Posted on Jul 18, 2015
Would arming soldiers in government offices create more problems?
7.65K
132
66
18
17
1
Gen. Ray Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, told reporters that arming troops in those offices could cause more problems than it might solve.
"I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I'm not talking about where you end up attacking each other," Odierno said during a morning breakfast. Instead, he said, it's more about "accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries." -GEN Odierno
Isn't this a bit disheartening? Isn't he confident in the military training that all soldiers receive in our training. How can be over arming someone when they are not armed in the first place? Was the sign on the door enough to stop the attack or were they even armed at all?
Aren't we going over sees in the worst conditions possible and handling a weapon 24/7 for a year at times? I think soldiers would be the most qualified than anyone else to handle a weapon. One of the Marines that was killed had two Purple Hurts. I think he could have figured out how to safely handle a gun if he was given one.
Do you think giving soldiers guys would bring more problems? I am talking about soldiers assigned to offices that are away from the military infrastructure. I wouldn't just give every soldier the ability to carry a weapon. Or is this more of a political statement?
Does this make sense? The National Guard is leading the way on this and several States are Arming their Full Time personnel. I don't see how this could be a bad thing.
"I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I'm not talking about where you end up attacking each other," Odierno said during a morning breakfast. Instead, he said, it's more about "accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries." -GEN Odierno
Isn't this a bit disheartening? Isn't he confident in the military training that all soldiers receive in our training. How can be over arming someone when they are not armed in the first place? Was the sign on the door enough to stop the attack or were they even armed at all?
Aren't we going over sees in the worst conditions possible and handling a weapon 24/7 for a year at times? I think soldiers would be the most qualified than anyone else to handle a weapon. One of the Marines that was killed had two Purple Hurts. I think he could have figured out how to safely handle a gun if he was given one.
Do you think giving soldiers guys would bring more problems? I am talking about soldiers assigned to offices that are away from the military infrastructure. I wouldn't just give every soldier the ability to carry a weapon. Or is this more of a political statement?
Does this make sense? The National Guard is leading the way on this and several States are Arming their Full Time personnel. I don't see how this could be a bad thing.
Posted in these groups: 
Safety
Safety
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 26
12
12
0
SM's can't be trusted to have loaded weapons? What does that say about the confidence our own leadership has for us? I'm sure cops have accidental discharges (extremely rarely) so do we put a target on their chest and send them into harm's way unarmed? We have opened our borders to these pecker -less jagoffs and we are at war. They have publicly proclaimed war against us and their threats to attack service members on the homefront have come to fruition. Make a threat to top elected officials and it is a felony. The secret service will be up your butt with a electron microscope. Threaten our military and shoot up the offfices as advertised and we will shoot ourselves in the foot if we try to allow our GI's to defend themselves. I'll keep saying it, being a service member in this climate of wussification sucks and I salute each and every one of you for what you do. Go to war multiple times and be happy to survive only to come home and be killed on the homefront because you can't be trusted with weapons?? As a honorably retired multi-combat veteran, I exercise my freedom of speech and say "SUCK IT, Ray!" Anyone drawing down on my heroes in AZ is going to meet Allah. I'll post myself in front of the recruiting stations in my right to carry state (after checking in with them of course) and stand a post.
(12)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I am not a big fan of Ray Odinero. I just don't think this something that inspires soldiers or adds any value. If he would have said something like it would be difficult logistically or it would require additional training and policy making then I wouldn't have an issue. But that is about a lame excuse.
(7)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
This is the age of the political general officer. It has also crept lower than the general ranks. They will say or do nothing that might put a pension or career at risk or get hem sideways with the political establishment which I am sure is easy to do these days.
They always measure, measure, measure. Even though the good general likely has his own security detachment he would deny others the ability to protect themselves without some massive review, Said review will take weeks or months to complete and hopefully, by then, the fervor would have died down and they can do what they like to do, nothing.
They always measure, measure, measure. Even though the good general likely has his own security detachment he would deny others the ability to protect themselves without some massive review, Said review will take weeks or months to complete and hopefully, by then, the fervor would have died down and they can do what they like to do, nothing.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) agreed--CSA could have framed his response better. Maybe you know better, though, as you seem to be on a first name basis with him (might be best to refer to 4-stars by rank or position vs first name, though).
(2)
(0)
11
11
0
We went to weapons immersion in Basic Training to ensure our Soldiers could effectively carry and employ the weapon, and saw better qualification rates. I agree with you CPT (Join to see), weapons immersion would not be a problem and would probably do a great thing to remind our Soldiers that while we are in a Garrison environment, our mission is to train and be prepared to shoot the enemy in the face.
(11)
(0)
7
7
0
Then why do we carry our weapons loaded on FOB's for deployment. If we can do it there out of a matter of necessity, we should be allowed to do it here. My suggestion is just have clearing barrels by the buildings. Or, for instance, staff duty and CQ could be armed; and when they do their rounds take the weapon with you. Just figure out that you need a government vehicle, can't leave post, and any other little details to iron out the situation.
(7)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
It doesn't seem like it would be very difficult. I wouldn't just give any soldier a weapon but a one day class wouldn't be unreasonable. That is all it takes for most concealed carry already in most states. If they are trained to be familiar with the ROE then lets arm a few of them.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Do we carry loaded weapons on FOBs? It's been a few years for me, but I clearly remember the clearing barrel drill at the entry of every FOB from my deployments......
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
For me, Jeff, it depended on the FOB, the circumstances, and the chain of command. My first deployment, we were Amber 24/7, except when we went to Camp Victory for a meeting or something. During my Afghan tour where we were advisors, we were Amber. On my last tour in Iraq, we were Amber. But on the bigger bases, or when the threat allowed for it, we were Green with a mag on our persons.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Ken Prescott
SSG Grams, because in the FOB, you're much more likely to need that weapon immediately than in the States. And I've heard all manner of weapons safety stories from the tip of the spear.
It's a risk management issue. I believe, from my own experience as a POG and seeing today's POGs, that you'd end up killing and wounding more people through NDs than ISIS would kill or wound if they did a full-court press.
Also, consider the prospect of an ND that injures or kills a civilian. Yeah, the weapons will get pulled immediately after THAT happens.
It's a risk management issue. I believe, from my own experience as a POG and seeing today's POGs, that you'd end up killing and wounding more people through NDs than ISIS would kill or wound if they did a full-court press.
Also, consider the prospect of an ND that injures or kills a civilian. Yeah, the weapons will get pulled immediately after THAT happens.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google