Active shooter at NAS Pensacola

[UInavy]

However, as I mentioned previously the amount of armed watchstanders who decided to go the way Private Pyle in the past decade, some who decide to take others with him, has completely eclipsed the amount of times an armed watchstander has stopped an outside aggressor. Instead of arming everyone, we really need to take a look at who we arm and whether the juice is worth the squeeze. An armed civilian security watchstander scanning all personnel/searching all vehicles and bags prior to entering the portions of the base where you can access the piers would go a lot further than sticking another ETSN (E-3) who does a semi-annual gun shoot on the brow with a shotgun or M16.

Another great point.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I don't know why everyone is being a dick to you about your question, but here's the answer:

For at-sea commands, ship's company will stand 24 hour duty days, this includes at least 1 CPO and 1 Officer. When in a foreign port, the force protection guidance will typically require at least the CPO or Officer to carry a 9mm. This becomes more of a burden than anything else as now you essentially get 2-3 hours of sleep (as opposed to the 5 or so that you normally would have gotten) as you go on gun watch rotations because you can't sleep while armed. In CONUS, it's not required for supervisors to carry a 9mm.

As BigRed alluded to, you also have to have sufficient qualified personnel to man ATFP response teams. I wouldn't trust those ATFP response teams to be effective at stopping anyone who knows what they are doing; armed watchstanders are more of a deterrent than anything else. We simply don't have the bandwidth to focus a lot of time and attention on training for FP incidents, and meeting the bare minimum doesn't build a level of proficiency that should give anyone a warm fuzzy that we're well prepared to handle these sort of things. Maybe it's a different story with larger ships that have MAs attached, but we don't have those.

Shore based commands typically do NOT have armed watchstanders on duty and leave the Force Protection responsibility to the base, which usually involves a combination of civilian and military armed watchstanders.

However, as I mentioned previously the amount of armed watchstanders who decided to go the way Private Pyle in the past decade, some who decide to take others with him, has completely eclipsed the amount of times an armed watchstander has stopped an outside aggressor. Instead of arming everyone, we really need to take a look at who we arm and whether the juice is worth the squeeze. An armed civilian security watchstander scanning all personnel/searching all vehicles and bags prior to entering the portions of the base where you can access the piers would go a lot further than sticking another ETSN (E-3) who does a semi-annual gun shoot on the brow with a shotgun or M16.

Thanks for the response. I agree that “arming everyone” isn’t the answer. What I saw in Marine squadrons was typically just the SDO was armed and the junior enlisted assistant duty was not. In a battalion, both an officer and SNCO were armed but the junior barracks duties were not.

Of course it makes sense to step it up if the situation calls for it, like a ship in a foreign port. In Afghanistan everyone was armed, and our squadron had a dedicated security force/QRF that ran our squadron’s gate and had received additional predeployment training.

However I believe it’s absolutely a cultural thing. A guy with a pistol isn’t going to stop a coordinated terrorist attack, but there’s a reason a lot of attacks happen in “gun free zones.” What exactly is the purpose of a watch stander? I get why the differences exist between the Navy and Marines, but I think the Navy could use a course correction and refresher on being armed in an armed service.

 

[IwannabeaPHROGdvr69]

Navy pilots demand more be armed on bases in letter to lawmakers and military brass

Dozens of U.S. Navy pilots have written a letter demanding Capitol Hill lawmakers and top military brass allow more pilots to carry arms on bases, and allow those standing watch at flight schools across the country to be armed in the wake of the shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola by a Saudi...

www.foxnews.com

 

[RobLyman]

Thanks for the response. I agree that “arming everyone” isn’t the answer. What I saw in Marine squadrons was typically just the SDO was armed and the junior enlisted assistant duty was not. In a battalion, both an officer and SNCO were armed but the junior barracks duties were not.

Of course it makes sense to step it up if the situation calls for it, like a ship in a foreign port. In Afghanistan everyone was armed, and our squadron had a dedicated security force/QRF that ran our squadron’s gate and had received additional predeployment training.

However I believe it’s absolutely a cultural thing. A guy with a pistol isn’t going to stop a coordinated terrorist attack, but there’s a reason a lot of attacks happen in “gun free zones.” What exactly is the purpose of a watch stander? I get why the differences exist between the Navy and Marines, but I think the Navy could use a course correction and refresher on being armed in an armed service.

One guy with a pistol might not stop a coordinated terrorist attack, but a couple of dozen with pistols sure could. People where I work KNOW their coworkers are armed and trained. Heck, some are trained law enforcement personnel. One of my SSGs has been shot while on duty as a JSO officer.

This gun free zone shit needs to go away in most places, especially on military bases. Culture change and training to supplement CCW could make military bases safer. Knowing people might be and probably are armed, but not knowing which ones, has got to be a terrific deterrent to a would be shooter. I know I would hate to face a situation where there was a 1:10 (probably 1:5 or 1:3 where I work) ratio of armed to unarmed "enemies" or civilians. Especially if I didn't know which one out of the ten was armed.

Edit: Now that I see that Ensign Watson was a firearms instructor and commander of the rifle team, it seems even more logical that he should have been at least allowed to carry.

 

[HSMPBR]

Thanks for the response. I agree that “arming everyone” isn’t the answer. What I saw in Marine squadrons was typically just the SDO was armed and the junior enlisted assistant duty was not. In a battalion, both an officer and SNCO were armed but the junior barracks duties were not.

Of course it makes sense to step it up if the situation calls for it, like a ship in a foreign port. In Afghanistan everyone was armed, and our squadron had a dedicated security force/QRF that ran our squadron’s gate and had received additional predeployment training.

However I believe it’s absolutely a cultural thing. A guy with a pistol isn’t going to stop a coordinated terrorist attack, but there’s a reason a lot of attacks happen in “gun free zones.” What exactly is the purpose of a watch stander? I get why the differences exist between the Navy and Marines, but I think the Navy could use a course correction and refresher on being armed in an armed service.

The purpose of a watchstanding officer in a navy squadron is to:

Log the takeoff/land times for a “smooth schedule” that’s like an OPSUM, but it’s not actually an OPSUM, and the OPSUM numbers just come from SHARP anyway.

Conduct safe inventories.

Text skipper when the last aircraft lands.

Call skipper to bring bring back the classified material he put in his flight suit and forgot about.

Hope no one does anything dumb so you don’t have to draft (but not release[!]) a SITREP.

Nothing but admin. Security and active shooter response resides with Chuck the 65-year-old retiree who waves you through the gate. Or I guess the local sheriff when the military can’t handle it themselves.

 

[HSMPBR]

I don't know why everyone is being a dick to you about your question, but here's the answer:

For at-sea commands, ship's company will stand 24 hour duty days, this includes at least 1 CPO and 1 Officer. When in a foreign port, the force protection guidance will typically require at least the CPO or Officer to carry a 9mm. This becomes more of a burden than anything else as now you essentially get 2-3 hours of sleep (as opposed to the 5 or so that you normally would have gotten) as you go on gun watch rotations because you can't sleep while armed. In CONUS, it's not required for supervisors to carry a 9mm.

However, as I mentioned previously the amount of armed watchstanders who decided to go the way Private Pyle in the past decade, some who decide to take others with him, has completely eclipsed the amount of times an armed watchstander has stopped an outside aggressor. Instead of arming everyone, we really need to take a look at who we arm and whether the juice is worth the squeeze. An armed civilian security watchstander scanning all personnel/searching all vehicles and bags prior to entering the portions of the base where you can access the piers would go a lot further than sticking another ETSN (E-3) who does a semi-annual gun shoot on the brow with a shotgun or M16.

Gun turnovers are among the worst things about duty on a boat. You need a E-7+ to read a binder to turn over a gun between two other E-7+s. There should be one gun turnover a day, when the section turns over, because you get some sleep with your gun nearby like our friends in FOBs do.

To your other point: if that ETSN isn’t trained well enough to be an effective armed sentry, I need to fix it. If that ETSN can’t be trusted to be armed, I need to get them out of my unit.

 

[Spekkio]

Thanks for the response. I agree that “arming everyone” isn’t the answer. What I saw in Marine squadrons was typically just the SDO was armed and the junior enlisted assistant duty was not. In a battalion, both an officer and SNCO were armed but the junior barracks duties were not.

Of course it makes sense to step it up if the situation calls for it, like a ship in a foreign port. In Afghanistan everyone was armed, and our squadron had a dedicated security force/QRF that ran our squadron’s gate and had received additional predeployment training.

However I believe it’s absolutely a cultural thing. A guy with a pistol isn’t going to stop a coordinated terrorist attack, but there’s a reason a lot of attacks happen in “gun free zones.”

I don't think that decreeing that SDOs/CDOs or DCPOs shall be armed 24/7 is the answer.

For starters, the only formal training Officers receive for firearms is during initial PQS - that training covers conditions of the weapons, safety precautions, how to properly load/hold them, etc. but doesn't cover the nuts and bolts of how to stand/aim, how to shoot bad guys, or how to tactically employ a duty section. When training for repel boarders, it's a case of the blind leading the blind as the corporate knowledge simply isn't there because unlike our enlisted counterparts, we don't go to SSDF schools and ATFP Level II is focused on the administration of a base or shipboard ATFP program, not weapons employment.

After that, it's 'point this thing thataway and shoot the paper target' every ~6 months, which is preceded by a refresher training on weapon safety and how to hold the weapon without shooting someone by accident.

I'm statistically less likely to commit suicide on duty or shoot up my duty section, but I don't feel comfortable enough with my firearms training to effectively neutralize an active shooter by myself. I don't own a personal firearm and I'm not into shooting on my recreational time. I've fired a 9mm 5 or 6 times in the Navy.

It's very telling that the annual active shooter NKO effectively tells everyone to duck and cover and run away until the base police arrive. That's what the Navy expects of its servicemembers.

All of this can be overcome with some more robust training initiatives, including sending Officers to SSDF schools, but that would cost more resources for what I believe to be a very minimal payoff.

Secondly, the nature of standing SDO/DCPO is that you're on duty 24 hours a day. At least on submarines, we're not manned enough to put some CPOs and DIVOs on a night shift to do port/stbd watches on a duty day so that someone can stay up all night with a weapon. And again, going back to the typical ORM theory that risk = probability * severity, the probability of an outside attacker making his way to a warship is miniscule compared to the probability of a watchstander taking his own life, so this becomes an exercise in making people miserable 'just in case' when there's smarter methods available like 100% bag/vehicle checks before going down to the piers.

An 'outside the box' (but not really) solution could be utilizing Marines to serve in this function like they already do for SSBNs. Again, though, this would cost extra resources.

What exactly is the purpose of a watch stander?

In-port watchstanders have duties outside of ATFP such as monitoring equipment status, monitoring for potential casualties such as fire/flooding, ensuring everyone doing maintenance on the ship is following proper safety precautions, etc.

 

[Spekkio]

To your other point: if that ETSN isn’t trained well enough to be an effective armed sentry...

Define 'trained well enough.'

Does the ETSN know the conditions of the weapon, have current firearms proficiency, and explain how to challenge people when they come onboard the ship? Of course.

Do I trust him to be able to hit the broadside of a barn and/or not do something to get himself killed when shit hits the fan? No.

There's no fixing that at the unit level. We simply don't have the schools/training for it.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Define 'trained well enough.'

Does the ETSN know the conditions of the weapon, have current firearms proficiency, and explain how to challenge people when they come onboard the ship? Of course.

Do I trust him to be able to hit the broadside of a barn and/or not do something to get himself killed when shit hits the fan? No.

There's no fixing that at the unit level. We simply don't have the schools/training for it.

Marines aren’t receiving some elite level of training to be authorized to carry a pistol either. I’m not sure how the course of fire varies (if it does) as I’ve never seen the Navy version. No one is expecting the watch standers to spring into action with buddy rushes to repel an assault. It’s a deterrent, and often any deterrent is enough.

What I really don’t understand is your previous post about being too worried about an armed sailor killing himself to arm him. You proposed outsourcing that job to Marines, or continuing to outsource it to rent-a-cops and Navy security. What traits do Marines and base security possess that make them ok to carry weapons without killing themselves? If someone wants to kill themselves there are lots of ways to do it. Using the fear of a suicide to instill fear of arms in an armed service is absurd.

As I said before, I’m not advocating arming everyone. I also understand that each unit has different manning limitations and security needs. I imagine it’s harder to get aboard a sub to shoot the place up than it is to walk into the API building.

 

[Jim123]

... I think the Navy could use a course correction and refresher on being armed in an armed service.

Hear, hear!

Yeah, remember that thing I mentioned earlier in the thread that the Navy's knee jerk reaction, the day after Chattanooga happened, was to tell us to make the Marines at our joint reserve centers to stand down their armed watches.

That is telling as hell.

 

[FinkUFreaky]

100% bag/vehicle checks, are you joking? Lines at places like Norfolk and even NAS Pensacola at times can exceed 15-30 minutes. Implement something like this and you're talking hours. Not realistic.

And I'm in line that if we trust these officers to fly aircraft that have far more lethal means, a 9mm for the duty desk isn't absurd. Here at NASP in response to the shooting we've added an unarmed ENS to check bags before entering the hangar. That will not stop an armed terrorist/upset worker. It would result in just one more dead ENS. I don't feel unsafe going to work, but in reality, especially on a base that is open to the public, it's kind of UNSAT.

 

[RobLyman]

I've seen a few state that civilian CCW wouldn't work. IF the role of a CCW firearm is to protect yourself and others and NOT to serve as a duty weapon or to search out bad guys, why is CCW a NO GO?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

100% bag/vehicle checks, are you joking? Lines at places like Norfolk and even NAS Pensacola at times can exceed 15-30 minutes. Implement something like this and you're talking hours. Not realistic.

And I'm in line that if we trust these officers to fly aircraft that have far more lethal means, a 9mm for the duty desk isn't absurd. Here at NASP in response to the shooting we've added an unarmed ENS to check bags before entering the hangar. That will not stop an armed terrorist/upset worker. It would result in just one more dead ENS. I don't feel unsafe going to work, but in reality, especially on a base that is open to the public, it's kind of UNSAT.

That sounds like a formative experience for the lucky ensign given that task. What better way to learn the responsibilities of a watch stander and the the culture of the military? Go stand at the turnstile in your khakis so if someone shoots you we will have time to hide under our desks like the online training said. We would give you a weapon but we’re worried you’ll kill yourself with it, you don’t know how to use it, and no one else here does either.

 

[xmid]

I think the number of personally owned weapons on base at any given time would shock most of their commanders. I've been shown a new Silencerco suppressor on an FNP .45 on base. Another time I went to lunch with a CDR and when I got out of his truck a couple loaded P-mags fell out. I discretely tried to tell him that I put a couple loaded mags back in his truck and he matter of factly said, "yeah there's a loaded M-4 under the back seat too." When your gun free zone is policed by asking "do you have any weapons" at the gate, well... thats not really effective. So do you want to know they have it and give them a legal means to have it on base, or just be ignorant?

 

[DanMa1156]

When your gun free zone is policed by asking "do you have any weapons" at the gate, well... thats not really effective. So do you want to know they have it and give them a legal means to have it on base, or just be ignorant?

Ha, -sidebar- I've asked the same question to base security at a Safety Stand Down once. The response was more practical than security based - they ask it as a courtesy so the member can say, "actually, yeah, I need to turn around before going on base" - kind of your get out of jail free card before they decide to randomly inspect it and this way you can turn around before they do.