Chattanooga Shooting at Military Recruting Office

[aujeff11 6,243]

No. There were people in my non-pog unit that I couldn't trust with a weapon much less in a pog unit. Think about it. You have a base like the red stone arsenal, predominantly civilian population, if there is a negligent discharge, there will be an uproar for months.

I agree with Jeff. It would be a logistical nightmare One accidental discharge and it's game over. There are some Sailors I wouldnt want to see armed.

Thanks for the input. Its my understanding that prior to the 1990's the military could carry. I'd be interested to know how many accidental discharges were recorded in the years before. I'm sure there were some, heck the police have accidental discharges. In cases like Redstone, there are gates, guards and guns, but in case like recruiting offices these guys seem to be sitting ducks (ex: Arkansas 2009 and Chattanooga 2015). And the gates, guard and guns didn't stop the guy at Ft. Hood.

I conceal carry almost everywhere I go, and would say about 10 of the 30 people I work with do also. It would imagine the people I work with have less training than military personnel, yet these people carry in Publix, Lowe's, restaurants ect.

My brother works at redstone for the missile defense agency and he said the security guards do not have guns. We were just discussing this yesterday. That fact is problematic. Only the MPs have guns.

After 9/11 the guys at the gates had guns. Must have been MPs.

I don't remember seeing the guys at the gate at FT. McClellan having guns.

Edit: just talked to my brother again. Guards at the gate do have guns, guards on base don't. In reality, guards at the gate are not really effective at preventing attacks on base. All the passengers need is a cac card and they're then allowed inside the base.

Let me add to that. It's more that just presenting your CaC card. That card is scanned and verified through DBIDS to verify that you don't have any current violations or security alerts. Civilians presenting their driver's license are checked against a database also. We have arrested workers with moving companies trying to get on base because they have outstanding warrants.

All they did was look at the cac card when I was in. Maybe technology has improved since then.

[AUtiger98 24]

All they did was look at the cac card when I was in. Maybe technology has improved since then.

That may depend on the security level at the time or the location. A few months ago I got on Redstone by showing my CAC. I bet they have card readers if the level requires it.

[AUtiger98 24]

Looks like the politicians will review carry policies in the military.

In the wake of Thursday's slaying of four Marines at two military installation's in Chattanooga, U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., says he plans to introduce a bill allowing U.S. military personnel with firearms training to carry handguns on military bases and other installations

Link

Representative Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) argued that military personnel “should be armed” and not “sitting ducks” on Thursday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “The Ed Show.”

Cohen said, “I do think those personnel should have — should be armed, they are a[n] object — or subject that could be attacked, and it’s happened twice now. It’s happened in Chattanooga, it happened in Little Rock, and it may have happened in other areas. And I think that the soldiers at those stations should be required or authorized, and I’m sure they would, to be armed. That can help, and would maybe have helped in this situation. I don’t know, you know, what the situation was, and if they had any weapons. But I think they should be weaponized, because they are targets, and you just can’t be a sitting duck. It’s really — it’s just unfortunate where we’ve come. There are the threats from ISIL and ISIS are great. And it does come to our shores, not like it did on 9/11, but it’s here. And we need to be vigilant, and we need to be protected. We should not have soldiers who are out there as sitting ducks.”

Link

[AUUSN 823]

Looks like the politicians will review carry policies in the military.

In the wake of Thursday's slaying of four Marines at two military installation's in Chattanooga, U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., says he plans to introduce a bill allowing U.S. military personnel with firearms training to carry handguns on military bases and other installations

Link

Representative Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) argued that military personnel “should be armed” and not “sitting ducks” on Thursday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “The Ed Show.”

Cohen said, “I do think those personnel should have — should be armed, they are a[n] object — or subject that could be attacked, and it’s happened twice now. It’s happened in Chattanooga, it happened in Little Rock, and it may have happened in other areas. And I think that the soldiers at those stations should be required or authorized, and I’m sure they would, to be armed. That can help, and would maybe have helped in this situation. I don’t know, you know, what the situation was, and if they had any weapons. But I think they should be weaponized, because they are targets, and you just can’t be a sitting duck. It’s really — it’s just unfortunate where we’ve come. There are the threats from ISIL and ISIS are great. And it does come to our shores, not like it did on 9/11, but it’s here. And we need to be vigilant, and we need to be protected. We should not have soldiers who are out there as sitting ducks.”

Link

98, when I have time, I'll shoot you and Jeff a PM on why I still think this is a bad idea.

[autigeremt 6,602]

No. There were people in my non-pog unit that I couldn't trust with a weapon much less in a pog unit. Think about it. You have a base like the red stone arsenal, predominantly civilian population, if there is a negligent discharge, there will be an uproar for months.

I agree with Jeff. It would be a logistical nightmare One accidental discharge and it's game over. There are some Sailors I wouldnt want to see armed.

Thanks for the input. Its my understanding that prior to the 1990's the military could carry. I'd be interested to know how many accidental discharges were recorded in the years before. I'm sure there were some, heck the police have accidental discharges. In cases like Redstone, there are gates, guards and guns, but in case like recruiting offices these guys seem to be sitting ducks (ex: Arkansas 2009 and Chattanooga 2015). And the gates, guard and guns didn't stop the guy at Ft. Hood.

I conceal carry almost everywhere I go, and would say about 10 of the 30 people I work with do also. It would imagine the people I work with have less training than military personnel, yet these people carry in Publix, Lowe's, restaurants ect.

It's too problematic to have our recruiters packing heat and would NOT have prevented what happened yesterday. Again people are using the deaths of four Marines to further political agendas and it's sick to do so.

Nothing unusual there. Devils advocate.....what happens if two or three more recruiting stations are hit?

[autigeremt 6,602]

My twitter feed is full of tea party madness. They love to spout "guns don't kill, people kill" Well, guess what? Islam or Muslims didn't kill these Marines, Mohammod Youssof Abdulazeez did.

Was he a Muslim?

[AURaptor 1,122]

FBI still baffled at the motive for the shooting, huh?

[autigeremt 6,602]

FBI still baffled at the motive for the shooting, huh?

They need a good alternative. Give them a few more days.....

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

I disagree as I was on active duty when we were stopped from being armed on bases etc. If you kept it in the trunk, and not loaded you could have it in your car. I think that if I have a concealed carry permit and pass a class that is taught on base then I should be allowed to carry. Today, we cannot have guns in our cars on bases or NOSCs. Could this have been prevented if we were allowed to have guns in our cars? Probably not. I don't think that we as military should be carrying in our work spaces on base but leaving them in our cars should be ok on bases.

I heard a guy from Redstone on the radio this morning. He was former military and current contractor. Here are a few points he made.

1. Since he can't carry on post, (car or concealed) if he goes somewhere after work he will not have his firearm with him.

2. He also said while on active duty a fellow soldier was in a restaurant during lunch and an shooting occurred. Normally his buddy would have been carrying, but wasn't since he couldn't take it on base.

3. During security briefings the guy was told when MPs respond to an active shooter situation they will not know who the bad guys is, if he also had a gun. He told them by the time the MP responds the situation will be over since it will take several minutes for them to get there. And the same applies with law enforcement out in the community and we don't have a problem with cops shooting the good guys with a gun.

I'll say I wouldn't want everyone carrying a gun. For example, right now my wife would not be a good candidate. However, it appears uniform military have been targets in places where the bad guys knows they are unarmed. We also know from recent security notices that military personnel and possibly family are potential targets. If we know they are targets, then I would like for them to be a protected as much as possible. I'll defer to those of you who serve and the leadership of the Arm Forces to find the right solutions.

I understand the points posted and agree. The problem is that we weren't allowed to conceal carry on base but could keep it in our cars and once off base if we had a permit could conceal carry depending upon the state laws. As for the discussion later in the thread about CAC cards and getting on base....there have been many instances at MacDill AFB where the TPD were chasing a car that they radioed ahead and the guards just let them on base as they flew threw the gates and the cops followed. They didn't throw up the barriers but let them through as the bad guys weren't stopping. They were caught on base by the TPD but the gate was ineffective if you would say that the car was laden with explosives, etc...but I digress. Having a gun in the work space could help deter an active shooter but there are a few folks that I have been at the range with that do not need to carry. I don't think it would have prevented what happened in the Nooga but by allowing it in the car could prevent other instances. Now there are also many civilian workers that I would trust and many that I wouldn't trust with Guns but that is a different story.

[homersapien 11,369]

My twitter feed is full of tea party madness. They love to spout "guns don't kill, people kill" Well, guess what? Islam or Muslims didn't kill these Marines, Mohammod Youssof Abdulazeez did.

Was he a Muslim?

Probably. What's your point?

If "Muzzy's" are the problem, should we start rounding them up in detention camps?

What about the ones who are clearly "white"?

[AURaptor 1,122]

FBI still baffled at the motive for the shooting, huh?

They need a good alternative. Give them a few more days.....

Let's not forget that Obama quickly jumped to the false conclusion that the police " acted stupidly " at Cambridge.

[alexava 6,973]

I live near Redstone but rarely venture on it. I have a friend who had to take a test for either Calhoun or Athens State holds classes there. At the check point he was asked by MPs if he had any guns or ammo. He had a partial box of shotgun shells in the passenger seat but no gun. They turned him back. He asked if they could just confiscate them so he could make his test on time, they refused. So he said he would turn back a couple miles and hide or dump them somewhere. They told him if he came back shortly they would thoroughly search his entire truck. He just missed the class because he had a case(10) boxes of steel shot at 15+$ a box locked in his truck toolbox. He wasn't willing to dump that much and feared he would be arrested if they found his toolbox key.

[AUUSN 823]

This is why we don't want our Recruiters packing heat: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/army-recruiter-accidentally-shoots-self-leg-gaines/nm2Tp/

[aujeff11 6,243]

This is why we don't want our Recruiters packing heat: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/army-recruiter-accidentally-shoots-self-leg-gaines/nm2Tp/

Exactly

[AURaptor 1,122]

Yeah, terrible that the guy is recovering from shooting himself in the leg. It would be much better if he and three others had been shot and killed.

[AUUSN 823]

Yeah, terrible that the guy is recovering from shooting himself in the leg. It would be much better if he and three others had been shot and killed.

It must be terrible not knowing anything. Hey, at least you have your post count to give you comfort.

[AURaptor 1,122]

I know that four unarmed Marines were murdered, and another may also lose their life.

[AUUSN 823]

I know that four unarmed Marines were murdered, and another may also lose their life.

Well looky here. The dude that politicized this thread all of the sudden cares for the lives of lost Marines.

[homersapien 11,369]

FBI still baffled at the motive for the shooting, huh?

Well, since you are confused, allow me to explain.

If they immediately confirm the most probable assumption for the motive (Islamic terrorism) based simply on the fact the guy was a "Muzzy" and then find out later there was actually a different motivation, they look foolish and incompetent.

Therefore, they hold back until they have done a more thorough investigation to make sure they get it right.

This sort of professionalism undoubtedly enrages people such as yourself who want your preferred assumption confirmed immediately, but that's just the way professionals operate.

Understand?

[homersapien 11,369]

Yeah, terrible that the guy is recovering from shooting himself in the leg. It would be much better if he and three others had been shot and killed.

Raptor "logic".

[AUtiger98 24]

This is why we don't want our Recruiters packing heat: http://www.wsbtv.com...g-gaines/nm2Tp/

This is no surprise to me. I bet 90% of the recruiters were packing heat today. This guy most likely decided if his employer is not going to protect him, then he would take the personal responsibility to protect his own life. Cops are always minutes away when seconds count.

Here how I think it played out. The guy goes home yesterday and purchases a handgun or borrows one until he can get one over the weekend. Forgets to buy a holster or his buddy doesn't have one. When he gets to work he puts it in his pocket, because its against the law to have it. With it in his pocket, and no trigger guard, it gets stuck on something and bang. The other option is that he took it out and was putting it back in his pants when it went off. Doubt he took it out because its against the law to have it in the first place.

Personally I think employees should be allowed to carry after (yearly) training. I would do it in a heart beat if my company allowed it. With the right training and the right equipment carrying a sidearm is a great way to protect yourself.

[AUtiger98 24]

FBI still baffled at the motive for the shooting, huh?

Well, since you are confused, allow me to explain.

If they immediately confirm the most probable assumption for the motive (Islamic terrorism) based simply on the fact the guy was a "Muzzy" and then find out later there was actually a different motivation, they look foolish and incompetent.

Therefore, they hold back until they have done a more thorough investigation to make sure they get it right.

This sort of professionalism undoubtedly enrages people such as yourself who want your preferred assumption confirmed immediately, but that's just the way professionals operate.

Understand?

I will say once the FBI took over I knew information would be hard to come by. I also think they have the resources to thoroughly investigate this, but hopefully they'll leave the hair samples to another agency.

[homersapien 11,369]

FBI still baffled at the motive for the shooting, huh?

Well, since you are confused, allow me to explain.

If they immediately confirm the most probable assumption for the motive (Islamic terrorism) based simply on the fact the guy was a "Muzzy" and then find out later there was actually a different motivation, they look foolish and incompetent.

Therefore, they hold back until they have done a more thorough investigation to make sure they get it right.

This sort of professionalism undoubtedly enrages people such as yourself who want your preferred assumption confirmed immediately, but that's just the way professionals operate.

Understand?

I will say once the FBI took over I knew information would be hard to come by. I also think they have the resources to thoroughly investigate this, but hopefully they'll leave the hair samples to another agency.

LOL!

I think it's fair to say that any really good criminal investigative body is going to be slower in releasing information than a slap-dash one.

[homersapien 11,369]

As far as armed recruiting officers, I have no problem with it whatsoever. I feel better about them being armed that a lot of the semi-trained civilians that carry.

But I am not sure it would really help in a case like this. I am not that familiar with what happened exactly, but it appears like the guy was shooting into the building from the outside. Bullet resistant glass might have been a better defense.

[AUtiger98 24]

FBI still baffled at the motive for the shooting, huh?

Well, since you are confused, allow me to explain.

If they immediately confirm the most probable assumption for the motive (Islamic terrorism) based simply on the fact the guy was a "Muzzy" and then find out later there was actually a different motivation, they look foolish and incompetent.

Therefore, they hold back until they have done a more thorough investigation to make sure they get it right.

This sort of professionalism undoubtedly enrages people such as yourself who want your preferred assumption confirmed immediately, but that's just the way professionals operate.

Understand?

I will say once the FBI took over I knew information would be hard to come by. I also think they have the resources to thoroughly investigate this, but hopefully they'll leave the hair samples to another agency.

LOL!

I think it's fair to say that any really good criminal investigative body is going to be slower in releasing information than a slap-dash one.

I was hoping you would get a kick out of that.

The FBI also has a jurisdiction from coast to coast, so they will turn over every stone possible. One of the reporters at the press conference ask the FBI agent if they intended to use the "information the NSA has been collection on all Americans" in this investigation. He responded with "we will use every resource available". The Chattanooga PD would not have this resource.