Looks like some took the initiative - version 2

[USAF_Vet]

I regret that lives were lost because the US military has not provided adequate security for it's personnel.

What is adequate security, though? Up to the Chattanooga shooting, the security provided was adequate. There was no direct, credible threat to a military installation, so no need to increase security measures. There are red herring threats against military installations daily, nationwide. The overall majority of them have no credence and therefore no additional security is provided. The military, and each individual installation, has the ability to alter it's own threat protection condition (FPC) to counter credible threats. Satellite installations like armories and reserve centers may not have the infrastructure necessary to monitor threats, and might simply copy the FPC of their parent installation.

This was a random act by a random person with little to no intelligence as to who or what was being targeted until it was happening. While you CAN prepare for that, and most every other contingency, there is a significant lack of resources to do so. They (the reserve center) probably provided security for the threats they expected, which is to say, few to none. Was it a mistake? Obviously, since five lives were lost. But are we going to react and respond after the fact like we usually do and provide unnecessary security consuming more resources for no benefit?

Once we do alter our tactics to match the threat, the enemy changes tactics again. Once a few copycats get gunned down or captured before being able to perpetrate an attack, it'll be known by them that its time to try something else.

On 9/11, I was stationed at Travis AFB, CA. Our FPC was heightened after the attack, just like everyone else's. But after a few months, no direct and credible threat was specific to our installation, so we lowered our FPC and reduced a great deal of security measures we'd implemented. We didn't have the resources or the NEED to continue on such a heightened security state.

 

[Lord Teapot]

bullet resistant windows and doors/stricter entry security/armed security guards (who go for like $11/hour) would go a long way. or just allowing service members who choose to, to carry a concealed handgun. that seems to be what saved the day here.

 

[USAF_Vet]

bullet resistant windows and doors/stricter entry security/armed security guards (who go for like $11/hour) would go a long way.

The Army alone has almost 1500 recruiting centers nationwide with nearly 10,000 military and civilian employees. And generally where there is Army, you have the other branches as well.

So, if we use the 1500 number and lump all branches together recruiting out of the same building, that's going to be quite expensive. Replacing all tempered glass windows with bullet resistant one isn't an inexpensive venture. if we're talking a strip mall, odds are the fed.gov does not own that building, but simply leases it. Such extreme modifications will need to be approved by the building owner. Not all will approve the work.

As far as armed security guards go, they'll need to be contracted. Now whether that's done locally or on a larger scale like the G4S (formerly known as Wackenhut) would have to be determined. Going local, you'll save some money but might not get the highest caliber of personnel. Utilizing a national group would cost a great deal more.

I know the millions of dollars that would need to be budgeted by the federal government to pay for all this would be no big deal financially. The government spends more on idiotic research grants each year.

or just allowing service members who choose to, to carry a concealed handgun.

I agree.

It would be easier to simply repeal DoD policy against carrying personal weapons for self defense. We couldn't have prepared for this attack without becoming a complete and total police state where anything and everything has an armed guard and we are all suspects until we can have our innocence determined by the powers that be.