Posted on 12/11/2019 12:32:38 PM PST by Kaslin
Editor's note: This column was co-authored by Nikki Goeser.
With the shootings over the last week at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Hawaii, people are again asking why military personnel are banned from having guns on military bases in the U.S.
These attacks have become an all too familiar pattern of attacks at U.S. bases: the two Fort Hood shootings, the 2015 Chattanooga and 2009 Little Rock military recruitment center shootings, the 2013 Navy Yard complex in Washington, D.C., the 2013 Norfolk Navy base shooting, as well as other cases.
The irony is that our troops have been mandated to have their guns with them at virtually all times when they have been overseas at bases in Afghanistan or Iraq, but somehow those same troops are not trusted with guns when they come back to the U.S.
Good soldiers — like law-abiding citizens — obey the rules against carrying guns. But instead of making places safer, disarming them leaves them sitting ducks. Those who want to do harm seek out venues where they don’t have to worry about victims defending themselves. Since at least 1950, 94 percent of the mass public shootings have taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns.
The hero in the Naval Air Station Pensacola attack was Naval Academy graduate Joshua Watson, 23. Watson was shot at least five times by a Saudi national but still made it outside to alert the First Response team to the shooter's identity and location. Watson was qualified as an Expert Marksman with small arms. He even trained others at the US Naval Academy on how to use firearms.
Now Watson’s family told “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday that they believe the situation would have turned out differently had their son been allowed to have a service weapon on the base. One of the authors here — Nikki Goeser — knows exactly how they feel and talks about it in her new book, as her husband was murdered by her stalker in front of her in a gun-free zone.
The rules governing the Pensacola base were both typical and explicit: “First, state issued ‘concealed weapons permits’ are not recognized on any Navy installation” and that “personal firearms may only be stored in the installation’s armory.”
Yes, there are military police and they guard the entrances, but, like police generally, they can’t be everywhere all the time.
Thus during the Navy Yard or Fort Hood shootings, the unarmed JAG officers, marines, and soldiers could do nothing but cower as the shooter fired round after round.
Apparently, it took 15 minutes for the military police to arrive on the scene, and no one blames them. But 15 minutes is simply too long.
Even the few minute response time for the Pensacola attack was too long for the three people murdered and eight others wounded.
Ironically, as the quote above indicates, soldiers can get a permit to carry a concealed handgun whenever they're off the military base so that they can protect themselves and others. But on the base they are defenseless.
And there are dozens of instances in recent years where Americans legally carrying guns stopped mass public shootings. From school shootings that were stopped before police arrived in such places as Titusville, Florida, Pearl, Mississippi, and Edinboro, Pennsylvania, and at colleges like the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. Or attacks in busy downtowns such as Memphis; churches such as in Antioch, Tennessee and Colorado Springs, Colorado; at a malls in Portland and Salt Lake City; at restaurants across the country; at a grocery story in Louisville; or a dentist’s office in Tennessee.
More than 11 million Americans can legally carry concealed handguns. They are next to us in restaurants, movie theaters and stores. Permit holders are law abiding, committing even the most trivial firearms violations at a rate of hundredths of 1%.
American police understand this. PoliceOne, the largest organization of police officers in the U.S. with 450,000 members, asked its members: “What would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public?” Their most frequent answer, with 30 percent support, was “more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians.”
If civilians can be trusted with guns, surely military personnel can be trusted.
Yet the government doesn’t seem to see the problem with the current setup. The Department of Defense report on the Washington Navy Yard shooting focused solely on how mental illness of the assailant went unreported. After the Pensacola attack the “solution” was to randomly search more vehicles driving onto the base.
Clearly there were mistakes. The Navy did not properly report multiple troublesome incidents during Washington Navy Yard shooter’s active duty service. The government did not tell his employer about any of these problems. But it would be foolish to believe that all potential mass shooters will be identified in advance. Even with better reporting practices, many will slip through the cracks. Besides, it is always much easier in hindsight to realize that people had mental health issues.
The Pensacola attack also demonstrates once again that determined terrorists pose a serious threat, too.
The military also can’t search all or even most of the vehicles of the civilian contractors and service members who drive onto a base every day. They can’t do this any more than a small or medium size town could search everyone who drives into town every day.
The ultimate question is what should be done if the screening for mental illness fails? Or when there is a terrorist plot?
Armed soldiers would provide the best last line of defense.
Additionally, the bans on them carrying show that the concerns of gun control advocates have nothing to do with people not being trained. These people are trained, but gun control advocates still want areas to be “gun-free.”
We trust these people in combat situations, but somehow we can’t trust them at other times?
The Watson family’s reaction is understandable. We need to trust soldiers to carry weapons on bases. That would provide another line of defense against any attacks and not leave our soldiers as sitting ducks.
I would also add to Dr. Lott’s sentiment the following: If law abiding citizens can’t be trusted with guns, then nobody associated with government can be trusted with them as well.
Can? Should?
They’re soldiers.
No excuse for any of them not being armed 24/7.
I’m retired. When I go to town, I can carry. But if I plan on stopping by the base, I cannot. I’m not allowed to even have a gun in my trunk, let alone on my person. So if I plan on stopping by the base, I have to be disarmed for the entire trip.
Had a TS clearance for nearly 30 years, but can’t be trusted with even a 380 on base...
Everyone E4 and up should automatically be allowed a personal weapon.
Came to nothing.
The military brass learned nothing from Ft. Hood in the same fashion that state and local govts learned nothing from all the school shootings and the federal govt learned nothing from 9/11.
We are living through societal breakdown brought on by the violation of God’s laws. What is right can be clearly seen from the created order. And we have the Bible in addition to that.
By rejecting God our nation has invited in the evils we see and experience daily in our streets and schools.
Mockers beware!!
Remember Obunga’s litmus test for high-level military?
His ability to shoot at Americans.
And we know this blood is on bubba’s hands.
Yet he comes out today and says impeachment is right.
This country’s future seems very dim. Pres. Trump is just life support.
The government is transgressing that right, and where the government controls everything, like the military, they transgress your right to life on base. They would rather see you dead.
The military is fubar and needs a total overall. Trump, if he had the cojones would bring the Israelis in, let them lead and soldiers would be mandated to carry everywhere.
Sanity would then prevail.
I’m in your camp. The 2nd Amendment is pretty absolute and clear. I often ask gun grabbers what part of “shall not infringe” do you not understand?
Mostly agree. I would suggest that E4 might be a starting point, but a squeaky-clean record, some additional (and recurrent) training, some additional (and recurrent) pee testing, and meeting a qual board every two years.
Having the authorization to carry on base should be a positive note on one's record, and a plus when it comes time for promotion selection.
Additional rules and restrictions would apply, depending on duties. These would take a bit of planning, but it should have a time fuse (meaning that the planning and approval process must not take over a certain number of months, otherwise it could be slow-walked by some pentagon genii. Securing pieces is another example of an area that would take some planning.
And, syncing with local and state laws would take some negotiations (D.C., Maryland, Cali, you get the idea.) . Not only would bases be safer, so would the communities in which the personnel reside.
This is overall, very much so.
That said, I could see restrictions during basic training, and some additional short period after - just because of the stresses inherent in basic training.
In the 60s when the Army was still paying in cash each month, I picked up the company payroll carrying a .45 with an armed guard who had an M-14. After paying the troops on our post, I drove my POV to a couple of nearby installations to pay troops who were on TDY......with my .45 but without the guard. How things have changed over time.
Are you serious?
Ask yourself this: do you think that the Revolutionary Militiamen and the Continental Line did NOT have their weapons with them in camp at all times?
And if not, why should it be any different now, or come with thirty qualifiers like you propose?
Yep. I commanded a 400 man company and after we had paid all of the company soldiers on the Kaserne, the Lieutenant who was serving as the Pay Officer took the rest of the payroll with his .45 and his POV and drove throughout Western Europe to pay soldiers who were on TDY, in the stockade, in German prisons, etc. Not an issue at border crossings, with the local polezi, or the Gasthaus proprietor. His pistol was under the pillow every night.
I completely agree but have some exceptions/suggestions.
1. Uniformed personnel E-6 and above should be issued and carry service sidearms while on duty (at work)
2. All officers should be issued and carry service sidearms while on duty (at work)
3. Duty Office personnel, OODs (typically O-2 - O-4), AODs (typically E-5 - E-6), and Duty Drivers (typically E-2 - E-4) should have access to M4 carbines at all times, in addition to service sidearms. It is their duty to support and protect the personnel in their command.
4. All off duty active and retired military personnel holding a concealed weapon permit should be allowed to carry their personal sidearms on base at any time
Just my $.02
Should be a circumstances-based matter.
People doing repair work may find having a gun on them bothersome.
Many officers might like to be armed when in uniform.
MPs should almost always be armed when on duty.
Lower-level commanders need to be able to use their judgement.
If you can’t be trusted with a gun after basic training, you shouldn’t be in the military.
“Personal firearms” on a military base are a different matter.
If a soldier/sailor/airman has a gun on a military base, it should normally be owned by Uncle Sam and issued by proper military command.
One might have to report for emergency duty with a personal weapon and provision should be made for storing it on base if necessary or appropriate.
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.