Active shooter at NAS Pensacola

[Spekkio]

Every junior crewmember on a CRUDES ship that stands a topside watch is qualified to handle a 9mm.
In other words, the cooks, electronics nerd herd, deck apes, deck apes with guns, and others all from E-3 to Khaki are required to be qualified to be on the watchbill for the daily armed sentry posts to be a contributing member of the crew.

If the shit actually hits the fan, are they going to be a Delta Recon SEAL badass? Fuck no, it's a kid with a 9mm, they'll probably be lucky to hit a guy 10 yards away...

Onboard a ship, sub, or plane that's out and deployed, sure.

That said, our units do come back ashore at some point, so at a bare ass minimum, ATFP is a mission area for every ship or submarine. No idea how NAVAIR manages it. And you can't do ATFP without at least a minimal level of small arms proficiency.

Either that, or we do what the Air Force does and just sell off all of force protection to a dedicated security organization.

I covered this like 3 pages ago. ATFP is a mission that we tend to lowball, as demonstrated by your (and my) lack of confidence that your mark 1 mod 0 armed watchstander could hit a bad guy at 10 yards.

So if we both agree that armed watchstanders would be marginally effective at best when responding to an incident, and the data indicates that the vast majority of incidents over the last decade are blue on blue, the question is why would arming more marginally effective at best people be better? Is it worth pouring more resources into making them more effective?

Standing up a more robust armed watchstander training program and arming every watch isn't overly difficult, but it will require more resources in terms of money and manpower. Then consider that the main reason to do it is to hopefully kill the next servicemember or DoD civilian with authorized access who goes postal before he kills anyone else. So does this mean 24/7 armed watches at the NEX? Commissary? PSD? Fleet and family? Plenty of targets there for someone who is bent on going out with a high kill count. Who mans these watches?

 

[Gatordev]

No idea how NAVAIR manages it.

It doesn't, which is ultimately what Treetop's beef is. At the end of the day, the answer may (will) ultimately be "we're not interested in doing this," but Treetop's question is still a valid one to ask (and I get you're agreeing with it, @BigRed389).

So does this mean 24/7 armed watches at the NEX? Commissary? PSD? Fleet and family? Plenty of targets there for someone who is bent on going out with a high kill count. Who mans these watches?

Base security regularly patrols those locations. They do not regularly patrol the flight line and the squadron spaces. On a lot of bases, the squadron quarterdeck is one of the softest targets on base. Well, assuming one could actually get parking outside of one. Maybe that's why parking always sucks...ATFP.

 

[BigRed389]

I covered this like 3 pages ago. ATFP is a mission that we tend to lowball, as demonstrated by your (and my) lack of confidence that your mark 1 mod 0 armed watchstander could hit a bad guy at 10 yards.

So if we both agree that armed watchstanders would be marginally effective at best when responding to an incident, and the data indicates that the vast majority of incidents over the last decade are blue on blue, the question is why would arming more marginally effective at best people be better? Is it worth pouring more resources into making them more effective?

Standing up a more robust armed watchstander training program and arming every watch isn't overly difficult, but it will require more resources in terms of money and manpower, and the main reason to do it is to kill the next servicemember or DoD civilian with authorized access who goes postal.

Define "marginal." They're not going to be a SWAT team, but an armed watchstander who is familiar with their building's routines and personnel has a leg up on most other armed responders just in terms of identifying threats and knowing layout. If they delay the threat long enough for a reaction force to arrive, that in itself is a big win.

The 10 yds comment has more to do with combat shooting with a handgun actually being pretty difficult. I actually have pretty reasonable confidence in the average Sailor to do the right thing if the SHTF. Shit has hit the fan quite a bit in the last few years, and our Sailors seem to rise to the occasion with the tools given to them when it counts.

My broader point is that ships already do what is being proposed already...because the admin burden to do this is actually pretty minimal (and at a lower level to what we are already required to do when overseas).

I get this is tougher for mostly administrative/staff commands (which is where the discussions around CCW start to make things fuzzier) but for an operational unit, it's odd.

It doesn't, which is ultimately what Treetop's beef is. At the end of the day, the answer may (will) ultimately be "we're not interested in doing this," but Treetop's question is still a valid one to ask (and I get you're agreeing with it, @BigRed389).

Base security regularly patrols those locations. They do not regularly patrol the flight line and the squadron spaces. On a lot of bases, the squadron quarterdeck is one of the softest targets on base. Well, assuming one could actually get parking outside of one. Maybe that's why parking always sucks...ATFP.

So...presumably there's a squadron or at least wing armory?

Why couldn't the quarterdeck watches (who are already not doing their primary jobs by standing on the quarterdeck) check out a duty belt and 9mm?
Every sailor should've qual'd on the 9mm at boot camp, requal shouldn't be that hard to accomplish at a pretty high rate.
You're talking a plus up of NCEA for 9mm requal and annual range time. Maybe a one time basic sentry course. Hell, maybe Base Security could even be put on the hook to provide SAAMI's/ATFP instructors to support training...might even do them a favor in not having to patrol as many locations.

 

[Brett327]

The overtly political twitter feed and posts from the future Navy leadership on this site are uninspiring

Really? Which ones?

 

[Brett327]

It doesn't, which is ultimately what Treetop's beef is. At the end of the day, the answer may (will) ultimately be "we're not interested in doing this," but Treetop's question is still a valid one to ask (and I get you're agreeing with it, @BigRed389).



Base security regularly patrols those locations. They do not regularly patrol the flight line and the squadron spaces. On a lot of bases, the squadron quarterdeck is one of the softest targets on base. Well, assuming one could actually get parking outside of one. Maybe that's why parking always sucks...ATFP.

On many bases, the flight line and hangars are behind a fence/badge access system, which doesn’t protect against insider threats, but it does keep randos out and reduces the need for MAs to patrol the flightline.

 

[Sam I am]

I feel the need to explain myself and I'll be careful to use paragraphs.

I think arming the watch effectively is possible, but the chance of doing efficiently isn't probable. We struggle to find resources to train proficient pilots which are mission essential.

I agree that everyone should get small arms training. I grew up with guns as part of life not, but everyone gets to, qualifying was easy once I was allowed to get to a range. But access to ranges was difficult 20 years ago, I'm sure it's gotten more difficult, not easier. OCS never took us to the range in P-Cola as it was down for maintenance or some other nonsense all the time.

your squadron was full of retards who shouldn’t have been in the Navy.

Scoolbubba, GFY.

 

[Gatordev]

So...presumably there's a squadron or at least wing armory?

Why couldn't the quarterdeck watches (who are already not doing their primary jobs by standing on the quarterdeck) check out a duty belt and 9mm?
Every sailor should've qual'd on the 9mm at boot camp, requal shouldn't be that hard to accomplish at a pretty high rate.
You're talking a plus up of NCEA for 9mm requal and annual range time. Maybe a one time basic sentry course. Hell, maybe Base Security could even be put on the hook to provide SAAMI's/ATFP instructors to support training...might even do them a favor in not having to patrol as many locations.

There's not a squadron or wing armory, just a base armory, however there is typically an ordinance locker where weapons can be stored (to include sidearms for the AOs when/if they transport).

I wasn't arguing with your ideas, quite the opposite. But I also wouldn't be surprised when nothing changes.

On many bases, the flight line and hangars are behind a fence/badge access system, which doesn’t protect against insider threats, but it does keep randos out and reduces the need for MAs to patrol the flightline.

Of course, but there are many that don't. It seems like the older the facilities, the less initial ATFP barriers there are (see: NASNI and Mayport), but when newer facilities are built, a new layer is added. Except for Oceana, which had the layer of security, but wasn't always manned pre-9/11. I never made it to the flightline at NKX before 9/11, so have no data.

I will say I agree that the flightline is pretty secure, but the quarterdeck of many squadrons aren't (in a generic opposing perimiter kind of way).

 

[Brett327]

ordinance

?

 

[Hozer]

Especially bitter taste in the old AO DNA that runs so deep, eh?

 

[Spekkio]

Base security regularly patrols those locations. They do not regularly patrol the flight line and the squadron spaces. On a lot of bases, the squadron quarterdeck is one of the softest targets on base. Well, assuming one could actually get parking outside of one. Maybe that's why parking always sucks...ATFP.

I have never seen base police inside the NEX/Commissary, so if they patrol there it's relatively infrequent. Without 24/7 coverage, it's very easy to just wait for them to leave.

Operational units typically are in more restricted access areas.

I'm still trying to draw the link on how giving insiders more access to firearms is going to better protect us against the insider threat. Why risk bringing your personal weapons to shoot up the base when you can just wait for your next duty day?

So when (not if) that happens, do we circle jerk back to no guns?

 

[Hotdogs]

Really? Which ones?

Clearly he’s talking about yours, brother.

Marines have had armed duties for at-least the last 6-7 years and off/on through out history prior to that. This isn’t a hard problem. I am also not sure why letting service members have their own weapons on base is a big deal. Plenty of E-5s and below currently store thier hunting rifles and shotguns in their vehicles on base or off base at a friends house anyways. You guys act like a service member merely having his own private weapon is a novel concept.

I’m not sure arming sailors would be effective anyways. Most that I have seen standing duty are out shape, lack military discipline, and have low situational awareness. There is a cultural issue with in the Navy and they are better served by probably increasing standards for armed contractors. Also less risk for Navy leadership, and that’s very important for the service given the rate of CO’s being relieved and ships running into each other these days.

 

[Brett327]

Clearly he’s talking about yours, brother.

That would be strange, since I've said very little on Twitter about this topic and nothing I've posted here has been particularly political, so I'm wondering what he's talking about.

 

[picklesuit]

These people are also not responsible for the appropriate application of deadly force.

As for arming people officially (or unofficially)... Could we do this? Of course. Is it worth the effort, resources and risk? Absolutely not.

You may now resume your masturbatory exploration of status quo policies that are not going to change.

Solid leadership.

 

[HAL Pilot]

The Navy should go back to having Marine Detachments on all ships and at all bases. They made great security forces and had the training.

 

[Hotdogs]

That would be strange, since I've said very little on Twitter about this topic and nothing I've posted here has been particularly political, so I'm wondering what he's talking about.

I don’t have an account on that bullshit self flagellating societal cesspool of an application. So I wouldn’t know... but I should have stated that he was insinuating it was your account.