If you live on post with POWs or want to bring them on post to shoot, they have to be registered with PMO before you can do so.
Rationalizing or equating this to mandating motorcycle helmet use is just as dumb because it still only applies on post. See plenty of people who once they're off post they don't use helmets or they never ride on post because they don't want to wear one....so its just as (in)effective of a policy.
I never considered on-base rules equating to 'demilitarization.' That's a pretty significant leap of logic.
This is less "demilitarization" and more leftist anti-gun agitprop. If LaLoyd Austin's committee recommends restricting firearms ownership to 25 and above to prevent service member suicides in the 21-25 age range, then isn't the obvious solution to raise the age to enter the military to 25? They can completely ELIMINATE service member suicides in the 21-25 range, rather than merely reduce them. After all, if it saves just one life, right?
I get sick and tired of all these namby-pamby leftist sissies recommending elimination of rights for service members, simply because said rights are inconvenient. If these service members aren't responsible enough to keep and bear arms, then they're not responsible enough to be in the military in the first place! :mad:
Averageman
03-01-23, 11:21
After all, if it saves just one life, right?
I get sick and tired of all these namby-pamby leftist sissies recommending elimination of rights for service members, simply because said rights are inconvenient. If these service members aren't responsible enough to keep and bear arms, then they're not responsible enough to be in the military in the first place! :mad:
Imagine these same rules being applied at every Ivy League School?
This is less "demilitarization" and more leftist anti-gun agitprop. If LaLoyd Austin's committee recommends restricting firearms ownership to 25 and above to prevent service member suicides in the 21-25 age range, then isn't the obvious solution to raise the age to enter the military to 25? They can completely ELIMINATE service member suicides in the 21-25 range, rather than merely reduce them. After all, if it saves just one life, right?
I get sick and tired of all these namby-pamby leftist sissies recommending elimination of rights for service members, simply because said rights are inconvenient. If these service members aren't responsible enough to keep and bear arms, then they're not responsible enough to be in the military in the first place! :mad:
Or VOTE..........
This is less "demilitarization" and more leftist anti-gun agitprop. If LaLoyd Austin's committee recommends restricting firearms ownership to 25 and above to prevent service member suicides in the 21-25 age range, then isn't the obvious solution to raise the age to enter the military to 25? They can completely ELIMINATE service member suicides in the 21-25 range, rather than merely reduce them. After all, if it saves just one life, right?
I get sick and tired of all these namby-pamby leftist sissies recommending elimination of rights for service members, simply because said rights are inconvenient. If these service members aren't responsible enough to keep and bear arms, then they're not responsible enough to be in the military in the first place! :mad:
Read the above. This isn’t news, nothing is changing. I’ve been in since W, and little has changed.
Read the above. This isn’t news, nothing is changing. I’ve been in since W, and little has changed.
Yes we know you've been in since Methuselah and there isn't an ounce of wokeness anywhere in DoD at any level according to you. :rolleyes:
The article is very clearly stating that these were some of many recommendations, not established policy.
The Suicide Prevention and Response Independent Review Committee was formed by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in May of last year to study the issue of military suicide. The recommendations are only three of the 127 overall recommendations. Additionally, the Committee recommended the Defense Department take steps to “slow down” troops access to guns - more specifically those bought in stores on bases -so “people under stress” can survive periods of high risk.
So that begs the question, are you on Austin's staff? Can you refute that this study was commissioned or recommended these steps to reduce suicide? Because if the answer is no, then I really don't know what your point is?
Yes we know you've been in since Methuselah and there isn't an ounce of wokeness anywhere in DoD at any level according to you. :rolleyes:
The article is very clearly stating that these were some of many recommendations, not established policy.
So that begs the question, are you on Austin's staff? Can you refute that this study was commissioned or recommended these steps to reduce suicide? Because if the answer is no, then I really don't know what your point is?
You’re absolutely right. I’m unfamiliar with US military (or post) policies and procedures.
I'll just leave this right here...
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2023/02/07/intruder-breaches-base-thats-home-to-air-force-one-shot-fired/
Coal Dragger
03-01-23, 23:17
Anti-gun policies or just more top brass assuming that all junior service members are too stupid and irresponsible to have access to firearms outside of carefully supervised training and when on duty?
The default of any command seems to be to treat everyone, particularly lower enlisted like they’re mentally retarded criminals.
The default of any command seems to be to treat everyone, particularly lower enlisted like they’re mentally retarded criminals.
That's honestly a fair description of it, for anything from hot plates in the barracks to having to be directly told not to rape anyone or thing every weekend.
ViniVidivici
03-02-23, 08:11
I found it amazing just how anti-gun the Army was while I served.
If you own a POW, it's sitting in an arms room being finger banged by every PFC in your unit. It's a pain in the behind because when you have time to shoot, the arms room will be closed because the Armorer is off duty also. You'll not have access to your guns unless the Commander says so.
Want to train your Soldiers on the range? Good Luck with that, you'll face the most unrealistic restrictive training possible.
The Army is anti privately owned weapons friendly.
That is EXACTLY how it's been for years....it was like that when I was in...last century. I ****ing HATED just how anti-(personsl)gun and anti-(personal)weapon big Army culture was. Always seemed wrong. We were Infantry for ****s sake!
Dudes living in housing on post had to have their POWs registered with the provost martial. Any weapon coming on post had to be, technically even civilians going to "public" ranges.
Been that way for years. Totally asinine, but nothing new.
Averageman
03-02-23, 08:19
That's honestly a fair description of it, for anything from hot plates in the barracks to having to be directly told not to rape anyone or thing every weekend.
Years ago while serving at Fort Hood I noticed that the small arms lanes were all in a row and that row of small arms ranges went for 10K's.
So I thought, why not start at one range, fire your M-4 for score, then run on down to the pistol range for time and shoot for score. You fire then move to the grenade range, then 203 range. There were a lot of very cool ways that training could have worked out and I think there might even have been a lesson or two to be learned.
I put that out there and you would have thought that I had slapped someones Momma.
It's exceedingly disheartening to work for people who always default to "Your Retarded" and you'll shoot yourself.
Range safety being everyone is rodded off a live fire range, I couldn't see an issue, but they treated me like I was advocating running with sissors.
Anti-gun policies or just more top brass assuming that all junior service members are too stupid and irresponsible to have access to firearms outside of carefully supervised training and when on duty?
The default of any command seems to be to treat everyone, particularly lower enlisted like they’re mentally retarded criminals.
That's honestly a fair description of it, for anything from hot plates in the barracks to having to be directly told not to rape anyone or thing every weekend.
Yep. Policies to fit the lowest common denominator.
Yep. Policies to fit the lowest common denominator.
This is what I come back to, looking from the outside. A relative describing what he has to deal with in the Navy, specifically the quality of recruits on the ethical and cognitive level, brings some understanding to this approach.
Years ago while serving at Fort Hood I noticed that the small arms lanes were all in a row and that row of small arms ranges went for 10K's.
So I thought, why not start at one range, fire your M-4 for score, then run on down to the pistol range for time and shoot for score. You fire then move to the grenade range, then 203 range. There were a lot of very cool ways that training could have worked out and I think there might even have been a lesson or two to be learned.
I put that out there and you would have thought that I had slapped someones Momma.
It's exceedingly disheartening to work for people who always default to "Your Retarded" and you'll shoot yourself.
Range safety being everyone is rodded off a live fire range, I couldn't see an issue, but they treated me like I was advocating running with sissors.
We actually did something like that, once, at Bragg. Marched out to the ranges, loaded up, and ran from one range down to the next, and cleared it left to right individually. Basically was a IPSC or 2-gun stage, but with everybody tired from the march, and the run to the range. Was actually some decent training, which is probably why we only did it once.
This is what I come back to, looking from the outside. A relative describing what he has to deal with in the Navy, specifically the quality of recruits on the ethical and cognitive level, brings some understanding to this approach.
My niece's husband's brother (with me?) just joined the air force. He is legit on the spectrum, has had problems with weed, and has been on psych meds. And he got in. He is why the policies exist.
Now a separate discussion is how he got in at all given the low quality of applicants overall....
My niece's husband's brother (with me?) just joined the air force. He is legit on the spectrum, has had problems with weed, and has been on psych meds. And he got in. He is why the policies exist.
Now a separate discussion is how he got in at all given the low quality of applicants overall....
I’m trying to avoid to avoid going there even though I want to. The stuff they’re talking about (mostly incentives at the moment) for recruiting is significant. Discussed or not, I feel like continual lowering of standards is always part of it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Averageman
03-03-23, 08:50
We actually did something like that, once, at Bragg. Marched out to the ranges, loaded up, and ran from one range down to the next, and cleared it left to right individually. Basically was a IPSC or 2-gun stage, but with everybody tired from the march, and the run to the range. Was actually some decent training, which is probably why we only did it once.
And this was my end goal.
It was of course deemed too dangerous for us to do at Battalion level, when in actuality, had they done it, it might have become a regular training event/competition.
It's actually quite a morale builder and good training, so we can't be doing any of that stuff.
I can see and comprehend the mindset of a lot of young Captains, they've been handed a lot of responcability and like that old game from the 60's "Time Bomb" eventually this is all going to fall apart on an innocent young Captain and he will lose his career over something trivial and not his fault.
But by the time you make LTC, you should have seen how being too risk adverse actually harms a Battalion. Sometimes you have to find innovative ways to keep everyones attention and one more Equal Oppertunity briefing isn't going to get that for you.
Amoung the Enlisted there is often a high level of "If I didn't think of it first, it's not worth doing." drama.
I’m trying to avoid to avoid going there even though I want to. The stuff they’re talking about (mostly incentives at the moment) for recruiting is significant. Discussed or not, I feel like continual lowering of standards is always part of it.
Heard. And I agree.
I was talking with an army recruiter recently, he said they are getting two types of people with interest: the super high achievers who want 18X, ranger contracts, etc., and bottom-dwelling mouth-breathers. At least the army is trying, and getting some decent results, with their new pre-basic school for the overweight and the folks who didn't do swell on the AFQS/ASVAB.
"Woke" policies are an issue, but just one of the issues. Physical issues (overweight and on certain meds), academic issues, "morality" issues (minor drug and crime offenses, etc.), they are all playing a part.
Averageman
03-03-23, 08:54
I’m trying to avoid to avoid going there even though I want to. The stuff they’re talking about (mostly incentives at the moment) for recruiting is significant. Discussed or not, I feel like continual lowering of standards is always part of it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
You know I would rather have a Platoon full of 22 year olds with GED's that a Platoon full of 25 year olds with Assosiate degree's.
The guys with GED's always worked harder, took things more serious and stayed out of or kept their malarky well hidden from me.
Some people couldn't sit in the hypocracy of High School for another moment and I dont blame them, I couldn't.
We actually did something like that, once, at Bragg. Marched out to the ranges, loaded up, and ran from one range down to the next, and cleared it left to right individually. Basically was a IPSC or 2-gun stage, but with everybody tired from the march, and the run to the range. Was actually some decent training, which is probably why we only did it once.
Years ago while serving at Fort Hood I noticed that the small arms lanes were all in a row and that row of small arms ranges went for 10K's.
So I thought, why not start at one range, fire your M-4 for score, then run on down to the pistol range for time and shoot for score. You fire then move to the grenade range, then 203 range. There were a lot of very cool ways that training could have worked out and I think there might even have been a lesson or two to be learned.
We did something similar, once a month, with some twists. Start with O course, 3-mile run, then timed 2-gun/multi-range shoot like y'all describe. Winner gets extra libo, loser buys beer. It was a huge hit. A lot of the regular infantry guys wanted it so our S3 guys came up with a training and range plan, and Big Corps shot it down, said "regular Marines couldn't handle it."
You know I would rather have a Platoon full of 22 year olds with GED's that a Platoon full of 25 year olds with Assosiate degree's.
The guys with GED's always worked harder, took things more serious and stayed out of or kept their malarky well hidden from me.
Some people couldn't sit in the hypocracy of High School for another moment and I dont blame them, I couldn't.
Most guys are trainable regardless of degree or education. Not all of them should be nuke engineers or SF or whatever. The military needs people in all jobs. Give me the people who want to be there and are motivated; I can train them. I don't care if they are on cholesterol meds (disqualifying), smoked week, or stole a car.
Range safety being everyone is rodded off a live fire range, I couldn't see an issue, but they treated me like I was advocating running with sissors.
Range Control on Ft Carson lost their minds when our Bde Commander said no rodding off the range, we would clear off the range using clearing barrels, you know, the way we were expected to do it during deployment.
Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk
Most guys are trainable regardless of degree or education. Not all of them should be nuke engineers or SF or whatever. The military needs people in all jobs. Give me the people who want to be there and are motivated; I can train them. I don't care if they are on cholesterol meds (disqualifying), smoked week, or stole a car.
Fully agreed. Intelligence, education, and even past history don’t mean much if someone actually wants to be there and will do their best to stay and do well. I’d take that all day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
davidjinks
03-03-23, 13:24
Wanna know how you prevent suicides in the Army?
Strengthen your leadership.
Make mental health services available at all times.
Stop stigmatizing soldiers who suffer from either PTSD or mental health issues.
BE A ****ING LEADER, FRIEND, BROTHER, OR SISTER TO THOSE YOU WOULD GIVE YOUR LIFE FOR!
https://www.thetacticalwire.com/features/201b03e9-5f3b-40ec-ae32-dd7839102801
As pro-gun groups continue to win lawsuits nationwide that overturn rules and regulations designed to make lawful ownership difficult -if not downright impossible- a new study forwarded to me last week had me doing a double take.
No, it wasn’t another report on the origins of COVID-19…that’s this generation’s Warren Commission Report. There will never be a clear answer to either question that will be acceptable to everyone.
This latest piece of “rigorous investigation” came to the conclusion that the Defense Department should implement a series of “gun safety measures” to reduce suicides in our “armed” forces.
Among their suggestions:
raising the minimum age for service members to buy guns and ammunition to 25,
require the registration of anyone living in military housing to register all privately owned firearms,
restrict the possession and storage of privately owned firearms in military barracks and dormitories.
waiting periods for the purchase of guns and ammunition by service members on military property.
The Suicide Prevention and Response Independent Review Committee was formed by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in May of last year to study the issue of military suicide. The recommendations are only three of the 127 overall recommendations. Additionally, the Committee recommended the Defense Department take steps to “slow down” troops access to guns - more specifically those bought in stores on bases -so “people under stress” can survive periods of high risk.
Their rationalization for the involuntary curtailment of that pesky 2A thing? Requirements the DoD puts on motorcycle use -mandated helmets- which are “often more strict than some state laws.”
One member of the committee said that troops should be “more receptive to such limits than civilians may be.” In other words, orders is orders and soldiers are trained -rigorously- to obey them.
The limit of personal firearms until age 25 was, ostensibly, driven by “historical patterns and data” that showed more than half off military suicides happen between ages 21 and 25. And the use of guns for suicides by service members -particularly men- increased after age 21.
In the same recommendations, the committee concluded that alcohol use and financial problems are often connected to suicides. Naturally, it concludes, the department should fix pay systems to avoid delays and address excessive alcohol use.
And that “complex and rigid hierarchical structure” of the military…well, these mental health experts feel that impedes the ability to “do” effective suicide prevention.
To someone my age who recalls outraged drill instructors when they were told corporal punishment as a “motivational technique” was no longer acceptable, this reads as something that might be written by The Babylon Bee under a headline reading “Military to Add Rigorous and Mandatory Warm Milk and Cookies Regimen to Basic Training” -but it’s not.
And my intent is definitely not to make fun of the serious issue of suicides in the military - or anywhere else.
It is not a joking matter. But it is, however, an area where the NSSF has worked alongside mental health professionals to try and create effective ways to prevent suicides with firearms.
The problem, unfortunately, isn’t the means of suicides - it’s recognition and intervention before a person is driven to that point.
That’s a mental health issue.
The recommendations of Secretary Austin’s Independent Review Committee also ignores an important fact: suicides in the active-duty military declined from 2021 through June 2022. There were sharp drops in the Air Force and Marine Corps last year -and a similar decline among Army soldiers during the first six months of 2022. Those numbers, FYI, are from the Pentagon, not the “independent review committee.”
We’ll doubtless see this “study” cited as a recommendation for actions by the DoD to further restrict weapons on military bases. It will likely also be the basis for more innocuously-titled piece of legislation ultimately designed to disarm “average Joes”- beginning with Joes of the G.I. variety.
We’ll keep you posted.
— Jim Shepherd
The willingness to trade dangerous freedom for the illusion of safety...
davidjinks
03-03-23, 13:24
Double tap
Range Control on Ft Carson lost their minds when our Bde Commander said no rodding off the range, we would clear off the range using clearing barrels, you know, the way we were expected to do it during deployment.
Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk
I had never heard of that one before. Is that a holdover from muzzle loader days?
Seems like a good way to check someone's grip strength till the pressure bleeds off since someone apparently thinks checking the chamber isn't working.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.