Good guy with a gun - in uniform

[TheDrake]

So, there has been a long standing policy that members of the armed services are, in fact, unarmed while on base (when not in a war zone). Typically only MPs are authorized to be armed. Some point at Clinton, or some odd army regs, but according to the sources I find, it has never been common practice to allow or require carrying sidearms.

These are all individuals with significant firearms training and discipline, though not to the level usually required of law enforcement. Certainly the military itself is not anti-gun, but there are senior generals who have warned against having armed troops on base. What's that all about?

Then there's the idea of Cruz who talks about carrying concealed firearms on base. Why concealed? Wouldn't it be reasonable to open carry? Particularly in uniform?

But more importantly, if the brass who are heavily schooled in strategy and tactics with access to a highly trained group of individuals doesn't wish to have their men and women in uniform armed - why is that? I realize that existing DoD policy does not allow private weapons. But couldn't a base commander order the issue of service weapons for force protection?

I may have some of this wrong, I never served in the military and there's not a great deal of public discussion.

[NobleHunter]

From what I know about the military it's probably inventory control. Soldiers carrying guns around all the time are way more likely to lose (or "lose") them. Then you have to keep track of the ammo and make sure they don't drop the guns in a puddle or something. Much easier just to have everyone leave the guns in the armory.

[Seriati]

I suspect that part of it has to do with combat training and reflexes.  Part of training is designed to develop reactions to threats, granted in certain contexts, that are different and more deadly than what you encounter in every day life.   Given that, disarming soldiers in "peaceful" areas would be a logical step to reduce the risk of fatalities from misapplied reactions.  Keep in mind too, that such policies are not just reflective of the current situation and/or time but also are part of the historical situation where violence might have been even closer in proximity or training harsher, and such a policy may have been critical during a time of war where reflexive reactions/conditioning are going to be more extreme, or in the past when physical confrontation was the most common way we fought and less important in a modern technological army where we're a step removed.

[Pete at Home]

The policy wasn't stupid when the military bases and posts in the United States weren't getting struck by massacres in response to an enemy that we are fighting abroad.  To maintain the policy under current conditions is de facto collaboration with the Islamist murderous combinations such as AQ and Daesh.

[TheDrake]

In some cases, installations may already have rules in place consistent with those now being issued by the Marine Corps. Where they are not, however, commanders are responsible for ensuring the Corps-wide rules are adopted.

These include a prohibition on privately owned firearms in all federal facilities, leased spaces and government vehicles, and prohibitions on carrying privately owned concealed firearms on Marine Corps installations.

Additionally, such firearms stored aboard Marine bases must be registered and on file with the provost marshal’s office/ Marine Corps police department, according to Marine Corps officials.

Also, neither the weapons nor the ammunition for them will be stored in bachelor enlisted quarters for non-commissioned officers and below. For enlisted staff NCOs and officers, storage in the BEQ and BOQ is at the discretion of the base commander.

So, the gun free zone is alive and well. I suspect because it is recognized that there is an inherent danger in having everyone wander around on base armed, as opposed to the assertion that there is no danger from "good guys with guns". This yields a calculation, that as Pete points out, may need to be updated to compare against other dangers, possibly yielding a change in policy.

On the other hand, it also points up the inherent unenforceability of gun free zones. Here you actually have guard posts, id checks, and unlimited searches, yet there is no clear ability to keep the gun free zone free of guns. As opposed to college campuses with free and open access.

[TheDeamon]

From what I know about the military it's probably inventory control. Soldiers carrying guns around all the time are way more likely to lose (or "lose") them. Then you have to keep track of the ammo and make sure they don't drop the guns in a puddle or something. Much easier just to have everyone leave the guns in the armory.

I think this is part of it, at least where it comes to "service" weapons.

I suspect that part of it has to do with combat training and reflexes.  Part of training is designed to develop reactions to threats, granted in certain contexts, that are different and more deadly than what you encounter in every day life.   Given that, disarming soldiers in "peaceful" areas would be a logical step to reduce the risk of fatalities from misapplied reactions.

This would likewise make sense, they train, train again, and train some more to get a lot of that down to an almost conditioned reflex. So putting them in a situation where their conditioned reflexive response doesn't apply, particularly while armed with their gear, creates problems.... Which isn't to mention that in peacetime "routine" operations on base, they're not often moving about their buildings as squads and platoons, which goes back to reflexive response training. Also, if everyone in the building is armed, your odds of seeing that "cascade of friendly fire" go up considerably as you probably don't know who the initial shooter(s) is(/are), which means it could be someone in uniform....

Keep in mind too, that such policies are not just reflective of the current situation and/or time but also are part of the historical situation where violence might have been even closer in proximity or training harsher, and such a policy may have been critical during a time of war where reflexive reactions/conditioning are going to be more extreme, or in the past when physical confrontation was the most common way we fought and less important in a modern technological army where we're a step removed.

I think some of it is the Military is really big on "uniform" being well, "uniform" which means that everybody is similarly attired, equipped, and generally presents in the same way. Which means no personal firearms, as that would be "prejudicial to good order and discipline," as they're "not uniform issue equipment." Of course, they have policies for belt-worn utility knifes, and other things, so it wouldn't be too hard for them to create a standard for what personal firearms could be worn, and how they are to be worn.

[AI Wessex]

I think the answer is not that complicated. The rules are defined in DoD Directive 5210.56.  Section 4.b states:

Arming DoD personnel with firearms shall be limited and controlled.  Qualified personnel shall be armed when required for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed.  Evaluation of the necessity to arm DoD personnel shall be made with the consideration of the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of those arms.  However, the overriding factors in determining whether or not to arm are the mission and threat.  Arming DoD personnel (i.e., administrative, assessment, or inspection, not regularly engaged in or directly supervising security or law enforcement activities) shall be limited to missions or threats and the immediate need to protect DoD assets or persons’ lives.  DoD Components have the discretion to keep designated staff personnel qualified and available or on call to perform duties. 

Domestic bases don't qualify unless they are under direct or imminent threat of attack.  That makes perfect sense.

[TheDrake]

I think the answer is not that complicated.

You've missed the point. They are following the directive. Why is the directive there? Why isn't it changed? Why is it a good idea? Should the possibility of terrorism be considered an imminent threat? If this is the directive for the military and it is a good idea, why wouldn't it be a good directive for civilians?

[TheDeamon]

I think the answer is not that complicated.

You've missed the point. They are following the directive. Why is the directive there? Why isn't it changed? Why is it a good idea? Should the possibility of terrorism be considered an imminent threat? If this is the directive for the military and it is a good idea, why wouldn't it be a good directive for civilians?

This. Military Regulations exist for a reason, however thin the veneer of reasoning may be, it is still there. So pointing to the regulation is all well and good, but why is the regulation written in that manner?

[AI Wessex]

OK, I'll offer my opinions:

Why is the directive there?

Because in peace time domestic bases there is no reason to arm them.  Others have given specific reasons why it might be bad if they were armed, but I think it's more the principle than the consequences.

Why isn't it changed?  Why is it a good idea?

Because there have been a few incidents? The vast majority of gun-cause incidents of violence committed on army bases have nothing to do with terrorism.  If an army base can't protect itself without arming every person on it, then no place can.  That then leads to the question of whether everyplace should be considered a threatened and threatening environment, so everybody should be armed everywhere.  I think giving in to that kind of thinking is a declaration that we should be afraid all the time.  It's like people have suddenly discovered that one kind of violence is somehow worse than the others that have the same consequences that they have endured without the politicization.

Should the possibility of terrorism be considered an imminent threat?

I think that's backwards; if there is a plausible imminent threat of terrorism, it should be treated as an imminent threat.

f this is the directive for the military and it is a good idea, why wouldn't it be a good directive for civilians?

I think it would be, but civilian culture and civilian rights aren't extensions of military practice or vice versa.  We need to change the culture from the recent surge of militarism (really an extension of anti-liberalism) toward a more inclusive and tolerant one.  It's as if fear and anger have overwhelmed public discourse, even though there's no more grounding for that attitude now than there was a couple of decades ago.  To put it more directly, should we be more afraid of terrorism and crime as a society today than we were of the imminent Soviet threat in the late 50's.  That may be a whole different discussion.

[Pete at Home]

The legal standard of IMMINENT threat is when a CIVILIAN is justified in doing violence.

The idea that a standing army should only be armed if a threat is IMMINENT is screwed up beyond words.

You arm your army when there is any reasonably likely threat of lethal violence.

By Al's stated "imminent" standard, we should have our troops walking around Afghanistan unarmed.

I don't think Al is stupid; just saying that he's misusing the word "imminent" and that the resulting recommendation is extremely foolish.  I hope that's not what Al meant to say.

[AI Wessex]

You're applying a use of the word "imminent" that is far more precise than what I thought I was asked about, and more precise than I've ever heard it used.

Pete, read what I wrote for what I meant instead of what you want to change it into.  I never talked about foreign deployments, as the questions were addressed to domestic bases.  Read the DoD guidelines that I posted to find that the troops in Afghanistan on a mission should be armed, and that troops should be armed based on a perceived threat.  We can disagree whether a possibility of an attack constitutes any plausible expectation that needs pre-emptive defenses, but that's yet another discussion.

I'm not going to respond further to what I think is either a strawman or an attempt to drag my comments into a different domain to put me on the defensive.

[TheDrake]

They also use force protection conditions to express imminent threat. Currently, it seems that we are at FPCON BRAVO for domestic bases.

FPCON Bravo applies when an increased or more predictable threat of terrorist activity exists. In addition to FPCON Alpha measures, installation commanders will increase ID checks and inspections of facilities, deliveries, and packages. Some traffic will be restricted and vehicle barriers emplaced. Personnel can expect to experience some delays due to ID checks and vehicle inspections.

Charlie is considered the imminent threat level. Even in that case, weapons are only issued to guards.

Now, if you follow the statements of many CCW advocates, they'll say that you should always carry your gun because you can't predict when you might need it. It seems that military guidelines are in strong opposition to that point of view.

[AI Wessex]

Now, if you follow the statements of many CCW advocates, they'll say that you should always carry your gun because you can't predict when you might need it. It seems that military guidelines are in strong opposition to that point of view.

Yes, the military is well-regulated and every soldier is issued a weapon .

[TheDrake]

Now, if you follow the statements of many CCW advocates, they'll say that you should always carry your gun because you can't predict when you might need it. It seems that military guidelines are in strong opposition to that point of view.

Yes, the military is well-regulated and every soldier is issued a weapon .

Fun and facetious, but maybe you'd like to address the concept? Military guidelines say DON'T always carry your weapon, while CCW advocates say DO always carry your weapon.

[TheDrake]

Army Chief of Staff Raymond Odierno alluded to that policy when asked whether more soldiers should be armed in the wake of the Chattanooga murders. “Personally, my initial thought of that is, does that cause more problems than it solves?” he said. “I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I’m not talking about where you end up attacking each other.” He emphasized concerns about “accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries.”

That’s no idle worry: Even among highly experienced combat Marines, injury-causing firearms mishaps occur all the time. The day after the Chattanooga attack, a Navy recruiter shot himself in the leg with his own pistol in a Georgia recruiting center. The AP reported that the sailor accidentally shot himself while holstering the .45 and “discussing the Tennessee shootings with one of his recruits.”

Why Military Security Experts Know That Arming More Troops Is Not the Answer

[AI Wessex]

Fun and facetious, but maybe you'd like to address the concept? Military guidelines say DON'T always carry your weapon, while CCW advocates say DO always carry your weapon.

I think it's all rolled up in that quip.  The military is well-regulated, all soldiers are issued weapons and are trained in their use, and the rules specify when they are and are not allowed to carry them.  Sounds like exactly what the 2A was addressing, if you read ALL of it and not just the fun part at the end.

[Pete at Home]

Army Chief of Staff Raymond Odierno alluded to that policy when asked whether more soldiers should be armed in the wake of the Chattanooga murders. “Personally, my initial thought of that is, does that cause more problems than it solves?” he said. “I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I’m not talking about where you end up attacking each other.” He emphasized concerns about “accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries.”

That’s no idle worry: Even among highly experienced combat Marines, injury-causing firearms mishaps occur all the time. The day after the Chattanooga attack, a Navy recruiter shot himself in the leg with his own pistol in a Georgia recruiting center. The AP reported that the sailor accidentally shot himself while holstering the .45 and “discussing the Tennessee shootings with one of his recruits.”

Why Military Security Experts Know That Arming More Troops Is Not the Answer

I realize that at least three historical Ornery lefties refuse to grapple with the obvious fact that a dozen stories about marines shooting themselves accidentally in various incidents does less damage to morale and our national security than one story of someone murdering half a dozen helpless and unarmed marines on a military base.  But I thought you would not fall for that sort of lefthink.

The damage that terrorism does to us as people and to a nation is more than the simple toll of immediate visible casualties.

When the KKK burnt a woman alive by the side of the road and hung and castrated a man in front of his house, right in the town, the damage is more than two people dead.  Equating terrorism deaths to accidental deaths in terms of total damage done is one of several places where sheetheadthink intersects with lefthink.

[AI Wessex]

I realize that at least three historical Ornery lefties refuse to grapple...

Thanks for pointing that out, otherwise I would have thought I was trying to consider the issue from a wide perspective.  Guess not.

Equating terrorism deaths to accidental deaths in terms of total damage done is one of several places where sheetheadthink intersects with lefthink.

Even worse than I thought.  Now I'm somehow intellectually aligned with both the KKK who burn and castrate people and Islamic terrorists.  Again, I appreciate you pointing this out.  Everyone should be afraid of the lefties.

Are you unable to control yourself?

[AI Wessex]

Fun and facetious, but maybe you'd like to address the concept? Military guidelines say DON'T always carry your weapon, while CCW advocates say DO always carry your weapon.

I'm still trying to figure out if I did miss the concept you are referring to.  I don't see any direct correspondence between good order and discipline in the military and what CCW advocates want for themselves individually, as military and civilian realms are governed by completely different sets of rules.  If the concept is that there is some kind of alignment between the groups because the 2A was (supposedly) added because citizens should be able to defend themselves against government tyranny, that's not what CCW is really after, IMO. 

They want to take control from the government under the illusion that any government restriction is an infringement on their rights and that government can't be trusted to do its job.

If you are suggesting that the common element is that military personnel need to be armed against possible government tyranny, then I don't know how we can have a meaningful conversation, since that is a stupendous contradiction of purpose at every level.

If instead you are suggesting that armed civilians are an extension of the military in some fashion, I likewise don't know how to respond.  I think in some cowboy fantasies some people imagine themselves the vigilante embodiment of their individual right to uphold the banner of the Constitution, but IMO that is a call for anarchy, which is the opposite of what they say they are doing.

I don't like CCW for the same reasons that Odierno doesn't want everyone in the military to be armed.  Some people might be ok with increased incidences of gun violence or accident, but if they have no real purpose to having the weapon it should be left somewhere where it can be gotten when the need arises.

Or am I still missing your point?  If so, help me out...

[TheDrake]

AI:

CCW has absolutely nothing to do with government tyranny.

Note, the military has no problem with service members owning personal firearms, they just aren't allowed on base.

My central point is... is it a good idea for more people to be armed in public spaces?

I'm offering up as grist, the fact that the military doesn't think that's such a good idea, as documented in their policy. I'm completely sidestepping what is currently legal, and if there could be such a restriction on civilian CCW.


Pete:

It depends. A utilitarian view boils everything down to the greatest good for the most people. Naturally terrorism is more impactful - partly because we choose to treat it as such. If we could shrug off the 20 people who get shot in an attack the way that we do the 700 who get killed by negligent discharge, there probably would be less terrorism because it wouldn't be very effective.

Let's say a big drive to arm everybody happens, but we now have 7000 people getting killed annually in negligent situations, more Zimmerman type incidents which have their own amplification effect on the public, and even more police shootings stemming from "man with a gun" calls when the concealed carrier fails to conceal. Would that be worth it, in order to have an increased possibility of stopping an active shooter?

[TheDeamon]

I need to get going, so I'm going for brevity over clarity but I do think that this is something of an Apples(Military Base) vs Oranges(world at large) comparison.

The Military base is an access controlled facility as not just anyone can get on base normally. It also comes with a significantly increased security presence, both armed and unarmed, than is normally seen in much of the general population. Often with an armed response being only a couple minutes away at worst. Compared to 15 minutes to the better part of an hour later in many parts of the United States. (There are counties in the US where the closest LEO on duty may be over 50 miles away at the time a distress call is made, although those counties are fairly rare. The nearest deputy being 20 to 30 miles away is still not uncommon for many people, and that's assuming the deputy is not busy with something else when the call comes in)

Even for towns with their own police department, having only 2 cars on duty at a given time isn't unusual, and that's for cities with up to 20,000 people in them. (Which isn't to say county, state, or a neighboring community won't have other assets available, but it still stands help may either be busy already, or some distance away)

Which is where a lot of the Concealed Carry is coming from, on the military base it may turn out that help isn't on scene at the moment the event happens, but it's going to be there in very short order unless there is a major event happening elsewhere at the same time.

In much of the rest of the country, help may be on its way, but it may be a while getting there.

Keep in mind, this is a justification for people to be First Aide Certified as well as Concealed Carry. In fact, I'd be inclined to say to say that requiring First Aide certification up to a certain level as a pre-requisite for having a Concealed Carry Permit wouldn't be a bad idea on multiple levels.

[AI Wessex]

My central point is... is it a good idea for more people to be armed in public spaces?

My view is emphatically No. Having a gun hidden in your pocket or strapped to your waist doesn't make you more responsible or accurate.  I prefer everyone know where the exits are and have a cell phone so they can dial 911.  I think the nightclub scene in the movie "Collateral" is a good visualization aid for what might happen, or maybe John Wick, though no innocent bystanders were shot, somehow...

[cherrypoptart]

My suggestion as to why this is the case is because there is a lack of trust in junior members of the military. It can be a high stress job with a lot of sleep deprivation thrown in and those in charge expect easy access to firearms could cause some nut to go all Full Metal Jacket on someone.

[Seriati]

Charlie is considered the imminent threat level. Even in that case, weapons are only issued to guards.

Now, if you follow the statements of many CCW advocates, they'll say that you should always carry your gun because you can't predict when you might need it. It seems that military guidelines are in strong opposition to that point of view.

How so?  Last I checked military guidelines even in time of peace have armed guards at the base.  The fact that they don't arm every soldier says more about how effective they believe their security measures will be to contain hostile situations and their ability to react.  The equivalent to the base analogy is how many people believe in remaining armed inside their house at all times (dramatically lower number than concealed carry away from home).

A better equivalent test would be how often on duty soldiers off base carry arms, the answer to that seems to be incredibly frequently.

[Seriati]

I think it's all rolled up in that quip.  The military is well-regulated, all soldiers are issued weapons and are trained in their use, and the rules specify when they are and are not allowed to carry them.  Sounds like exactly what the 2A was addressing, if you read ALL of it and not just the fun part at the end.

If you read all of it, and actually understand what you read, then the conclusions you often draw from it are nonsensical. 

[Seriati]

I don't see any direct correspondence between good order and discipline in the military and what CCW advocates want for themselves individually, as military and civilian realms are governed by completely different sets of rules.  If the concept is that there is some kind of alignment between the groups because the 2A was (supposedly) added because citizens should be able to defend themselves against government tyranny, that's not what CCW is really after, IMO.

The second amendment was added to remind the government that the right of self defense is inherent to the people and not something granted to them by the government.  It was put there to set the constraints on what power the government was being granted to achieve the ends upon which the people agreed to form such government.  The government was not granted the power to disarm the population because this fundamentally violates their right to self defense against all enemies, including but not limited to a tyrannical government.

They want to take control from the government under the illusion that any government restriction is an infringement on their rights and that government can't be trusted to do its job.

The government has no right to control anyone in any way that we didn't grant it authority to do.  If the people what to rescind such a grant they have the absolute right and authority to do so.  Or did you mistake that we live in a Constitutional Republic and somehow come to believe we're granted only such rights as the government chooses to let us exercise?

By definition, a government is an infringement on your rights.  It's a specific agreement to accept certain infringements in the interest of mutual prosperity and order.

If you are suggesting that the common element is that military personnel need to be armed against possible government tyranny, then I don't know how we can have a meaningful conversation, since that is a stupendous contradiction of purpose at every level.

I agree with that.  The military's role is not to fight internal tyranny.  The best we can hope for is the military to refuse to support it, which is exactly why we charge every soldier with the duty to disobey illegal orders. 

Individually, as citizens the members of the military have a duty to oppose internal tyranny, same as every other persons.  But it is no more the role of the military to fight internal tyranny than it is of the post office.

I don't like CCW for the same reasons that Odierno doesn't want everyone in the military to be armed.  Some people might be ok with increased incidences of gun violence or accident, but if they have no real purpose to having the weapon it should be left somewhere where it can be gotten when the need arises.

You don't like CCW because you believe your judgment about whether someone ELSE needs to carry a firearm for protection is superior to and should override their judgment about the same.  That's of course the essence of what it means for something to be a right rather than a privilege as you'd like to reconstruct the issue.  No one agreed to cede to you their own power to protect themselves.

[TheDrake]

I can accept the reality of bases being different than the entire civilian world, I think that's a good argument. Response times might be faster from armed guards on base than civilian police response - or more effective. One could say the same thing about nightclubs or campuses, that we should have more armed, trained guards and controlled gate access. But I don't hear that as often as I hear the cry to arm civilians, because you never know when you might need a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy

I do support concealed carry, though it may not seem it, for those who are trained in situational awareness and safety. This gets particularly true the more remote you get. I went on a camping trip to some remote areas, and I strongly considered carrying a firearm. Ultimately, I couldn't envision that my lack of training plus being crept up on would equal any meaningful defense and posed the risk of negligent use.

All things considered, the value of concealed carry seems to me a complex equation with independent variables including threat level, training of the individual, first responder response time, and other factors.

[Seriati]

I'm curious TheDrake have you ever heard of an active shooter situation, where a concealed carry permit holder was present and they made the situation worse?  There are multiple accounts of armed civilians bringing an early close to such events.  You don't hear calls for fortressing up, because it's inconsistent with our way of life.  The ideological overlap between those calling for gun limits and those unwilling to accept any curtailment of their own freedom of choice is overwhelming (rules are for other people you know!).

[TheDeamon]

Charlie is considered the imminent threat level. Even in that case, weapons are only issued to guards.

Now, if you follow the statements of many CCW advocates, they'll say that you should always carry your gun because you can't predict when you might need it. It seems that military guidelines are in strong opposition to that point of view.

How so?  Last I checked military guidelines even in time of peace have armed guards at the base.  The fact that they don't arm every soldier says more about how effective they believe their security measures will be to contain hostile situations and their ability to react.  The equivalent to the base analogy is how many people believe in remaining armed inside their house at all times (dramatically lower number than concealed carry away from home).

From my time in the Navy, I know that the quarterdeck, or any other additional entry/exit points that may be made available(usually on larger ships) will always have at least one armed individual on site. As the threat condition elevates, the number of armed individuals increases, and starts to include more than just the 1 armed quarterdeck watch stander minimum.

Which isn't to mention the pier security which has wildly variable levels of security ranging from heavily armed to just having a police baton and a radio. Metal detectors being employed isn't unheard of either, particularly in elevated threat situations.

High security areas on military bases, be it due to either inherent threats posed by the material on site(explosives/weapons), or otherwise sensitive nature of the work that happens, tend to also be "hardened" locations that will be difficult for a lightly armed attacked to gain entry to in the event of those locations being fore-warned of their presence(they'll lock down in advance of their arrival).

Which isn't to mention that in many of those places, having a separate armed security presence on site isn't usual for the more "sensitive" locations, particularly if there is a lot of physical separation between various "Assets" (such as at a military base). Most of the armed security present at most military bases is in the form of security watch standers drawn from the units stationed there, much like the US Navy Warships do to ensure their own respective security bubbles, leaving the base police to oversee overall security and access to the base itself.

I can't really speak to how things work out everywhere, and probably wouldn't even if I could, but the reality is the security situation implemented at every military installation is probably as numerous as there are military installations. Regardless of how much they try to standardize a lot of things. Much like with the Ships in homeport, I imagine there are plenty of comparable situations in Army/Marine Corps/Air Force bases where depending on where you are, the unit assigned to a particular location may also attempt to respond with its own armed response force in addition to anything Base Police may send out to assist.

With almost a 100% guarantee of that in the case of a US Navy Ship being involved, it'll have its own internal response even while the base police are getting contacted to assist, in the event it isn't immediately resolved internally.

But it also goes back to a US Military Base being an Apple and Oranges comparison to the civilian side of things. It would be like setting up a security perimeter around a college campus restricting the number of entry and exit points to campus, with either security screenings or escorts happening prior to even being able to enter the campus. With the further additions of each building on campus having their own additional layers of security to get through, with more than a few departmental buildings containing their own respective (mini)armories and internal "rapid reaction forces"/"security alert team" drawn from staff dedicated exclusively to responding to security threats within their respective buildings.

And actually, for a school shooting situation, that security alert team is kind of what they're talking about when they talk about arming teachers in the classroom. You don't need to arm every teacher, although in some cases that may be a "best" solution as it gives you a greater chance of their being  in the same room when the problem starts. You just have to either arm, or make provisions for rapidly arming, several of the teachers in the event of a "situation" developing that warrants that response. Someone already in the building or facility is always going to be able to respond more quickly than someone several miles away. 

Yeah, yeah, that's what the (resource) officers in the schools are supposed to be for, but one Cop with a gun is rather limited in their options in comparison to a group of 4+ people with guns tackling the same issue, particularly when those 4+ people are intimately familiar with the general layout of the location in question. But that goes back to things I've alluded to elsewhere, and requires a bit more training than even the NRA has often talked about when they talk about arming teachers.

NRA is more approaching it from a "Warrior" perspective(1 person with the right tools/skills). While I'm talking more from a "soldier" perspective(where a team of people work together to achieve a common objective), and it is that "soldier"/team perspective than even the LEO's would employ once they do get a chance to respond, particularly in the case of SWAT. Which is the thing many people forget about, they get hung up on the "Special Weapons" part of "Special Weapons And Tactics" the thing that makes SWAT stand above the regular police forces is they typically do additional training beyond just the standard individual training, as they have to train with their fellow SWAT members to learn how to act and react as part of a unit.

[TheDrake]

I'm curious TheDrake have you ever heard of an active shooter situation, where a concealed carry permit holder was present and they made the situation worse?  There are multiple accounts of armed civilians bringing an early close to such events.  You don't hear calls for fortressing up, because it's inconsistent with our way of life.  The ideological overlap between those calling for gun limits and those unwilling to accept any curtailment of their own freedom of choice is overwhelming (rules are for other people you know!).

I think the bigger drawback is not about active shooter situations, which are exceedingly rare in any event. It is interesting to note that according to a 2014 FBI report, 21 active shooters were stopped by unarmed citizens compared to 5 stopped by returned fire by not law enforcement, and 4 of those were armed security guards. source

Of course, there are lots of ways to use the data to show that there would be better outcomes if everyone was armed. And when you are talking about numbers like 21 and 4, there's little statistical validity. They are just anecdotal.

I would balance this against increased levels of aggravated assault (threatening someone with your concealed weapon), negligent discharge, and other such things. These are hard to pin down, I think, because they probably go widely unreported. Then there are the people who cause public fear and man with a gun type scenarios because they don't conceal properly.

I only have anecdotes, but here's one:

Sterling was selling CDs early Tuesday outside the Triple S Food Mart in Baton Rouge, the official said, when the homeless man approached him and asked for money. The man was persistent, and Sterling showed him his gun, the official said.

source

Responsible concealed carry courses and advocates talk about these risks, in a see something, say something world with police using lethal force with little provocation its probably not good to let someone see your gun unless you intend to use it.

Now, most people who carry concealed, by far, don't commit these mistakes and crimes. My concern would be a sudden influx of people new to concealed carry and firearms in general especially in a state with no live fire training requirement (or a state that recognizes permits from a state with no live fire requirement). Both aim and judgement are exceedingly important in the concept of taking down a live shooter rather than becoming a de-facto second shooter.

Then there are the states who are allowing concealed carry with no training and license.

I do wish I could find a credible source talking about crimes committed by CCW license holders, but there's a lot of noise in the system, where the CCW license is not really relevant to a crime that could have been committed otherwise.

That's part of why I used the military as an example. They have to qualify at least basic firearms safety and live fire once in a while.

[TheDrake]

Yeah, yeah, that's what the (resource) officers in the schools are supposed to be for, but one Cop with a gun is rather limited in their options in comparison to a group of 4+ people with guns tackling the same issue, particularly when those 4+ people are intimately familiar with the general layout of the location in question. But that goes back to things I've alluded to elsewhere, and requires a bit more training than even the NRA has often talked about when they talk about arming teachers.

Appreciate your detailed response, and it all makes sense so I don't have many comments. I do acknowledge now that there is a clear difference between a base environment and a random part of the country.

I think if you are going to have a gun-free-zone, you do need some kind of search provision and controlled access like on military bases, or the whole thing is meaningless.

And I also would agree with some kind of teacher armed defense training, I haven't really heard it proposed in such a way before - mostly the NRA line seems to just suggest that teachers should strap on a holster and good-to-go.

Many times when I contemplate CCW, I think about altercations I've seen in the street or been a part of. Had any of us been carrying, I think things would have ended much worse.

[Fenring]

I only have anecdotes, but here's one:

Sterling was selling CDs early Tuesday outside the Triple S Food Mart in Baton Rouge, the official said, when the homeless man approached him and asked for money. The man was persistent, and Sterling showed him his gun, the official said.

source

Wait, are you using this example to demonstrate that concealed carry holders can be irresponsible and cause trouble? That's sure not what the story looks like to me. Unless I'm grossly mistaken it looks like a homeless person may have been getting aggressive with a vendor, and concerned that a physical altercation would follow the vendor let the aggressor know that such an altercation would result in deadly violence, and hence to go away. This is an interpretation, mind you, and maybe the homeless person didn't do anything aggressive at all and the vendor was just a nut. However to date I've never met a vendor who became physically aggressive with me (or threatened me) for any reason, while I've encountered many panhandlers or homeless people who were virtually on the brink of attacking either me or someone else. So assuming it's true that the vendor felt threatened, it seems like showing the gun was the entirely responsible thing to do, as it was equivalent to saying "I don't want trouble or to hurt you, back off." That's what I would call a big-win scenario for packing heat, where violence is averted due to the threat potential of the scenario. The fact that the police came and a fatality ultimately ensued is immaterial to whether the vendor acted properly or not prior to the 9-11 call.

[TheDrake]

So assuming it's true that the vendor felt threatened, it seems like showing the gun was the entirely responsible thing to do, as it was equivalent to saying "I don't want trouble or to hurt you, back off." That's what I would call a big-win scenario for packing heat, where violence is averted due to the threat potential of the scenario. The fact that the police came and a fatality ultimately ensued is immaterial to whether the vendor acted properly or not prior to the 9-11 call.

That's always the rub. "Did he feel threatened" is actually not the standard to brandish a weapon in most states, it is the immediate threat of grave injury or death. I have seen a lot of aggressive homeless folks too. I've had my path blocked, I've had profanity rained down on me, one time I witnessed someone verbally threaten a woman following her down the block. All ended peacefully, maybe partly because I didn't have a gun and neither did any irresponsible person nearby.

And I'm also using the example to show the natural repercussion in some of these cases. The cops are going to get called if you reveal your weapon.

As opposed to walking off away from the homeless guy, going into the store, or any number of other peaceful de-escalations.

Now, I can't know for certain what the outcome would be, or other details of the exact case. But I would wager that he would have been better off if he had not been carrying. It is absolutely material what came next. It probably would have been a good idea to leave the area after flashing your piece on the street. And since it seems likely the homeless guy was still nearby, if he did have bad intent, he now knows you are armed and can come back with the intent to disarm you.

It is far from a perfect example, just an illustration of how a weapon in the mix, once revealed, escalates a situation way beyond what was necessary.  I suspect, but can't know, that in this case or ones like it, he was angry and irritated rather than in fear of his life.

And that's part of what is hard to pin down. There are no statistics on when people inappropriately pull out a firearm, and concealed carry advocates often call anytime they get someone to go away a big win. Most responsible concealed carry websites always cite retreat as the first recourse.

There's a fascinating thread on Reddit where people share their stories about having to draw their weapon, and lots of discussion back and forth about where that right line is to pull out a gun.

[Fenring]

It is far from a perfect example, just an illustration of how a weapon in the mix, once revealed, escalates a situation way beyond what was necessary.  I suspect, but can't know, that in this case or ones like it, he was angry and irritated rather than in fear of his life.

Are you sure it's not an example of how the police employ deadly force in situations they shouldn't? It's perfectly acceptable to call the police when someone reveals a sidearm, and when they arrive there should be no problem is the person with the sidearm is allowed to have it and didn't do anything wrong. The fact that 9-11 was called is not in itself an indication so far that anything wrong had occurred. Maybe you would evaluate the threat level as 'insufficient' to reveal the weapon, but you weren't there. And it wasn't just a guy who could have just kept walking, he was a vendor and was doing business there. It's not the same as if he was in a private store, but also not the same as if he was a pedestrian going for a walk and decided to stop and make trouble.

Here's the opinion of a fellow police officer on the shooting:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/alton-sterling-shooting-louisiana-nakia-jones-black-police-officer-take-uniform-off-facebook-video-a7124801.html

“I’m here because I wanted to make a difference. But how dare you stand next to me in the same uniform and murder somebody? How dare you?” she said in a live video uploaded to Facebook on Wednesday.

“There’s many of us who would give our life for anybody, and we took this oath and we meant it. If you are an officer who is prejudiced, take the uniform off and put the KKK hoodie on.”"

Now that's what a real police officer ought to sound like. It's just one opinion, mind you, but I hardly think the case was so clear-cut in either direction that it's a good example of why concealed carry creates problems.

[TheDrake]

You're right, it is a messy case. It isn't a bright line - and therefore... conclusion type of scenario. I'm not so sure there ever can be one. As you point out, none of us were there, and even if we were we would be observing from a different vantage point.

The more poorly trained people there are, the more likelihood that the use will be inappropriate. The more that happens, the more cops will be even more paranoid and prone to use force inappropriately.

I'm sure that homeless people come by and harass any number of street vendors, food trucks, and fruit stands and most people manage that situation without waving a firearm at the transgressor. I'm also sure that on occasion, homeless people physically assault those same people. It's a tough situation to deal with, but I'm not sure having them all armed and barking orders improves the situation for everyone. It would indeed lead to having fewer assaults committed by the homeless - but probably more for the proprietors, and a fair number of people scared out of their wits when they were just trying to buy falafel. Not to mention near constant police cars screeching around answering calls.

[Pete at Home]

It is far from a perfect example, just an illustration of how a weapon in the mix, once revealed, escalates a situation way beyond what was necessary.  I suspect, but can't know, that in this case or ones like it, he was angry and irritated rather than in fear of his life.

Are you sure it's not an example of how the police employ deadly force in situations they shouldn't? It's perfectly acceptable to call the police when someone reveals a sidearm, and when they arrive there should be no problem is the person with the sidearm is allowed to have it and didn't do anything wrong. The fact that 9-11 was called is not in itself an indication so far that anything wrong had occurred. Maybe you would evaluate the threat level as 'insufficient' to reveal the weapon, but you weren't there. And it wasn't just a guy who could have just kept walking, he was a vendor and was doing business there. It's not the same as if he was in a private store, but also not the same as if he was a pedestrian going for a walk and decided to stop and make trouble.

Here's the opinion of a fellow police officer on the shooting:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/alton-sterling-shooting-louisiana-nakia-jones-black-police-officer-take-uniform-off-facebook-video-a7124801.html

“I’m here because I wanted to make a difference. But how dare you stand next to me in the same uniform and murder somebody? How dare you?” she said in a live video uploaded to Facebook on Wednesday.

“There’s many of us who would give our life for anybody, and we took this oath and we meant it. If you are an officer who is prejudiced, take the uniform off and put the KKK hoodie on.”"

Now that's what a real police officer ought to sound like. It's just one opinion, mind you, but I hardly think the case was so clear-cut in either direction that it's a good example of why concealed carry creates problems.

Thanks for sharing that. Comforts the heart to know there are officers like that on the force, although i suspect there are more that think like her than actually dare to say those words.  Hope she survives the payback from her fellow officers.