Posted on 07/17/2015 7:58:22 PM PDT by napscoordinator
A recruiter at the Armed Forces Recruiting Center in Gainesville brought a gun inside the center Friday and accidentally shot himself in the leg, police said.
It wasn’t immediately clear why the unidentified recruiter brought the gun to the Dawsonville Highway center. Soldiers are not allowed to bring weapons inside the center, Channel 2 Action News reported.
“Given recent incidents in Chattanooga we know the public may be concerned about the police presence, there is no need for public alarm, this was an accidental shooting,” Gainesville police said in a statement on the department’s Facebook page.
The recruiter was taken to Northeast Georgia Medical Center after the incident, which occurred about 11 a.m., according to Channel 2. His condition was not known.
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
I agree. Have a security plan in place. Not everyone needs to carry, but there has to be some staff who are trained and ready.
The article calls him a “soldier,” so if the reporter is accurate (a big if), this is NOT a Marine.
My bad.
I agree. But I would counter by asking why police departments allow their staff to carry, when we don’t even have a security plan in place for recruitment offices.
Another article says he is a Navy recruiter.
Because a lot of recruiters are Soldiers in name only. They never deploy or do anything Army related. They sit in the recruiting office their entire careers.
I’m glad you mentioned this. Why do they have armed guards at SS offices in the first place. It isn’t like there is any money in there to steal. The guard at our local office is black, and the most unfriendly person you’ll ever meet. He scowls and growls at people. I wonder how he got hired?/s
When I joined the AF in '74, we shot the M-16 (with adaptions for .22 LR rounds) and that wa sit. When I was tagged to go overseas in '78, I was supposed to qualify with rifle and pistol and the requirement was "waived".
These days, unless one is in an actual "combat" position (or Security Forces)), they only touch weapons prior to being deployed.
one ooooops and he will be missing a testicle
I was in the navy and carried small arms when on shore patrol and on security duty. It is no a big deal . The story fits the narrative that the military is to inept to handle weapons and only the police should carry. Some are too stupid and fall for the trap.
And THIS is why we can’t have nice things.
I’m very sceptical given the timing.
The media can’t distinguish among Marines, Soldiers, Sailors or Airmen.
But they sure have their opinions about how they should do their jobs.
Um, perhaps the Army ought to concentrate a little more on weapon handling and safety, instead of tranny sensitivity training.
That is interesting because I had many hours of shore patrol and no Sailor was given a small arm. What years were you in? I was in from 87-2011.
Early 80’s.
Interesting....I wonder if they changed policy during that time. Heck I think the military changed even from early 80’s to the late 80’s and not in a totally good way. They have been messing with the military since the beginning of time.
The OIC of the shore patrol and the senior non com had a side arm and most of the time road around in a van supplied by the DAO office. The enlisted didn’t carry sidearms, but maybe they did I can’t remember. Maybe night clubs?. This was in South America/Africa port calls. In “civilized” countries I don’t remember even having a shore patrol.
The enlisted didn’t carry sidearms,
That explains a lot. I retired as a Chief so I was probably MAYBE an E-3 at the time I was beginning shore duty. Thanks for your post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.