Why do we prevent Soldiers from carrying personal weapons...

[Hip_Flask]

... On post when we trust them with government weapons that have exponentially more destructive power?

http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/04/02/here-are-the-rules-on-carrying-firearms-on-fort-hood/

[Loudly]

1. I think you're asking the wrong question.

Why do we allow someone to go to the Guns Galore store in Killeen Texas and buy a gun and ammunition?

[pipoman]

2. It is a controlled environment

Where people get up and go to work doing the same kinds of things everyone else does.

[Bandit]

3. They don't trust soldiers with guns without oversight

Guns are kept in the Armory. When a gun is issued to a soldier it is for a specific purpose and most of the time no ammunition is issued with the gun.

[cthulu2016]

4. Because the military, unlike broader society, takes gun seriously

[Paladin]

5. +1. (nt)

[NuclearDem]

8. Yep.

If there's one thing I can say about my time in the service, they taught me very well and very often NOT to fuck around with guns.

[MineralMan]

6. Because military weapons are for fighting wars.

They are issued, when needed, to military personnel. When not needed, they are stored in the armory.

[Hip_Flask]

7. It seems they might be needed at Fort Hood...

[MineralMan]

11. The Military Police at Fort Hood is armed.

They work in law enforcement. Everyone else is unarmed, unless they are at the range for training. When you think about how often someone starts shooting at a military base, you'll find that it's no more frequent than what happens in most cities. I suspect that if everyone at Ft. Hood was carrying arms around all the time, more shootings would occur there.

I think you haven't served in the military, based on what you're writing about this awful incident. They're a lot like a city. When military units are not in combat, they don't have any reason to be armed, except during training exercised. In fact, you'll find far fewer armed people on a military base than in most communities. The military is quite careful about firearms. They understand firearms. That's why.

Firearms are for killing the enemy, as far as the military is concerned. If there's no battle going on in the area, they aren't needed. So, they're stored.

Merely arming people doesn't really prevent violence. Truly, it doesn't.

[Hip_Flask]

12. I would suggest the same for you...

Last edited Thu Apr 3, 2014, 11:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Speaking as a former MP, I'd much rather trust my senior NCOs and their personal weapons as compared to PV2 Snuffy who just finished ADT and OJT armed with a trusty Beretta 91 that hasn't been fired in 18 months.

Not to mention response times....

A base is just like a city with all of the normal threats and a few extra and there is no reason to deny our service members the right to defend themselves.

I could even get behind annual certification along the same lines as all the motorcycle safety requirements.

[Historic NY]

9. In both the Washington Navy Yard case...

and Norfolk the weapons were obtained on post from the guard station and in the second from the shore patrol officer. If the premise is that all soldiers should be permitted to carry how would one determine who an offender would be. In this case and in the previous Ft Hood case the uniformed soldiers easily got weapons onto the base. The incidents were terminated by the intervention of armed police/security detachments. Perhaps increasing weapons screening procedures at the gates is necessary. Let no one pass....

[NightWatcher]

10. because they shouldn't need them on base, only in foreign wars

The Taliban aren't attacking Ft Hood.