ForeignDude
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2006
- Messages
- 133
I've only gotten "into" firearms in the past year or so. In that time, I've noted a bit of a paradox. For those of you who have been in the service: Is it just me, or does the military seem like a very "anti-gun" organization? There are so many regulations surrounding the possession and carrying of firearms on Army bases, that it seems as if the goal is to discourage independent training with pistols or rifles. I’ve found that many bases have closed, or are in the process of closing, on-base “rod & gun clubs”. I’ve even heard from a few older guys that the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) used to carry firearms for sale at many of the larger bases.
At the individual level, most of the officers I know shoot to qualify barely once a year, shoot once or (maybe) twice before being deployed, or go for years without touching a pistol. Given the current operational tempo, you’d think the Army would be pushing all service-members to become proficient with a firearm – especially in the Army, where we don’t have the equivalent of the Marine’s concept: “Every Marine a Rifleman”… I began training on my own only after realizing that there was no-way, no-how I was going to be able to shoot in combat. Oh, I passed the shooting qualifications, but I had no friggin’ idea how I was doing it. Certainly, I knew how to keep the weapon “on safe” and how to field-strip it for cleaning, but I didn’t really know how to shoot the damn thing anywhere near accurately! Luckily, when I finally did deploy, I was never caught in a firefight.
For the most part, I also don't think this is an officer/enlisted issue. At all my postings, including my current assignment, all the enlisted personnel are required to qualify on the M-16 once a year, too. To the best of my knowledge, they're not even required to qualify using 3-round bursts.
I presume this is very different among the infantry folks. What about armor, engineers, and combat support? I can tell you that the picture looks bleak among the combat service support folks (especially medical).
How do you instill a “warrior” ethos or mentality into military personnel trained to disdain or fear the tools that can save their lives in combat?
At the individual level, most of the officers I know shoot to qualify barely once a year, shoot once or (maybe) twice before being deployed, or go for years without touching a pistol. Given the current operational tempo, you’d think the Army would be pushing all service-members to become proficient with a firearm – especially in the Army, where we don’t have the equivalent of the Marine’s concept: “Every Marine a Rifleman”… I began training on my own only after realizing that there was no-way, no-how I was going to be able to shoot in combat. Oh, I passed the shooting qualifications, but I had no friggin’ idea how I was doing it. Certainly, I knew how to keep the weapon “on safe” and how to field-strip it for cleaning, but I didn’t really know how to shoot the damn thing anywhere near accurately! Luckily, when I finally did deploy, I was never caught in a firefight.
For the most part, I also don't think this is an officer/enlisted issue. At all my postings, including my current assignment, all the enlisted personnel are required to qualify on the M-16 once a year, too. To the best of my knowledge, they're not even required to qualify using 3-round bursts.
I presume this is very different among the infantry folks. What about armor, engineers, and combat support? I can tell you that the picture looks bleak among the combat service support folks (especially medical).
How do you instill a “warrior” ethos or mentality into military personnel trained to disdain or fear the tools that can save their lives in combat?