Posted on Apr 3, 2014
SGT James Elphick
10.6K
12
18
3
3
0
In light of the shooting at Ft. Hood yesterday, the previous shooting at Ft. Hood, and the general sense that military posts are a shooting gallery should we arm the duty officers? I would suggest from the company CQ on up. Have the NCOIC or OIC armed with a 9mm in order to quickly respond to any such situation. I suggest this over allowing all NCO's and Officers carrying due to the logistics of regulating and maintaining such a move. Thoughts?
Posted in these groups: Activeshooter Active Shooter
Edited >1 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 8
SSG Instructor/Writer
1
1
0


Forgive me in advance; this might get a little long. 



First off, I think it’s sad that we’re even having this
discussion, but I blame that on today’s society.  Things are different now; some people have a
very low value of human life, whether it’s someone else’s or their own.



On 2 March 1995 at Ft. Riley we had a Soldier come into the
Barracks with a shot gun and shot and killed two other
soldiers and wounded another before shooting himself.  All of  the soldiers that were able to get out watched
helplessly  from the parking lot as one
of our battle buddies bled out on a ledge and no one could get to him.  It took hours before it was over.  The MP’s never entered the building until
they heard the muffled pop of the shooter taking his own life.



With that being said and knowing what happened when my unit
went through that exact same thing,  I
hate knowing that I have to wait and rely on someone else to show up and handle
the situation if it should come up. 



We are all trained professionals, some better than
others.  While we’re down range we all
carry weapons with a full basic load.  You
don’t see this kind of thing going on down range because it would last all of
10 seconds before someone dropped the shooter. 
I don’t see it any different being at our home stations or
deployed.  It’s still force protection; in
an active shooter situation too much damage can be done by the time that law
enforcement arrives. 

When
off post my wife and I both carry simply because we don’t trust the world we live in
today.   I’m not saying that I’m the most trained to
handle a active shooter, but I’m not going to wait 30 minutes for someone to
show up to help and hope that my Family and I are going to be ok. 



(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Tj West
1
1
0
I can just see it now . . . You show up for CQ and get issued your ROE for the night. 


There are a handful of places online that have been asking this very question in poll format.  The matter is complex and not as simple as just allowing senior NCOs and/or field grade officers to carry and/or arming CQ and SD positions.  As a starter, in my unit the soldiers who typically got stuck on CQ and/or SD were frequently guys where were either being RFSed from the Ranger Regiment or booted from the army entirely (depending on the severity of the infraction).  These are not the caliber of soldiers that most would typically want to see armed for the benefit of everyone else.  Moreover, attaining the rank of E-7 or O-4 may be indicative of the maturity necessary to walk around post armed, but if the idea is for these individuals to be armed as a deterrent to potential shooters then I suggest that it's probably better to look at whether they're equipped to handle the responsibility of being a first responder in an active shooter scenario.  No offense intended, but your average O-4 has probably not received an appropriate amount of training with respect to such scenarios, even if he's qualified at the range with his pistol.  Then you add another layer of complexity in that most military installations are open, or relatively open, to the general public.  Between soldiers, spouses, kids, employees, and private contractors most installations are virtual cities onto themselves, with all sorts of legal implications that come into play as related to the non-soldier folks who live, work, and play on post.  
 

I'm not saying we shouldn't take some appropriate measures to better protect the troops, and maybe increasing the number of armed individuals on post is one measure that should be considered.  I just don't think it's as easy as simply identifying broad groups of people to allow/require to be armed without thinking about things such as the expectations of the newly armed folks (first responder? deterrent? ROE? legal risk of engaging shooter, especially if you engage a civilian or miss the shooter and accidentally hit a soldier or civilian? required to engage or simply permitted? required to carry or simply permitted?) and what training is required to meet those expectations.

(1)
Comment
(0)
SGT James Elphick
SGT James Elphick
>1 y
Those are some very good, interesting, and valid points. It made me think that having a dedicated unit first responder, someone who merits the responsibilities, has the appropriate training, etc. I had forgotten that often times the soldiers on CQ/Staff duty are there for less than favorable reasons. Having Unit First Responder be a special duty might work but like you said, there are many issues involved with having that type of position no matter who the soldier is or how qualified they are. And I agree that the situation is certainly more complex than just arbitrarily arming certain duties or individuals.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Michael Hasbun
1
1
0
Only if the individual has the necessary training and education. It should be about demonstrated competence, not rank. Do we really think a Band or Supply Sergeant major is more competent with a weapon than an Infantry or MP SPC? An incompetent SFC will be more of a liability than a well trained PFC...If you want to restrict it by rank (everyone who meets xxx training requirements, and is xxx rank or above), that's fine, but arbitrarily handing out weapons to non trained personnel because they happen to be XXX rank is an accident waiting to happen...
(1)
Comment
(0)
SGT James Elphick
SGT James Elphick
>1 y
I agree completely. This would mean that NCO's and Officers would have to receive training prior to being allowed to have staff duty/CQ. I understand there are inherent differences in weapons training between MOS's but a pistol qual and Active Shooter Response class don't seem like too much to ask to be able to quickly and effectively respond to this type of situation
(1)
Reply
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
SFC Michael Hasbun
>1 y
And as a military, should we ever consider training a bad idea? Especially weapons training.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SGT James Elphick
SGT James Elphick
>1 y
No, no we should not
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close