Chattanooga and military life

[TwinReverb]

First, yes, I'm probably upset, but here goes.

The shooting in Chattanooga was preventable. Let military types carry in uniform. Current policy is that you don't unless armed by your commander.

Recruiting stations are often not federal land, but leased land. As such, i don't see why we can't let military recruiters carry to defend themselves.

And with terrorists targeting us, there's no reason to keep active duty members in uniform who are off installation from carrying in accordance with state and local laws.

I say it's time. Please contact your representatives and tell them they need to let us carry.

Sincerely,
TwinReverb

 

[herrwalther]

The shooting in Chattanooga was preventable. Let military types carry in uniform. Current policy is that you don't unless allowed by your commander.

Fixed that for you. I have been on a few (scant few) military posts that the commander allowed or merely turned a blind eye to carrying private firearms. But yes. Anyone military personnel trained and qualified should be allowed to carry on post. There have been far too many attacks directed at military personnel. A close friend of mine was a platoon leader whose unit was deemed non-deployable because of the amount of soldiers injured and killed by Maj Nassan in the first Ft Hood shooting.

 

[hso]

A uniform isn't a carry permit and recruiting offices that are not at Armories don't have arms rooms. Commanders in the U.S. aren't going to permit carry of personal firearms.

Remember the worst terrorist attack on military personnel on U.S. soil occurred on base by a member of the military.

It will be a hard sell, but Recruiting stations are going to be soft targets of opportunity even if staff are permitted to carry.

 

[jmr40]

There were 2 locations attacked. Not only a recruiting station, but a Navy/Marine reserve headquarters. The 4 Marines were killed at the reserve center. There is no reason they were unarmed.

I have a BIL and several close friends who used to be in that Marine unit. All are since retired. I attended the homecoming celebration there in 1991 when they returned home from the 1st Gulf war. Every Marine stepped off the airplane, boarded the bus from the airport and then off the bus carrying their M-16's and M9's in 1991. The weapons were returned to the armories after greeting family.

When I went back in 2005 for the homecoming celebration they turned in their weapons before leaving Iraq.

That unit has deployed at least 3 times since then. I have no idea how they do things now.

 

[EIB0879]

Most stand alone Guard and Reserve armories weren't guarded back in the 70's and 80's and believe me, we were concerned. Especially when we were convoying from home station to AT with racks of M-16s and M-60 machine guns.

I had a couple of LEOs as Sergeants when I was a Detachment and Company Commander that I allowed to carry under their BDUs. They also carried when we operated on public land. Never knew when you might end up in someone's "garden".

 

[22-rimfire]

TwinReverb, how exactly were the shootings preventable under peace time normal circumstances? It could still have happened if the marines were armed at the reserve center. I doubt recruiting centers will ever bear arms.

 

[Jeff White]

Absent legislation requiring military personnel on duty away from a military installation to be armed, you will never see it. And the chances of getting any legislation like that passed and signed into law is just about zero.

There are too many ways that something could happen that would embarrass the service or cost a commander his career.

 

[JB357MAG]

If I were still active duty military I would insist
on always carrying or insist on a discharge.

They need to wake up to whats going on in
todays world.

Jimmy

 

[marksg]

Judging from the photo here, any kind of carry would not have helped. Looks like they shot from outside the building chat. shooting.jpg (75.2 KB).

 

[carbine85]

It doesn't matter if carrying a gun could have prevented this or not. The important fact is that citizens have the right to protect themselves and the military doesn't. It's BS. The stuff is hitting the fan around this country and responsible people need to arm themselves. It's time to wake up and get into the fight

 

[TwinReverb]

TwinReverb, how exactly were the shootings preventable under peace time normal circumstances? It could still have happened if the marines were armed at the reserve center. I doubt recruiting centers will ever bear arms.

I guess that settles things. I'll turn in my guns and shred my carry license

I'd rather they have the option to defend themselves than not have it. Seriously, I'm sure four Marines, if armed, could've taken that guy. Either way, however, better to have the option than not.

 

[guyfromohio]

22... Prevention has nothing to do with it. Intervention is the key.

 

[Drail]

Anyone who actually believes that someone can just drive up to a detail of United States Marines who are armed ANYWHERE and fire upon them and then just drive away is a fool and has never actually met a United States Marine. You open fire on those guys and it will get real ugly real quick.

 

[Bang!]

I'll speculate that the shooting spree would have ended at the recruiting center if those service members had been armed. Prevented? Probably not. Deterred? Probably not. Return fire? You betcha!

Disarmed service members is politics. Civilian politics and military politics. Don't want a commander to lose their career:banghead: Better everyone be a soft target than risk that!

 

[Jeff White]

Since we don't really know any details of the attack it's useless to speculate on if arming them would have helped.

Since this is the activism forum and no one here has the authority to change things, we need to discuss a plan of action.

How about some well thought out model legislation and a prospective list of law makers who might introduce it?

 

[Liquidring]

I agree that if fulltime or reserve military, they should at least carry a side arm, but this peckerhead rolled up and started shooting from his car outside, so they ALL would have been caught off guard, maybe someone could have returned fire, we'll never know, but to put a bulls eye on their backs and not give them at least the chance to defend theirselves, I won't say what I call it, BUT, IF I could, it'd be with alot of words that would get me banned from here for ever.
And to think that some people give me hell because I carry my side arm, and most times do openly, but concealed when I decide it's required, not them.

 

[morcey2]

I look at it this way. They're no worse off if they're armed than they are unarmed in this situation. My son is a Marine and I would definitely rather have him armed than not in a situation like this.

The antis are always saying they want well trained people to be the ones with the guns and not the average person. This is the perfect case where you have very well trained people but they don't even want them to be able to defend themselves.

I've already written my congressman and both of my senators about the ability for servicemen and women to be armed. I don't know if it will do any good but here is to hoping.

Matt

 

[22-rimfire]

I look at it this way. They're no worse off if they're armed than they are unarmed in this situation. My son is a Marine and I would definitely rather have him armed than not in a situation like this.

The antis are always saying they want well trained people to be the ones with the guns and not the average person. This is the perfect case where you have very well trained people but they don't even want them to be able to defend themselves.

I've already written my congressman and both of my senators about the ability for servicemen and women to be armed. I don't know if it will do any good but here is to hoping.

Certainly the "good guys" could likely have returned fire if they were armed. I have no problem with allowing these service people to be armed while serving. I also don't like to be a sitting duck.

I was armed and about a mile up the road from the recruiting center when all this started. I heard no gun fire and didn't even know about it until about 1:00 PM and at that point, information was pretty sketchy. This is right across the street from Sportsman Warehouse where many customers are armed.

22... Prevention has nothing to do with it. Intervention is the key.

I agree. I was simply responding to Twinreverb's comment.

 

[Sav .250]

The armed issue aside. The shooters name was ...what ? Ya, that`s right.

 

[HexHead]

A building with a No Guns sign and unarmed Marines is a more inviting target than one with armed Marines inside. There was no deterrent.

 

[Jim Watson]

Nobody was killed at the recruiting office, bullet holes in glass notwithstanding. One wounded in the account I saw.
He racked up the casualties, 4 dead, 3 wounded, at the Naval Reserve Center after crashing the gate. By then the civil police caught up with him. They reported no casualties in ending the attack.

Why should the Reserve Center not had an actual armed guard? Nothing learned in or since Beirut, obviously.

 

[X-Rap]

I have to ask where the law was at?
If one officer was wounded at the recruiting office but the shooter was able to reach the reserve center and shoot it up there was a serious separation of contact with the shooter don't you think?
At a minimum he certainly had his targets located and planned ahead of time but the accounts as I understand them have him basically achieving his goal at the reserve center while the sound of sirens are approaching.
Is it me or is this vastly unreported by the MSM in comparison to the recent church shooting in nearby SC?

 

[hso]

This forum isn't here for people to vent and rant in the emotional backlash of a terrorist attack on US military personnel in the US.

This one is closed until a rational Activism plan can be presented and a discussion of how to promote the plan can be conducted.