Are we, as uniformed service memebers, soft targets?

2015-01-27T16:49:31-05:00

With recent threats from ISIS and the like, should military installations revisit policies related to personally owned/carried weapons?

Response by SGT Steven Eugene Kuhn MBA made Jan 27 at 2015 4:56 PM

2015-01-27T16:56:56-05:00

Im here to read the comments! his should be good!

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2015 4:59 PM

2015-01-27T16:59:24-05:00

I feel safe on Fort Meade. I sometimes go to the ATM at 0-dark-thirty, and I feel very safe. I don't think a terrorist is going to get on post. I know it could happen, but the checks in place are pretty darned good. Bases are certainly much more secure than most public places. Bottom line: I feel very secure and safe on post.

I don't see us a a soft target, any more than any city or town. But I am sympathetic to the argument that military members should be allowed to carry weapons posted by Capt Richard I P.:

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces

Arm the Armed Forces! | RallyPoint

The outcome of the discussion "Concealed carry for CAC holders?" by [~222148:SGT Bernard Boyer III]. Below follows my skeleton letter to congress, based on the edits RP members have suggested to the 10 points. Anyone and everyone is welcome to edit and personalize the letter for their own use in writing to their congressional representatives. We sent a mass email on 3 January, the swearing in of the new congress, now it's a free for all. You...

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 27 at 2015 6:20 PM

2015-01-27T18:20:40-05:00

I can talk a little about this in TWO ways.

1) Former Intelligence Analyst

2) Former Gun Dealer

Statistically, ANY American on US Soil is unlikely to be a Soft Target. Your chances of being targeted by a terrorist is "Statistically Zero." Even if you account for 9/11, and the bombings.... it is still statistically zero. It is so infinitely small that you should not even consider it.

Now, if you treat military installations as Gun Free zones. It might be argued that makes them as a whole soft targets, however they do have controlled access, and their own security.

But, let's work under the assumption that carrying personal weapons might be worthwhile.

This adds risk. It becomes a risk vs reward issue. What is the gain, do we add more than we lose? As an occupational hazard it is hard to say that we do.

When we speak of the same issue in the civilian community, it is always tempered against our fundamental Rights. That however is not a concern when dealing with military installations, and military personnel.

Since we are speaking strictly of a "Public Safety" standpoint, and the statistical likelihood of needing to defend oneself on government controlled installations, the tempering of Civil Rights is moot. In other words, adding Concealed Carry won't make you safer on base, and will likely make you less safe just from overall exposure.

NOTE: Firm believer in the 2a, and proponent in Concealed Carry. However, the QUESTION AS POSED is not a 2a question. It is about Soft Targets on Military Installations, and whether Concealed Carry would help.

I am offering my ASSESSMENT on that aspect only.

Response by CPT Chris Loomis made Jan 27 at 2015 7:18 PM

2015-01-27T19:18:12-05:00

I think that we as a whole are soft targets when on base. There are adequate SECFOR and force protection measures in place.

However, I do believe that we, all service members, are targets off base to one degree or another. And I've posted about that topic before here on RP. by far and large we should all take measures to increase our safety when off post.

On the topic of all service members carry concealed weapons on and off post, honestly, i straddle the fence. I've met some young Soldiers that I would trust with my life and that of my family's. And I've met young Soldiers that I wouldn't trust to replace toilet paper in the latrine. There's a certain aspect of maturity and responsibility that goes with carrying a weapon. There are huge issues with regulation and compliance also.....

Safety is a very complex issue.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2015 8:10 PM

2015-01-27T20:10:09-05:00

First, the threat from ISIS is exceptionally low. You may have some "fringe lunatics" that may come with their own ideas, however ISIS has blown so much smoke and hype that they are devaluing themselves as a credible "outward" threat. Al Queda threatened the United States, Great Britain, and a few "western" nations, but they maintained focus. So far, ISIS has threatened the US, UK, Turkey, Spain, France, Iraq, Russia, Japan, etc.

It is similar to the Westboro Baptist Church with the picketing funerals. First it was the military and people were shocked and offended. Then it was military events and people were shocked and offended. Then it was public events and people started not to care. Finally it was basically ANYTHING to try to get that "shock value".

Is ISIS a credible threat? ABSOLUTELY. Do they have organized plans that are well underway? Probably not. They should be eradicated before they have a chance to solidify their boundaries. However, they are focused on establishing locally.

To get to the point of the original message, there are several factors to consider. I think that allowing CCW among Soldiers that have met the civilian requirement is fine. However, simply saying "You have a CAC, you are now capable of having that privilege at all times." No. Think of the last battalion range. I have seen field grade officers that don't know that their weapons aren't loaded. I've seen company grade officers that couldn't tell that the rounds were loaded backwards in the magazine. Enlisted that thought that they had a critical weapons malfunction and stopped a range for upwards of 10 minutes until finally the THIRD NCO to look at the weapon performed SPORTS and realized that a magazine wasn't seated properly. People that fail to follow directions and go back to attempt to handle their weapon while others are downrange. I even know of a case where a Soldier fired an AT4 BACKWARDS. These people lack the knowledge and discipline to make a split second decision necessary, and as such do not deserve the right to concealed carry without further training.

Then you have the competition of egos. For a select minority of the population, firearms enhance the potential for firearms related issues especially with alcohol involved. Someone's drinking in the barracks, gets angry and starts a fight and one or the other needs to draw a weapon to defend themselves. Now, what would have been a simple "barracks brawl" turns into a fatal shooting. I'm sorry to say that this stuff happens.

To those that are responsible and have undergone the proper training and maintaining of handling firearms in a safe, mature, and effective manner, I absolutely support arming them to prevent tragedies like Fort Hood and Fort Bliss. However, I am a firm believer of required extended training, much like is required for motorcycle operation. The harsh reality is the "consummate professional" that we all expect from a man or woman wearing the uniform of the United States military is not always the realities. Look at US Army WTF Moments, where people are wearing uniforms like thugs and flashing gang signs.

It should be a privilege, not a right. Base safety is generally a good deterrent for a majority of basic threats, but should not be the sole determining factor. Likewise, the wear of the uniform should not be the sole factor in determining an individuals decision making capacity with regards to concealed or openly carrying loaded firearms while on post, just as it isn't in the realm of the general public.