A Federal CCW, Who wants it?

[SF_BHT]

Triman19

Well after I retired from SF and have spent almost 10 yrs as a FED...... I can tell you that I was a lot more comfortable with my military brethren packing than a lot of the local/state/Fed LEO's that I work with. After the academy a lot of LEO's do not get a fraction of range time or tactical practice that is needed to keep a fine edge.

I would not have a single problem with a military member that meets state CCW and what ever Post (FED) CCW requirements to carry only on post.

Maturity is always an issue and I work with some 40yr old LEO's that scare me with the attitude and dangerous antics with firearms. Looks like a great opportunity for a weekend job for some Good 18B at McKellers to teach Post CCW classes. A little extra money and more range and training time. WIN WIN WIN....

[Utah Bob]

Triman 19, I spent 30 years behind the badge and have always supported the rights of citizens to carry firearms. To say that military members should not carry due to the possible PTSD based on your own personal experienced isn't a rational argument.
I was in Florida when the CCW laws were passed. The anti-gun crowd screamed that there would be blood flowing in the streets as ccw holders slapped leather and shot it out over traffic accidents and minor disagreements.

It never happened.

Use of Force Training similar to what civilians receive in many states prior to being issued a concealed carry license can easily be given to troops.
I have heard the argument that only LEOs should carry weapons countless times over the years. And I have been in countries where only LEOs carry. God help us if we ever go down that road.

Robert Heinlein said "An armed society is a polite society".

[LongWire]

Originally Posted by Fiercely Loyal

You can trust these soldiers to be armed overseas 24/7 for a year or more at a time (pre, during, and post traumatic events) and then strip that trust once they have come home to make the right decision?

I think you'll find that this is not the case. They are generally entrusted to carry outside the perimeters of their compounds, and maybe if they get to a range. They are not allowed to carry hot at all times, and depending on their ROE and COC, maybe not even have one in the chamber when off compound, until the situation escalates.

We can belabor the point on which came first the AD or the Clearing Barrel, but I can't say that I trust all service members. I would be in favor of some mandatory courses, but it takes one bad egg to screw it all up. Wait......I am sure there will be mandatory classes coming down from this, watch your buddy, tell a friend tell 2 ETC.......its coming.

Can you imagine the goat rope that situation would have been if there had been more than 3 other people in the room carrying? Lives may have been saved, but I think things may have gotten more out of control. My $.02........Mileage may vary

[The Reaper]

I am seeing a big disconnect in the logic here.

Why are you assuming that the only soldiers who do or would bring weapons on post and carry concealed are those who would be CCW holders?

Did Hasan have a CCW for Ft Hood? Did the lack of one stop him?

Can a soldier with PTSD not just tuck his weapon in his belt and bring it on post already? Would the numbers of these people really go up if we had a an installation CCW? We are talking about bases with hundreds of access points, not an airport. I can already illegally bring a concealed weapon on post and carry it into one of the clubs. Why would a selected number of trained CCW personnel increase the number of illegally armed soldiers?

Your logic is the same that the anti-CCW community uses, Triman.

And I would stack the training and qualifications of many members of this board against yours. Should you lose your right to carry concealed because of that?

TR

[Triman19]

[QUOTE=

You can trust these soldiers to be armed overseas 24/7 for a year or more at a time (pre, during, and post traumatic events) and then strip that trust once they have come home to make the right decision?

The point of mandatory training is to ensure you are getting mature decision makers that have the ability to protect themselves and others. It is a process. It should weed out those who should not be carrying. Simple fact is had a CCW holder been there and armed a lot less folks would have been hurt in ALL of the mass shooting scenarios.
QUOTE]


The difference between carrying a weapon down range and here in the US is drastically different. So much so that unless a person is or was LEO/Fed you may not understand. In theater we have many, many dangerous, stupid and down right negligent "accidents". The mentality behind being armed on FT. Hood for example honestly is different than being armed in a combat environment. When you're in Iraq or wherever you may be, your current mental state is quite higher and more alert than even that of daily duities as a LEO. (I am not speaking on behalf of those officers who maintain an outstanding level of situational awarenes.)
Yes, I would agree that there are many LEO that I have either seen or met that scream liability. Some of those people should have never been charged with the responsibility of being armed. I have also met many a soldier and military man alike who also did not take their duties seriously. I have been 'flagged' more times by military than by anyone else. In the Army, at least the areas I have directly been a part of, too often "checking the box" occured. I witnessed the 'soldier tried so soldier should qualify' attitude. Carrying a weapon in any country, on any mission, in every capcity should be revered with the highest regard for mental and emotional prepardness and training, not to mention safety.
Just tossing the military a permit of some type to carry a pistol screams liability...and not the kind for Uncle Sam. I don't give a rip about read tape and legislation. I care that the members wifes and children on this board and everywhere are safe...on our OWN installations. What I am saying is that simply because we deploy, and quite often, that does NOT make us qualified to carry a weapon in the same manner as our LEO. However, I too do not want to live in a society where the only people armed is the police. I do not advocate strict gun control. I am just asking team leaders of all walks of life and different MOS backgroungs to remember some of your really squared away soldiers. Post deployment with the stresses of familiy issues, financial issues or even a single guy who just needs to decompress. Should they carry a weapon on post? All of the sudden every Joe is an MP. But how many are trained as such? How many understand domestic disputes between honest DV? Is there some type of conflict of interest between our new Privates carrying and his leadership with lets say 20 years in the military?
Has anyone thought about public opinion concerning this topic? I for one am really sick and tired of how our military members get caught up in the government-media struggle for control and whatever else they fight about. But unfortaunatley public opinion matters to some degree. Would it look a little too socialist for half a million military members to now be armed? Although we would not utilize this new ability to rob banks, and harrass anti-war protestors, (which could really be a good R&R weekend) we could look like that once the wonderful media spins it in the most beneficial way possible.
I did read everyones comments after mine before I posted again ( I don't make it a habit to fire from the hip) but gentlemen arming every soldier may not have done a single thing at Ft. Hood. What that coward did was truly awful. There isn't a word for it actually. Clearly something needs to be done. If more *good training* (thats the key) were implemented I wouldn't scream and throw a fit. But I truly feel however, that arming every soldier who choses to carry is not the answer. What is the answer? I feel I don't have enough experience to give an educated response, even with 5 years LEO and 9 years military. But I will say that if this happens an all-encompassing program needs to be put together in order to train men and women properly. If this were to be approved and the very first time a soldier screws it up and hurts someone, it will be over before it started and it will most likely be a huge black eye. Just something to think about.

[SF-TX]

Originally Posted by Triman19

Our soldiers, as a mass body, are not trained well enough to handle carrying a side arm in the same capacity as LEO.

-Triman19

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj4yUpR1PB0

[Pete]

Originally Posted by LongWire

.......Can you imagine the goat rope that situation would have been if there had been more than 3 other people in the room carrying? .......

But your question leads to the next one. Would the terrorist Maj open fired at that location if he knew there would be at least some armed CCW soldiers in the area?

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by SF-TX

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj4yUpR1PB0

You just had to make my point with the Poster Child of DEA.......

Know what .... Well I will not say ....... but Because of the same Political Correctness that guy is still on the job......

[Sten]

Triman19 how do you feel about average Joe citizen having a CCW and carrying every time he is out and about (excepting when he has to go to work in the National park)?

[SF-TX]

Originally Posted by SF_BHT

You just had to make my point with the Poster Child of DEA.......

[The Reaper]

[QUOTE=Triman19;295578]

Originally Posted by

You can trust these soldiers to be armed overseas 24/7 for a year or more at a time (pre, during, and post traumatic events) and then strip that trust once they have come home to make the right decision?

The point of mandatory training is to ensure you are getting mature decision makers that have the ability to protect themselves and others. It is a process. It should weed out those who should not be carrying. Simple fact is had a CCW holder been there and armed a lot less folks would have been hurt in ALL of the mass shooting scenarios.
QUOTE

The difference between carrying a weapon down range and here in the US is drastically different. So much so that unless a person is or was LEO/Fed you may not understand. In theater we have many, many dangerous, stupid and down right negligent "accidents". The mentality behind being armed on FT. Hood for example honestly is different than being armed in a combat environment. When you're in Iraq or wherever you may be, your current mental state is quite higher and more alert than even that of daily duities as a LEO. (I am not speaking on behalf of those officers who maintain an outstanding level of situational awarenes.)
Yes, I would agree that there are many LEO that I have either seen or met that scream liability. Some of those people should have never been charged with the responsibility of being armed. I have also met many a soldier and military man alike who also did not take their duties seriously. I have been 'flagged' more times by military than by anyone else. In the Army, at least the areas I have directly been a part of, too often "checking the box" occured. I witnessed the 'soldier tried so soldier should qualify' attitude. Carrying a weapon in any country, on any mission, in every capcity should be revered with the highest regard for mental and emotional prepardness and training, not to mention safety.
Just tossing the military a permit of some type to carry a pistol screams liability...and not the kind for Uncle Sam. I don't give a rip about read tape and legislation. I care that the members wifes and children on this board and everywhere are safe...on our OWN installations. What I am saying is that simply because we deploy, and quite often, that does NOT make us qualified to carry a weapon in the same manner as our LEO. However, I too do not want to live in a society where the only people armed is the police. I do not advocate strict gun control. I am just asking team leaders of all walks of life and different MOS backgroungs to remember some of your really squared away soldiers. Post deployment with the stresses of familiy issues, financial issues or even a single guy who just needs to decompress. Should they carry a weapon on post? All of the sudden every Joe is an MP. But how many are trained as such? How many understand domestic disputes between honest DV? Is there some type of conflict of interest between our new Privates carrying and his leadership with lets say 20 years in the military?
Has anyone thought about public opinion concerning this topic? I for one am really sick and tired of how our military members get caught up in the government-media struggle for control and whatever else they fight about. But unfortaunatley public opinion matters to some degree. Would it look a little too socialist for half a million military members to now be armed? Although we would not utilize this new ability to rob banks, and harrass anti-war protestors, (which could really be a good R&R weekend) we could look like that once the wonderful media spins it in the most beneficial way possible.
I did read everyones comments after mine before I posted again ( I don't make it a habit to fire from the hip) but gentlemen arming every soldier may not have done a single thing at Ft. Hood. What that coward did was truly awful. There isn't a word for it actually. Clearly something needs to be done. If more *good training* (thats the key) were implemented I wouldn't scream and throw a fit. But I truly feel however, that arming every soldier who choses to carry is not the answer. What is the answer? I feel I don't have enough experience to give an educated response, even with 5 years LEO and 9 years military. But I will say that if this happens an all-encompassing program needs to be put together in order to train men and women properly. If this were to be approved and the very first time a soldier screws it up and hurts someone, it will be over before it started and it will most likely be a huge black eye. Just something to think about.

Yeah, if you let civilians start carrying concealed, there will be blood in the streets and Dodge City during rush hour. Blah, blah, blah.

Are you parrotting the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence talking points deliberately, of is that just the way you really think?

TR

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by Pete

But your question leads to the next one. Would the terrorist Maj open fired at that location if he knew there would be at least some armed CCW soldiers in the area?

Probably not and if he did he would probably not be breathing now and the media would only be able to speculate.....OH that is what they are doing right now.......

Wish that he had been DOA so we would not have to waste so much time and effort in a trial. He had the smoking gun in his hand and there should be nothing more to deal with. Wish TX had jurisdiction and he would be dealt with a lot faster than UCMJ or Fed Court..... They seam to try to save the TX Taxpayer a lot of money by streamlining the process....

[LongWire]

Originally Posted by Pete

But your question leads to the next one. Would the terrorist Maj open fired at that location if he knew there would be at least some armed CCW soldiers in the area?

I'll concede that it may be taken into consideration, but I will still contend that he intended to Martyr himself as an act of contrition.

[Triman19]

[QUOTE=The Reaper;295589]

Originally Posted by Triman19

Yeah, if you let civilians start carrying concealed, there will be blood in the streets and Dodge City during rush hour. Blah, blah, blah.

Are you parrotting the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence talking points deliberately, of is that just the way you really think?

TR

TR,
This is all you got out of my lengthy response? And no, I am not anti-gun.

[Richard]

In that case if a couple of people would have had a CCW do you think he would have shot so many people before being stopped? No, he probably would have been stopped sooner and several lives saved.

I just don't get your logic.

I think that's an incongruent argument in that Hasan might've then used a different tactic - but knowing there are armed people around hasn't stopped such nuts in the past once they decide to act and they will nearly always seek a weak point to initiate their attack.

Richard's $.02