Civilians pretending they're guarding recruiters

Well, I am not going to deride support service, especially in a Combat Zone. But, how does your limited and specialized experience qualify you to say that there is no way my Dad was authorized to carry his sidearm, or that a Army Master Sgt, with 3 terms in Afghanistan or Iraq, the Combat Infantryman Badge and a Bronze Star shouldnt be authorized to carry a sidearm while on duty working recruiting?*

*They should be armed with normal issue sidearms, if trained, and certified in their use, and they want to be so armed.

Once again: Which part of my ship–bow, stern, midships, superstructure, hull–was not in the combat zone with the other parts of the ship? Support services in combat are at battle stations.

Sorry, I don’t really recall saying that there was no way he was authorized. I do doubt that he was carrying a sidearm when he was not on a specific duty. And “He was always on duty” has just as much truth to it as “Every Marine’s primary MOS is Infantryman”. When not on specific duties specifically requiring arms, the service member is not issued the arms. That very well may have been different during the Vietnam War era and before–I don’t know, I joined the military in 1979. It certainly was not different from the late 1970s on.

A weapon is not required for recruiting. Another complication is that recruiting commands are, of necessity, spread out over a rather large geographic area. How will the command implement a program to arm the recruiters? How will the command ensure training and current competence? How will the command deal with lost or stolen weapons? How will the command make up for productive time lost for arms training? How will the command deal with the federal law prohibiting military from performing civilian law enforcement duties in the United States? (Military police perform military law enforcement duties, of course.) Again: Military police are issued their weapons at the beginning of their shift and return the arms to the unit armory at the end of the shift. Should all service members be armed at all times, even in the United States?

No. Recruiters should not be armed while performing recruiting duties. Hysteria is the current driving force for agitating they should, in my opinion.

Yet again: There is no such thing as “normal issue sidearms” in the military. Specific duties requiring arms require specific weapons.

I agreed your service was in a combat zone, what’s your problem?:confused: But it’s a little different sitting on a ship in a combat zone vs actually getting the Combat Infantryman Badge or even the Combat Action Ribbon. Did you carry a personal weapon? Did you engage in firefight? Did you earn the Combat Action Ribbon?
I said "when he was the senior NCO on Duty, which of course was pretty much whenever he was “on duty”." I think that whoever was the Senior NCO on duty had to answer unusual calls from the armed guards at various posts, including the K9 patrol.

That’s for the General Staff to figure out.

But as i said- only trained, authorized recruiters (etc0 which specifically request to be so armed.

Again, as in post 38 "Nice slippery slope and strawman. No one is suggesting :“all members of the Armed Forces must be armed”.

Don’t be pedantic. Each service has a few sidearms they issue to guard duties and the like, such as the M9 and M11.

Okay. So why shouldn’t all members of the Armed Forces be armed at all times? Do you seriously expect the random hordes of people bent on attacking someone in uniform will limit that to just those wearing the nifty recruiting badge?

I’m still not seeing realistic answers to my questions. I’m seeing attempts at justification for the current hysteria.

I warned you about this 100 posts ago. No reasoning with the guns good, more guns better crowd.

I can’t speak for other services (nor for current training standards), but Air Force personnel whose mission doesn’t call for needing a weapon weren’t trained in weapons. Recruiters would be in that group. Enlisted personnel I knew on flight duty who were issued sidearms (during Gulf War I and the Serbo-Croation conflict) were only given minimal training (hope you never have to use this but if you do, point this end at the enemy). So I guess Air Force recruiters, in general, should be unarmed using the insane logic. I guess they best hope for joint recruiting stations.

My dad was a USAF officer in the 70s, he’s got a picture of himself with a revolver in a belt slung over his shoulder. He said they would give it to him when he was doing some bullshit detail but they didn’t give him any bullets.

When I was a bright-eyed young airman shortly after 9/11, the actual cops (USAF security forces) had an extremely high ops tempo and were getting burnt out, so they tagged a bunch of us nobodies as security augmentees. I qualified on the M9 (your basic qualification course, maybe a couple hours of in-class training and then you fling 50 rounds downrange trying to hit paper at 25 meters), and very nearly qualified as an “expert marksman.” I then went through a 5 day crash course in policing where we watched videos and practiced frisking and detaining suspects, the basics of vehicle stops, civilian rules of engagement, etc. For the most part I found the training incredibly eye-opening, in that it made me realize how hard it is to do civilian police work. We did exactly 1 “real world” scenario, where my “partner” and I arrived on-scene at a domestic dispute where my fellow role-playing classmates were told to be uncooperative. We basically lost all control, it was horrible.

A few months later I was “activated” during an exercise. I showed up at the armory ass early in the morning, was issued an M16 with 120 rounds of live ammo, and stood at the gate checking IDs. At lunchtime an actual cop pulled up and tossed me the keys to a patrol car so that us augmentees could go get lunch. We went to the chow hall and dutifully stowed our M16s in the racks provided while we ate.

That was the sum of my experience. The exercise ended after a day and I was never activated again.
The takeaway here is that a little bit of training does not go a long way. Real cops train constantly for a hard job, and you can’t replicate that with a 2 week course and an annual 1 day refresher. You may think, “Oh, that guy’s in the military and has had weapons/police training,” but I’m telling you, that’s me, and I’d have no better luck dealing with an active shooter than any other human being.

In fact, one of my co-workers, a dipshitty sort of fellow, went through the exact same training as me and was activated to go guard planes on the flight line. They put you in a little hut with an M16 and check on you every few hours. This dipshitty sort of fellow was the type who owned guns and grew up hunting. He came back early from his augmentee duty because one day he got bored and started ejecting live rounds from his weapon and arranged them in a smiley face on the floor of his little hut.

I think those of us who have served all know this dipshitty sort of fellow, and that’s affecting our perspective. The reality is that, except for a limited number of jobs (MPs and special investigations), the military doesn’t train anyone to carry sidearms around US civilians. Kicking in doors in Afghanistan and surviving firefights with the Taliban doesn’t necessarily prepare you for defending a recruiting center in a strip mall in Boise. Sgt Joe the combat veteran might be OK with a gun, but the Army doesn’t know that. They just know his name, rank, and MOS, and there are going to be LOTS of people with that rank and MOS who have no business being armed. I suppose the DoD could start a vigorous training and qualification program to weed out the well-disciplined from the meat-heads, but that’s going to suck up a lot of time and money to possibly prevent extremely rare tragic events. And at the moment the military is focusing it’s efforts on the big killers, suicides and motorcycles.

Yeah, I recall; way back on page one. “Just call me a cock-eyed optimist.” I’m hoping that instead of beating that drum, they’ll try to answer the questions and in so doing realize that they’ve no ground to stand on.

I know for a fact that during my time in the Army and my time in the Navy, each service would conduct training for whatever weapon the person needed for the job at hand. Issuing a particular weapon to someone not qualified in the use of that weapon was a serious violation.

Absolutely. Before the current hysteria, did anyone see an Armed Forces recruiter and think, “Hey, why isn’t that recruiter carrying a weapon?” I doubt it seriously.

Again: Absolutely.

:smiley:

I’ll do you one better. I showed up at my first duty assignment on the same day we started attacking Iraq. I was actually in the airport (JFK) when CNN was reporting the first sorties taking off (fortunately, we had been told to travel in civilian clothes). Immediately upon reporting to base (middle of nowhere, England), we were assigned to guard the dormitories. Other than the training in basic (pretty much as you described, but with much older weapons), I had/have no weapons training. But that was fine, because we weren’t issued any. We were issued…flashlights. Plastic flashlights, and not a particularly hard plastic (Well-made, though. I still have mine, but the bulb finally burned out a few years back and flashlight bulbs cost more than a new LED flashlight). And no radios. Who we were guarding the dormitories from, and what we were supposed to do on the off-chance someone with ill intent did show up, were left to the imagination. I imagine die horribly in a pool of your own filth was high on the list, right behind run. That insanity ended, for me, once my regular duty shifts started a few days later, and ended overall after about ~1 1/2 weeks.

Update on the situation:

It’s still stupid, but at least it’s not a bunch of armed yokels parading around. From the article in the link above:

Okay, so why do I say it’s stupid. Let’s start with what Lt. Gen. Brilakis had to say:

Of course those that are agitating for armed guards are just glossing over this bit (also from the article linked above):

Finally, my questions posed earlier in this thread have still not been answered. Let me add one more question: These USN Masters-at-Arms who will be doing the guarding will become more of an attractive target for criminals, won’t they?

I’m still waiting on an answer from that completely unbelievable numbskull twit, aruvqan. What’s the matter? Logic got your tongue?

Sick burn, bro.

Well holy shit if that doesn’t sound exactly like what I went through. <Checks> Oh wait, that’s a 15 day course and mine was only 5, I guess they’re good to go. Strap on, boys!

There is no law prohibiting packin’ heat in commercial retail properties, it’s strictly up to the property owners. The military leases the space and the military has to abide by the rules set forth in the lease. I’m definitely bringing my business to the surrounding shops, I feel safer with “Bubba” walking around with his AR-15.

Why?

[crickets chirping]

aruvqan: You wouldn’t happen to have any answers to the questions I’ve put to you in this thread? Well, it that’s too hard for you, you could at least make an intelligent comment. Or maybe that’s beyond you.

I think aruvqan has some other stuff going on right now.

Okay. Well, she went silent on my questions well before the arson happened and I’m sorry for her loss–house cats are awesome.

And while we’re on the subject of arsonists: They’re scum! One of my nephews is a sergeant in a fire department in Georgia. I always hope that the fire he’s headed for wasn’t set by one of those jerks.

Do you still feel safer?

How does that relate to those well-meaning but misguided civilians who want to “guard” Recruiting centers?:confused:

Some random dude showing up at a federal office with a weapon? Oh, nothing; nothing at all. Get off it, DrDeth. It’s quite obvious what it has to do with that. Also, those civilians “wanting to guard recruiting offices” are not well-meaning. They’re putting on a show.