It’s horrible because guard duty is the equivalent of latrine duty, but with less beneficial exercise - you have to do it on occasion, but the thought of doing it exclusively is horrifying.
And we have MPs. They do MP stuff - investigating crimes, escorting prisoners, directing traffic, citing soldiers for forgetting to polish their shoes. They don’t do security.
Sounds like a bit of a hassle to me. I mean, trying to find an armorer every time you need your weapon? How do you cover someone else’s guard shift if you have to?
Our MPs do all of that, and they take their turn guarding unit assets when required. We also have Army CID, NCIS, and other service equivalents for investigating serious crimes.
You don’t “try and find an armorer”. The armorer is on duty when the guard tour begins and issues weapons to the guards. The guard mount stay in the guard house when they aren’t on shift. There is no reason to be getting the weapon when the mood strikes and it won’t be issued unless the service member is currently performing specific duties which require the possession of the weapon at the time.
Look, we agreed it wasnt a good idea for self-proclaimed “militia guards” to try to protect recruiters.
But I can’t see how the US Military cant carry guns to protect itself. Why is that a bad idea?
It’s not that any guy in the military can start toting his gun when he wants to, there is detailed guidance as to who, what , when, where how. They will all be properly vetted.
So, the* Defense department* has decided there is a need and this is a Good idea. The guys* commander *must agree that there is a need and it is a good idea for that soldier to carry a gun- and yet you have decided it’s a “bad idea”.:rolleyes:
The obvious bit–which you persistently avoid seeing–is that it’s not based on facts; rather, it’s just based on politics, to wit: reaction to public opinion.
Yes, the individual’s commanding officer has to agree that there’s a need to be strapped, yet the policy only applies to service members. What, civilian workers don’t have the same fears that soldiers do?
There are additional issues on military bases, regarding service members on duty, carrying their own weapons. What happens with the weapon when the service member is required to carry an issued weapon? What happens when the service member is involved in a weapons discharge incident while toting the issued weapon and his or her own weapon? Who will be responsible for misuse of the privately-owned weapon while the service member is on duty?
Yes, it’s a bad idea. And you continue to not know what you’re talking about. Oh, and you still haven’t apologized for your lies in this thread.
I think you might be surprised at how little military personnel are actually “vetted.” For rank-and-file servicepeople, the vetting is really not much more thorough than the background check one might undergo for a minimum wage job that involves cash handling. Police officers are subjected to a psychiatric screening before they are hired; Army tank gunners don’t go through anything more invasive than filling out some questionnaires. Needless to say, people who want to enlist in the Army are unlikely to want to disclose a prior history of mental illness/treatment.
No argument there. But the answer is to start vetting tank gunners more, not soldiers with sidearms less. Also, for what it’s worth, I am not sure if there are separate mental health screenings for people operating Big Guns which don’t apply to infantry and the like.
