Arm the duty officer?

SGT James Elphick — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:15:04 -0400

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?

Response by SFC Robert Trodahl made Apr 3 at 2014 10:33 AM

SFC Robert Trodahl — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:33:45 -0400

Maybe not carrying it, but easily accessable in case of emergency?

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 12:15 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:15:18 -0400

Agreed Completely SGT.

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Apr 3 at 2014 12:23 PM

SFC Stephen P. — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:23:14 -0400

There will be no arming of non security/police personnel until the liability to the commander for insufficient force protection outweighs his liability for misbehavior and negligence of the armed troops.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 12:26 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:26:25 -0400

My opinion is that Senior NCOs (SFC and above) as well as Field grade officers (MAJ and above) should be allowed to carry weapons. I know many will disagree and start quoting the NCO creed to me, especially the part of "I will not use my grade or position to attain pleasure, profit or personal safety". I got it. In the end it is not for my personal safety it would be the safety for everbody.

Why do I limit it to senior NCOs and Field Grade officers? I feel that at that level we have already been entrusted by DA and POTUS to protect, lead, train etc our Soldiers. We are assigned the duty and responsibility to deploy them to a combat zone, and the expectation is that we bring them all back home. The responsibility at those ranks are reserved for those that have shown through leadership that they are capable of carrying out those duties.

I further understand that the 2009 Shooting was carried out by a MAJ. So that blows my whole argument really. Though we have to remember that medical and legal officers are comissioned as CPTs and not LTs. Most of them will never have the responsibility of being platoon leaders and some even company commanders before making MAJ.

Just a few of my thoughts, and thought I would share.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Apr 3 at 2014 12:31 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:31:04 -0400

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...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2014 12:53 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:53:07 -0400

Terrible idea, first of all the NCOIC or OIC cannot be everywhere at once, second what if the NCOIC or OIC is the one that goes on a rampage and shoots everyone?

Just because you are an officer or NCO, does not give you the knowledge or responsibility to handle a firearm, if we ever go that route there has to be other things added, to include background checks, extensive training, psych evals, etc

Response by SGT Tj West made Apr 3 at 2014 2:01 PM

SGT Tj West — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 14:01:39 -0400

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.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2014 9:40 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:40:45 -0400

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.