I don’t want to put words in the good general’s mouth, so here it is.
A day after a gunman shot and killed four Marines and wounded three other people in Chattanooga, Gen. Ray Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, told reporters that arming troops in those offices could cause more problems than it might solve.
“I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I’m not talking about where you end up attacking each other,” Odierno said during a morning breakfast. Instead, he said, it’s more about “accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries.”
Funny. If I’ve got a friend I can’t trust around guns, I try to get a better class of friend. But in the army, or marines or whatever, I thought being well-trained with firearms was the whole point. If your people are so poorly trained that the only way to keep them safe is to keep them helpless, what’s the point of calling yourself an army?
Jeez, General. What are we paying you for?
One of the military’s existing problem with guns is the constant unloading/clearing/reloading that goes on which creates opportunities for error and/or forgetfulness. In Iraq and Afganistan sand filled clearing barrels are outside every mess hall because carrying loaded firearms in buildings is verboten. Even in active combat zones. As Tam has said often, “stop touching it.” Since there are few more useless things on this planet than an unloaded gun, load it, holster or sling it, and leave it alone until it’s needed.
Easy for the General to say…….he is still alive. President Clinton disarmed the troops at the bases, btw. Dumb shit
I’ve seen my fair share of dipshittery with firearms at military ranges, but Ordinaro is not only a dispirit, he is a politician. Can’t have one of Obama’s drones talking up armed personnel.
Mayhap some of the retired formers would shame the establishment by offering to stand guard over the uniforms with their CCW’s.
At minimum officers and NCOs of the armed services should have the option to be armed almost all the time when in uniform. Even if there are incidents, that’s better than allowing military facilities to be safer targets than Walmart.
“President Clinton disarmed the troops at the bases, btw.”
I always wonder when I read something like this. I spent 4 years in the Marine Corps, ’68-’72, and we were almost never armed. The rifles were stored in the locked armory in each squad bay. Even the NCO on watch, who had a pistol, did not have a loaded one IIRC. Only time we got to fool with guns was on the range. We weren’t grunts though; that might have made a difference.
Mostly I believe if anyone thinks they need a gun, they should have one – even ex-felons. But there may be a point about soldiers and Marines keeping things as they are, at least in America. Lots of drunk and foolish behavior goes on. Anyway it’s not my business if they are armed; I’m not in the service any more. It’s a matter for the Commandant, et. al.
“President Clinton disarmed the troops on the bases, btw.”
Emily, it’s actually, it’s a matter of official record that the directive ordering this came from HW Bush’s Secretary of Defense while he was in office. Yes, the official regulation came out two months into Clinton’s term but it can be traced back to the clear directive issued before he had anything to do with it. Not saying Clinton was an angel, just saying that you should get your facts straight before spouting off. Otherwise it gives those on your side a bad name…
It’s not just the US military that does this. A long time ago when I was still in Montreal I went on call out as a reservist during the FLQ crises of 1970.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis
My weekends were spent guarding an ammo dump and while I did have a rifle I was only issued 1 magazine with a total of 20 rounds that I carried in my top left cargo pocket. not in thee rifle. What a crock…
“President Clinton disarmed the troops on the bases, btw.”
It doesn’t matter who signed or implemented the order the order was criminal.
This has been Policy for a long time. During Viet Nam troops not actually in ‘Nam were not permitted to be armed. In CONUS and in W Germany where I was stationed Post guard mount was given 3 rounds to man their post and duty Officers had 3 rounds in their 45’s. In the US guards were switched to shotguns and given 3 rounds that had to be accounted for at each change of guard mount. Ammo/weapons were tightly controlled and locked up securely.
At ranges every swinging richard had to personally declare to the OIC at the range that they had “No brass or ammo sir” prior to leaving and if caught with any were subject to Article 15 or worse. I had to rod every M16 to insure it was not loaded as Range OIC. That means every M16 had to be checked with a cleaning rod down the barrel with the weapon “Shotgunned”.
Personal weapons were prohibited in the Barracks and even having ammo was verboten. The brass was afraid of clashes between troops (OK, race riots were a problem, especially in Germany) and just plain did not trust the troops.
People who think all troops should be armed have never been in the military. At best Company commanders and senior NCO’s should be armed when on duty. We do not need troops shooting each other over girlfriends or whatever. I have seen fights over the music played in barracks.
I have seen fights over the music played in barracks.
I’ve never served, so take my opinion for what it’s worth, but isn’t it possible that a high-level of interpersonal violence amongst the troops might be the result of the fact that the consequences for such are fairly minimal? People are much ruder and more confrontational online, where the consequences are virtually nil, than in real life where one might suffer a painful nose-flattening in response to an ill-chosen word.
Are troops really so thoughtless that, were armed, they’d be just as confrontational and violent with one another as they are when the worst they’re likely to suffer is some bruises and administrative punishment? That’s the argument that gun-grabbers make when they try to restrict civilian gun ownership, but they’re pretty much always wrong about that.