You should try it. It's a great content aggregator. You don't have to participate in the discussion.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Active shooter at NAS Pensacola
- Thread starter Waveoff
- Start date
I think so. You don't have to agree, which is very easy and convenient for you, as you don't have to accept any risk for what that policy change would entail.
@picklesuit - You just don’t understand...it’s not about protecting your Sailors it’s about protecting your career...true leadership is surviving your command tour and getting the next promotion....
Ask the unarmed watchstander’s family how much risk he had to accept.
Fucking nailed it.
Soft leaders like Brett more worried about managing the risk to their careers are why we are soft targets while at work.
Carefully considered operational risk analysis precedes and is independent of career risk analysis. We (USN as a service) can barely manage emerging service-wide simple administrative requirements. Would it be great if everyone was properly armed and trained? Yes, of course. Does the bureaucracy of the Navy have the means to implement that without royally f-ing it away in the process? Probably not. Stating that out loud doesn't make someone a soft leader, it makes them a realist. I applaud those that push for increased arming on base via writing, posting, etc.- maybe it'll move the needle on funding for the training that'd be required. Until that happens, this is just an exploration in yelling at clouds.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I think what Brett actually meant is that he doesn't have to live with the increased risk of an armed watchstander shooting another sailor or himself in a blue on blue incident and knowing that he's the author of that policy that allowed the incident to happen.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
There is a wide gap between 'marginally effective' and acting like a SWAT team. Marginally effective meaning that I think the odds that a sailor comes out on top in a shootout against an insider threat/active shooter is less than 50%. Marginally effective meaning that the odds that a sailor is going to engage anyone else other than someone else who also has authorized access to carry small arms is miniscule. Marginally effective such as if I had $10 every time I 'snuck' up on an armed watchstander who had his back to the ECP he was supposed to be monitoring and told him 'hey, you know I could have killed you. You should really pay attention.' I could buy a Guam bomb.
We shouldn't arm sailors with the hope that they rise to the occasion when SHTF. We should properly train them how to do this and count on their training kicking in.
I don't think anyone here is complaining about the administrative burden of issuing weapons. That's the easy part. The hard part is making sure that they are properly screened psychologically (which we don't do other than a self-reporting form) and properly trained to a high standard, which would take more manpower, money, and time.
Funding? The fuck is so expensive about teaching basic weapons handling procedures and escalation of force? Jesus. You guys are nuking it.
It's not expensive. I'm saying we won't sustain it and will F it away. We have folks running ships into other ships. We're the Navy. That's kind of our primary thing and we don't do it well. I have huge doubts that we could add something else (inexpensive as it may be) and do it well.
And before any of you freak out, look, I'd love to have more small arms training and be more proficient, especially for my squadron. I think armed watchstanders would be a great idea and have the man, train, and equipment for it. But that's not going to happen. It does cost money. To be at a proficient level enough to stop an active shooter you need significant training, and recurrent training to be able to keep up that skill. I think as military members we should have a fighting mindset and be able to use firearms regularly, but that's not the primary focus of OUR profession. We fight with aircraft, warriors of the air if you will (possibly airwarriors some might say). We have infantry and SOF that receive extensive firearm training since that's THEIR job.
I agree, our safety and security is important, but you have to be realistic, as well. Shootings do happen and they're awful when they do, but they're rare. I'd rather divert the resourses that would be used arm us on base to preventing mishaps (whether it be more training, hours, parts, etc.) as I'd argue we've lost more personnel over the last severals to those than shootings.
I agree, our safety and security is important, but you have to be realistic, as well. Shootings do happen and they're awful when they do, but they're rare. I'd rather divert the resourses that would be used arm us on base to preventing mishaps (whether it be more training, hours, parts, etc.) as I'd argue we've lost more personnel over the last severals to those than shootings.
The threat of an armed duty is enough of a deterrent to make a potential adversary think twice or pick another soft target. That’s basic ATFP 101. There is no such thing as “currency” for handling a damn weapon. That should be instinctive for members of the U.S military. It’s not an aircraft, or safety metric to account. It’s a basic concept of military service.
You guys are literally out to lunch on the subject with regards to the amount “resources” “equipment” and “time...”
Let me tell how this shit works in the Marines:
0) Sailor/Marines learns how to shoot pistol at entry level training. Taught basic employment, use of force, and safety procedures.
1) In the morning, Duty standers goto Armory to verify an exchange with armorer, LTI is conducted, round count verified, duty is posted with service pistol following brief with XO. Service pistol is put into condition 4 and exchanged between duty officers themselves on weekend duties and verified on Monday at Armory.
2) XO briefs duty stander on proper weapons handling and escalation of force procedures. Service pistol is carried condition 1 (...or 3 depending on command, but supposed to be 1 per MCO).
How hard is that? You guys should be professionally embarrassed as a war fighting service that you can’t do something as basic as that. So willing to drop a bomb on some one’s head but heavens sake some one makes you carry a service pistol on duty. Your predecessors would be ashamed.
Bingo.
And yet the Marines somehow make it work.