"The first responders were local policemen because the Pensacola Navy base is, like most U.S. military facilities, a gun-free zone. Joshua Watson was a rifle team captain at the Naval Academy. If he had been armed when Alshamrani began his rampage the outcome likely would have been different. Many, many other servicemen and women at Pensacola are perfectly competent to carry arms and do so away from the base. Bizarrely, not even the guards at Pensacola were armed."
This policy needs to change - NOW!
4 comments:
I have always loathed the attitude of senior officers when it comes to arming military personnel. Since I was a lieutenant in West Germany -- a potential combat zone with no notice -- handing a soldier (sailor / airman / marine) a loaded weapon scared the bejesus out of the leaders. The NCOs were not allowed to train their troops properly.
I used to run around Germany, back in 1982, with 5 trucks, 30+ rifles, 3 machine guns, communication security documents, blasting equipment, radios, etc -- AND NO AMMUNITION. Hell, once I carried the keys for munition bunkers so I could load pre-designed targets (blowing roads and bridges to keep the commies from using them). Tons of explosives, DM41 "cheesecake" charges, 50 kilos of TNT in an container 50 centimeters in diameter. Blasting caps, detonators, det cord, the works.
But not one cartridge were we given. I carried my personal .45 ACP, strictly against regulations, but everyone knew it, even the commander. I think he had ammo for his sidearm. And that was it.
Did I mention the terrorist cells active at that time in Europe? I should have. And Spetznatz pathfinders certainly on the prowl.
The only times I was ever officially issued ammunition for my weapon was for the firing range, or ... (wait for it) ... (still waiting?) ... guarding the payroll. That was pre-ATM and credit cards were rare. I cashed a lot of checks, typically $25,000 worth. But the leadership was more concerned about the cash than protecting soldiers and their equipment.
Fast forward to Kuwait, 2005. Troops are being issued live ammo to leave the bases, because there was a definite terrorist threat in the area. Problem was, the troops did not know how to safely handle their firearms. They never used them, for God's sake! Carrying live ammo was virtually unknown in the states -- hell, base commanders had been clamping down on personal weapons, such that owning one was practically a mark of shame. Some places required personal weapons to be stored in unit arms rooms.
So, getting used to the idea that your bangstick was no longer deadweight, something to clean in a couple days, and store in the arms room was pretty much culture shock to some people.
I didn't have that issue, being in the Guard and Reserves, and an active shooter in my freetime. I was (and am) comfortable with a loaded weapon. Or just carrying the ammo. I had more range time than some of the active soldiers. Certainly I had easier access to ammunition.
Cutting to the chase -- there were an incredible number of accidental discharges in Kuwait, some with serious consequences (one soldier was shot in the stomach). Drilling in safe weapons handling was non-existent pre-deployment, and it showed. "Why bother, we ain't giving them no ammo no how!" The gun culture was no longer part of the military. Just looking in the chamber for any glint of brass was an alien concept. Oy. And don't get me started on muzzle control.
And now we have entire bases that are "gun-free", and have been for years. A military installation, with literally hundreds (if not thousands) of personal weapons, and one Arab can run around with a pistol, killing at will. The county sheriff had come on the base and kill the terrorist.
So much for that gun-free zone. And it's not the first time, either. Yet the commanders bury their heads in the sand and take the easy way out. Pathetic.
As for the unarmed guards ... ... I haven't looked into this particular matter, but I do know (from professional experience) that most military installations are no longer guarded by military personnel. The guards are largely contract security (a cost saving measure, if you can believe it), and arming them is up to the installation commander, based on the local threat. That could be the case at Pensacola. Sure sounds like it.
Enough. I could rant on for hours about this particular subject.
Excellent background, Jeff. Thanks.
It's too bad the British didn't have gun free military bases. It would have made the Revolutionary War a lot easier.
It would seem to me, a unarmed soldier is just a civilian in weird clothing. Also, an easy target.
Fort Hood was a "gun-free zone" when Major Nidal had his "sudden jihad syndrome seizure" :: cough :: "workplace violence incident", yet he managed to be armed. Strange how this keeps happening...
Post a Comment