NAS Pensacola shooting leads Navy instructor pilots to tell top brass: 'Arm us'

[Grand58742]

I will say this in light of my former profession as a .mil LEO...

Many bases, USAF in particular, have damn good cops and DoD Police on duty and ready to go at a moment's notice. Reaction times are under five minutes for most incidents and probably less in such a situation. Fort Hood actually had a decent response time by the DoD Guard (Kim Munley) that arrived on scene first since she had been in that area. However, the damage had been done already. Why?

First off, because the military by and large loves to concentrate large amounts of people in confined spaces (briefings, processing, ceremonies, etc) without proper protection. I.E. no armed guards nearby or assigned. Should be an easy fix to have someone already armed, trained and proficient helping with force protection, right?

Wrong. The military, by and large, doesn't like for its members to be walking around with firearms because "OMG! SOMEONE HAS A WEAPON AND THAT'S UNSAFE!" Emphasis on small arms training is generally relegated to pre-deployment/deployment times and heaven forbid if they actually spent some time and effort into keeping a bunch of non-traditional combat arms folks trained AND with weapons nearby. Maybe?

Nope, let's keep them locked away in an armory somewhere else on base because heaven forbid we actually buy a safe or some form of weapon locker and keep firearms in work areas where they just might be needed. Because we have cops on base, right?

And they're minutes away when seconds count. I know this for a fact because I lived it for twenty years. Furthermore, non-combat roles that never see a weapon with the exception of deployment, think of carrying a firearm as a nuisance and have zero proficiency with it. That might involve actually spending money, time and training to ensure every Soldier, Sailor, Marine and Airman is an individual force protection asset and initial responder for times like these. Commanders don't want that. Why? It can't ever happen here...

Until it does. And do we change? Nope. The situation will continue and more unnecessary deaths will continue on military bases because:

A. They lack the funding to train even a small percentage of military members to be armed in the workplace
B. They lack the desire to have even a small percentage of military members trained to be armed in the workplace
C. They lack the weapons to actually have a small percentage of military members trained to be armed in the workplace
D. It won't affect them until it actually happens, then wait a couple of months and go back to what they were doing before
E. Frankly, military leadership doesn't trust their subordinates outside of a combat zone to carry weapons in the workplace unless they are LEOs, SOF or going to/from the range

Most every base out there worldwide, save hostile fire zones, is a potential Disneyland for an active shooter. Does the military change?

Nope.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Wrong. The military, by and large, doesn't like for its members to be walking around with firearms because "OMG! SOMEONE HAS A WEAPON AND THAT'S UNSAFE!" Emphasis on small arms training is generally relegated to pre-deployment/deployment times and heaven forbid if they actually spent some time and effort into keeping a bunch of non-traditional combat arms folks trained AND with weapons nearby. Maybe?

Protip: if you're a military officer, trusted by the entire nation to kill enemies on command, but they don't trust you to carry a pistol at all times for self defense - your military branch is rotten, rotten to the core. No offense intended to the honorable officers and enlisted serving, but tons of offense intended to the SecDef, 4-stars and others responsible for this CF. That includes presidents Bush-41 onward for the stupid policy.

And why TF are we training Saudi terrorists? Oh I imagine it's a combination of encouraging lucrative arms sales and keeping the cheap oil flowing, but neither of those is good enough. This is borderline treason.

[Diamondback]

First off, because the military by and large loves to concentrate large amounts of people in confined spaces (briefings, processing, ceremonies, etc) without proper protection. I.E. no armed guards nearby or assigned.

IOW, learned NOTHING from Pearl Harbor and that drunken oaf Louis Brereton getting an entire air-force worth of B-17s destroyed on the ground in the Philippines. This is what you get when you dissolve an institution that understands what happens when you concentrate HVT's in one place... SAC understood that when you scatter the B-52s you don't get 'em all taken out by one MIRV.

History repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce.

[MegademiC]

Protip: if you're a military officer, trusted by the entire nation to kill enemies on command, but they don't trust you to carry a pistol at all times for self defense - your military branch is rotten, rotten to the core. No offense intended to the honorable officers and enlisted serving, but tons of offense intended to the SecDef, 4-stars and others responsible for this CF. That includes presidents Bush-41 onward for the stupid policy.

And why TF are we training Saudi terrorists? Oh I imagine it's a combination of encouraging lucrative arms sales and keeping the cheap oil flowing, but neither of those is good enough. This is borderline treason.

These people can drive tanks, fly a10s, f18s, drop moabs, plant explosives, etc...
but cant carry a pistol or rifle “on duty”?


Makes sense.

[Diamondback]

These people can drive tanks, fly a10s, f18s, drop moabs, plant explosives, etc...
but cant carry a pistol or rifle “on duty”?


Makes sense.

"You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"

[1168]

Generally speaking, the military is terrified of firearms and considers armed service members a safety liability. Even on weapons ranges with non-infantry, non-SOF units, there is a level of safety and regulation paranoia that most members here would find confusing. Hell, even on some bases in warzones, you have policies about whether firearms can be loaded or not.

[Grand58742]

Generally speaking, the military is terrified of firearms and considers armed service members a safety liability. Even on weapons ranges with non-infantry, non-SOF units, there is a level of safety and regulation paranoia that most members here would find confusing. Hell, even on some bases in warzones, you have policies about whether firearms can be loaded or not.

I recall one instance post 9-11 where we were having a base exercise and our commander (a Lt Col) was always supportive of his folks and armed up since he was "on duty." He went to a meeting with the Group leadership and was tossed out because the Group Commander "didn't want guns in my staff meeting."

When such a culture exists and even the top cop on base isn't allowed in briefings because he's armed, there's a problem.

[WillBrink]

A US military base outsourced their security for the base.

Let that sink in.

[Arik]

A US military base outsourced their security for the base.

Let that sink in.

Was it at the entrance or inside? Someone I know works on a Naval Base and the gate security is outsourced but everything inside the gate is Navy MP. So basically to enter you're dealing with a security company. Once you enter you deal with MPs

[chuckman]

Dumb question but don’t they have like MPs?

Unless things have changed, they (Navy bases) have DoD police. The ones I have run into have been pretty good and not BS ball-breakers like MPs (*cough* Camp Lejeune *cough*).....

I have read that some of them have contracted police, which is new for me (I have been out a few years now....)