Finally some common sense.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/2...5-shooting-that-left-5-dead.html?intcmp=hpbt2
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/2...5-shooting-that-left-5-dead.html?intcmp=hpbt2
Air Force tells brass they can OK guns on base, citing 2015 shooting that left 5 dead
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
200Apples
Mojave Lever Crew
.
That is good news!
.
That is good news!
.
USAF_Vet
Member
Woohoo! Go Air Force, we may not exercise during PT, but we can exercise some common sense!
Still, no base commander is going to authorize it. They don't want the liability if something does go wrong.
Still, no base commander is going to authorize it. They don't want the liability if something does go wrong.
Panzerschwein
member
Ever worked at a TACP squadron?
You will get plenty of exercise during PT!
!Glad to hear this news.
USAF_Vet
Member
It was a jokeEver worked at a TACP squadron?
You will get plenty of exercise during PT!
Glad to hear this news.
No, never a TAC-P, but I was assigned to the 353rd SOG (353 SOMXS) and they PT'd the ever loving crap out of us.
Commanders have always had the authority to OK guns. As Maj. Quick states in the article: "None of these programs gives the installation commander authorizations they didn't already have the authorization to do..."
They just don't do it. I doubt that this "reminder" will change things.
They just don't do it. I doubt that this "reminder" will change things.
Shovelhead
Member
Most bases now are "Joint Bases" under Navy command.
Been watching the steady decline of our Air Base since the Squids took over.
With the Navy, if it doesn't directly float or fly, it gets no funding.
So basically the AF commander has limited authority.
Been watching the steady decline of our Air Base since the Squids took over.
With the Navy, if it doesn't directly float or fly, it gets no funding.
So basically the AF commander has limited authority.
Devonai
Member
Having sat through several command-level meetings on the subject, I'm confident my base will never authorize anyone other than Security Forces, OSI, or LE personnel to carry for one reason: the insider threat. They want to be sure that anyone not wearing a beret or wielding a Jedi talisman (badge) can immediately be assumed to be a hostile if they are armed.
My meager opinion is that arming NCOs and officers who are willing is a simple matter of keeping a roster and making sure we understand the ROE. Even if that's limited to defending the shelter-in-place location or locked office we may find ourselves in during an active shooter lockdown.
But even that will never happen.
My meager opinion is that arming NCOs and officers who are willing is a simple matter of keeping a roster and making sure we understand the ROE. Even if that's limited to defending the shelter-in-place location or locked office we may find ourselves in during an active shooter lockdown.
But even that will never happen.
It's an Active Duty issue based on their hierarchal authority needs, mostly ego on the part of the Command chain.
We had no such illusions in the Reserves. The large number of LEO's, State Troopers, Federal Agents, and Free Citizens of our Grand Republic carried whenever and wherever they considered it necessary, and long before CCW became common.
Case in point the recruiter station shooting -
Command can say whatever they like about no guns on post. I can say from experience and practice - with your career on the line, concealed means concealed, ok? Guns are already on post simply because of the stupid no guns policies. When you deliberately set up a culture to grow up Alpha males, you get Alpha males giving lip service to policy and doing exactly what they want anyway.
My company has a no guns policy yet the locations that have had shootings in the building seem to be treated differently . . . DOD is no different. "DO WHAT I SAY" is the policy to keep overenthusiastic juvenile young males from getting out of hand. "Do you have your carry piece?" is what happens among the adults charged with responsibly conducting business.
The public conversation is to appear as if the Chain of Command has control over who is carrying on post, when the reality is that there already are responsible adults carrying where they think needful. What we have seen with on post shootings is that they are chosen by site the same as civilian shootings - where they see mostly defenseless people. A mobilization station processing soldiers who may be subject to medical scrutiny isn't where you want to be found carrying. The administration of that process aren't trained trigger pullers, they are HR types.
You don't see shooters going for the MP's in their house anymore than terrorists attacking a police station. Cowards choose victims.
Kudos to the AF for the conversation, it won't change bullheaded Army Commanders toeing the line until it becomes an OER rating issue. Then they will fall all over themselves to line up.
We had no such illusions in the Reserves. The large number of LEO's, State Troopers, Federal Agents, and Free Citizens of our Grand Republic carried whenever and wherever they considered it necessary, and long before CCW became common.
Case in point the recruiter station shooting -
Command can say whatever they like about no guns on post. I can say from experience and practice - with your career on the line, concealed means concealed, ok? Guns are already on post simply because of the stupid no guns policies. When you deliberately set up a culture to grow up Alpha males, you get Alpha males giving lip service to policy and doing exactly what they want anyway.
My company has a no guns policy yet the locations that have had shootings in the building seem to be treated differently . . . DOD is no different. "DO WHAT I SAY" is the policy to keep overenthusiastic juvenile young males from getting out of hand. "Do you have your carry piece?" is what happens among the adults charged with responsibly conducting business.
The public conversation is to appear as if the Chain of Command has control over who is carrying on post, when the reality is that there already are responsible adults carrying where they think needful. What we have seen with on post shootings is that they are chosen by site the same as civilian shootings - where they see mostly defenseless people. A mobilization station processing soldiers who may be subject to medical scrutiny isn't where you want to be found carrying. The administration of that process aren't trained trigger pullers, they are HR types.
You don't see shooters going for the MP's in their house anymore than terrorists attacking a police station. Cowards choose victims.
Kudos to the AF for the conversation, it won't change bullheaded Army Commanders toeing the line until it becomes an OER rating issue. Then they will fall all over themselves to line up.
Apachedriver
Member
In 2006, the policy at Fort Hood, Tx was that soldiers could enter post with an unregistered (with PMO) firearm as long as certain conditions were met. It had to be unloaded, stored (not carried), and you had to be transitioning through post without any stops. This policy was suspended and then revoked once the jihadi MAJ went on his shooting spree at the mobilization site.
I know it's not the same as what the USAF has come out and stated but it was a start in the right direction by a pro-soldier Commanding General that believed in his returning combat vets.
So kudos to the USAF for restarting the conversation. Hopefully, it'll find the balance it needs to move in the direction dictated by the today's threat.
Last edited:
- Status