Military Bases as "Gun Free Zones"


PDA






USAFRetired
November 13, 2009, 02:03 PM
I ran across this op-ed piece yesterday and it got me thinking. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/10/john-lott-ft-hood-end-gun-free-zone/

I'm retired military and we have a base close by. I can tell you first hand that the military law enforcement / security police are stretched thin and spend most of their time deployed, (to the point that they have contracted private security folks manning the gates).

So, in light of recent events, and since no one is presently allowed to carry on base except LEOs, why not start allowing (requiring) select officers and NCOs to carry an issued sidearm.

There should, of course, be strict criteria and regular GOOD training for those selected.

I belive if something like this had been in place at Ft. Hood things would not have turned out nearly as badly.

If you enjoyed reading about "Military Bases as "Gun Free Zones"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
the foot
November 13, 2009, 09:18 PM
I agree - I am retired AF, work on an airbase. I don't carry on base due to the rules. However, I think it is a good idea to let a military member or retiree carry on base, if the person has a state license to carry.

jnyork
November 13, 2009, 09:58 PM
So, in light of recent events, and since no one is presently allowed to carry on base except LEOs, why not start allowing (requiring) select officers and NCOs to carry an issued sidearm.



I am retired AF. I absolutely agree with this, present policy is a relic. I just dont want the barracks drunks waving firearms around at 0200 after a spree.

Titan6
November 14, 2009, 08:16 AM
I can tell you first hand that the military law enforcement / security police are stretched thin and spend most of their time deployed, (to the point that they have contracted private security folks manning the gates).

The private security idea started well before the war. This was a cost saving measure implemented across the board over several years. Private security is about half the cost of having soldiers manning the gates.

esquare
November 14, 2009, 09:59 AM
The Fort Hood incident (very tragic!) just goes to show the utter stupidity of gun free zones. Of all places to have a 'successful' mass murder shooting, in a fort! Doesn't the military find this at least incredibly embarrassing, if not down right convicting?

Let's see, we recruit and train 18 yr olds to fight, equip them with all sorts of weapons (guns, grenades, rockets, mortars, etc) and send them off. Yet, we don't allow those same people to carry a sidearm while in base? If you have been through basic training, you should be able to carry a pistol at all times.

I can't believe our government values the lives of our troops so little that it has stripped them of basic means of self defense in an area where they spend most of their time.

Okay, rant over, for now.

hatchetbearer
November 14, 2009, 10:13 AM
As far as my experience of marine bases go, we do this to a limited effect, When I was in camp guard, we carried rifles, and our Sergeant carried his TO weapon, a sidearm. yet we as well were stretched entirely too thin, (18 on 6 off) If all bases adopted something like this, with the addition of every occupied building having an armed NCO to respond.

If you enjoyed reading about "Military Bases as "Gun Free Zones"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!