I’ll not be posting in any detail about the Navy Yard shooting of 09-16-13 for awhile. The usual anti-freedom suspects like Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) have already renewed their never-ending calls for gun control. We know next to nothing about the events there. No wonder she and others are already at it; it’s essential to shape the narrative in advance of the facts before they get in the way.
I write only to provide a quick bit of background on military facilities. Some have asked: “how can this possibly happen on a military base? Isn’t the military armed?” The answer is “yes,” but not in a way that can possibly stop this kind of attack until many innocents, civilian and military, have been wounded and killed.
In the military, in the CONUS (Continental United States), the only people allowed arms are, with few exceptions, the military police, and only the military police personnel actually on duty at any given moment. Unless a given installation is using civilian security contractors, the first line of defense, gate and perimeter guards, will generally be the newest, least experienced and lowest ranking personnel, usually privates and airmen just out of initial, basic MP training.
There are usually MPs patrolling, much as a civilian police force patrols its jurisdiction, and at certain secure facilities, there will be armed MPs on guard duty, checking IDs, etc. But generally, once someone is past the front gate–so to speak–they will not be searched or subjected to any scrutiny unless they try to enter a guarded, semi-secure facility on that installation.
Other military members, even high-ranking officers, are not allowed to carry firearms unless their specific duties call for them, such as pilots in certain circumstances. All firearms and ammunition are locked in secure, centralized armories and released only to designated personnel at the beginning of their shifts, and turned in at the end of their shifts.
Civilians working on an installation, or visiting, are surely not allowed to carry firearms or other kinds of weapons, though the occasional pocketknife might slip through. Generally, there is no active screening for firearms. Once someone with a trunk full of firearms is past the gate system, no one is actively looking for them and no one is any more prepared to stop them than civilian police officers patrolling any community in America.
In fact, at some facilities–even in war zones–our warriors are not allowed to seat magazines in their rifles, or if that is allowed, they’re not allowed to chamber a round. At best, in order to fire, they must first chamber a round, a process that could, compared to merely flicking off a safety, get them–and others–killed.
In many respects, military facilities are even more of a gun-free, victim-disarmament, terrorist free-fire zone than virtually anywhere else, with the probable exception of public schools. However, the residents of schools are even less generally capable of resisting an armed attack than unarmed soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines.
Bizarre, isn’t it, that our warriors should find themselves in the same disarmed straits as innocent little children?
More to come, as something worth reporting and commenting upon becomes known.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Saving this post as it is a good common sense read.
That disarmament approach really isn’t that bizarre. On a schoolboy visit to an RAF base I was intrigued to discover the very strong customs in place regarding the messes. Among other things, it was de rigueur to remove berets and belts before entering; on further investigation, I found that it was symbolism continuing the tradition of disarming before entering, to prevent unintended escalation of any quarrels that might arise. (Another custom was that officers should never enter the sergeants’ mess uninvited, unless on official duties – very dog and his bowl – and yet another was that you should never walk across the parade ground, inter alia out of respect for the fallen.)
A black man with a gun and a criminal past shoots and kills a bunch of innocent people, who would have thought that could ever happen……, again? Is it time to finally outlaw black men with criminal records from society?
Mike, your description of how military bases work regarding firearms is completely correct. The same nonsense carries over onto bases in war zones. When my son was in Afghanistan he was required to “remove” all bullets from his weapon before he could enter the base.
Reblogged this on A world at war and commented:
Mike’s comments on this matter will prove interesting.
I do note however, that in this case, the perpetrator managed to get a shotgun through the gate. The other weapons he took from his victims. Do I think it was premeditated? YES
I look forward to seeing more thoughtful analysis Mike.
The reason that magazines are not carried behind the wire in military bases is quite simply because it is the best way to avoid casualities from accidental discharges. The protocol is based on common-sense and years of experience.
On the rare occasions we were in base (Nui Dat) in Vietnam, we carried a loaded mag in the thigh pocket of our greens. To attach the mag to the rifle (SLR L1A1) behind the wire was an invitation to be put on a charge resulting in loss of pay and CB.
It’s typical of the lunacy exposed here that this is called “nonsense”.
There are more guns than people in your country.
That is the problem, and whilst it continues, you country will remain a laughing stock – a nonsense.
And there are more sheep than people in NZ: what’s your point? I’m guessing you were a conscript, what unit? Catering? Stores?
Save the Aussie braggadoccio for the RSL: there’s more shit there than dysentery at the siege of Harfleur.
Get a map – I’m an Australian – not a Kiwi.
Your knowledge of geography is indicative, I’d guess of your understanding of this issue.
To answer your questions – Yes, I was a Nasho (a conscript – as many GIs were), my unit was 5 platoon, B company, 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, and my posting was rifleman.
One dude, for one year, in one combat zone, is not the whole of military experience. It is one person’s snapshot of a particular time and place. Weapons status changes based on location, duty, threat, number of personnel on an outpost etc… Just because your piece of one war involved having an unloaded rifle inside of the wire does not mean that particular operating procedure is the best or the brightest.
Disarming every member of the military the minute they come to work is “lunacy.”
Well ‘Blackshepherd’, you’re one American dog who hasn’t lost his bite.
The reason that soldiers are given weapons is that so that they can kill the enemy.
This is generally done on a battlefield.
There is no particular reason for soldiers to carry guns when not in a combat environment – other than as fetish-wear.
There are good reasons for soldiers to not carry weapons (unnecessarily) in non-combat environments. Apart from accidental firing or firing-under-the-influence, consider the numbers of them that suffer from PTSD for example.
The dockyard might be a military establishment, but the section in which the shootings took place seems largely a civilian environment.
Reports today indicate that twelve victims died. Seven had been confirmed as being civilians. Perhaps all twelve are civilians.
I have not seen a breakdown of the wounded as military v civilian.
The fact of the shootings taking place on a ‘military base’ is largely irrelevant.
.
What if all the military personnel on the base had been armed?
What if many of the civilians on the base had been armed?
The narrative here is that armed individuals on the ground would have lessened the casualty count.
Is this actually true?
The situation appears to have been chaotic.
At one stage there were reports of two other shooters.
One was said to be in ‘military-type’ clothing and carrying a handgun. This person was later apparently identified as ‘legitimate’.
What is interesting about this ‘legitimate’ person is that witnesses were reporting him as a shooter. What if one of those witnesses just happened to be carrying and acted in the belief that they were dealing with a shooter? What if the ‘legitimate’ person decided in turn that the witness was a shooter?
Another person was reported as carrying a long gun. The last I heard, this person had not been identified. What id the people observing him had been carrying.
We’re not talking about seasoned streetwise LE here. We’re talking amateurs.
Even ‘streetwise LE’ end up shooting innocents. Sometimes this is due to an excessively cautious approach to their own personal safety. Sometimes this is because they miss what they are shooting at.
Here’s a report covering the two flavors: (Insert the dots and http yourself – I’m conserving links)
www slate com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/09/15/police_shoot_bystanders_in_new_york_kill_unarmed_man_in_north_carolina.html
Extract:
First was: “Charlotte, North Carolina, an unarmed man who was likely seeking help was shot and killed early Saturday morning. Police say officers were responding to a 911 call placed by a woman who said someone she didn’t know was knocking on her front door. Nearby, a man matching the description began running toward the police officers. An officer tried to fire his Taser, but failed and then another officer shot 24-year-old Jonathan Ferrell multiple times, reports the Charlotte Observer He was killed at the scene. Police later found his wrecked car and say it’s likely he was looking for help from the person who had called 911.”
Second was: “New York, two police officers hit a pair of innocent bystanders Saturday night when they opened fire on a 35-year-old man who reportedly pretended to point a gun at them—with his hands, reports the New York Daily News. The man was reportedly acting erratically near the Port Authority Bus Terminal, close to Times Square, when two officers confronted him. He then “reached into his pocket, took out his hand, and simulated as if he was shooting at them,” Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said. The officers fired three shots, missing the man but hitting a 54-year-old woman in the knee and grazing a a 35-year-old woman in the buttocks, according to CBS News. “The only thing the individual had on his person was a wallet which was recovered from his right rear pocket,” Kelly said.”
What you have there are “trained LE” shooting at people that they *think* might be shooters. In one case, they hit the target. In the other case, they miss and hit innocents.
Now cut to the Navy Dockyard and a bunch of people in a chaotic panicky situation. They are carrying, but have never yet in their lives fired a shot even in mild irritation, much less anger.
Now…… everyone draw guns!
The ‘legitimate’ guy with the handgun is an obvious target – and probably a missed target. The guy with the purported long gun probably gets incoming too – even if his long gun is a broom.
Meanwhile, more chaos is arriving from outside.
Five hundred (it might as well be five hundred once it gets over two) different agencies are coming to help.
Here is a screenshot from a news report that gave me a strong WTF reaction.
This trio of heros are seen heading inwards. They seem to be from the same agency and they move together. They don’t look like either LE or military. They are dressed in a variety of casual civilian clothing – but they got guns baby!.
They only reason that they didn’t get their asses shot was this —- the panicked people inside who would have seen them coming at them were not armed.
Yes. we can see them static in closeup on our screens and maybe notice those little badges hanging from their waistbands. Try being so observant when you are crapping yourself.
FFS!! It’s insane.
In a situation where ‘everybody’ is carrying, and the Naval Dockyard happens, the body count would be huge.
.
The shooter.
WTF? He’s got a licence to carry. He’s also got a history of shooting in anger.
I’ve seen two reports of incidents for him so far. I suspect that more will come out.
In Texas, he fired a shot through his ceiling into the apartment of the ‘noisy woman’ living above him. He had a history with this woman.
It’s a complete accident. His hands were greasy because he had been cooking. He went to clean his gun. He accidentally pulled the trigger. There just accidentally happened to be a round in the chamber.
Texas cops can find nothing untoward with the situation.
Pumping shots into truck tyres over parking disputes is not a particularly noteworthy incident for cops in Seattle.
.
The guy was known to be a danger, but he still gets to carry.
When he eventually went ‘big-time’ with his shooting, the only thing that kept the body count down was the absence of panicking armed individuals in the immediate vicinity.
At last someone posts something on this blog that actually makes sense.
This pretty accurately describes what would be the likely outcome if the NRA’s suggestion (arming teachers) was adopted as a solution to school shootings.
If legislators were deluded enough to try this strategy the chaos resulting would not bear thinking about.
It’s revealing of the paranoid mindset that characterises the NRA, and the threat to national security – far greater than that of jihad – that menaces the USA through the proliferation of firearms.
Some posting here would obviously tolerate living in an armed camp – because that’s what your country will resemble should this lunacy be taken to its logical conclusion.
As I have lived that experience, and carried a firearm for a protracted period, I, for one would not.
Having said that, it’s encouraging to read wisdom here, rather than delusion.
Just for your enlightenment champ: the US Supreme court over the last three decades has judged that the police are not obliged to protect individuals only society. So the next time you’re in Detroit and some black kid sticks a gun in your face, try rolling over and let him tickle your tummy and see how far you get.
It’s blacks with guns that are the problem. Check the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports at the DOJ website and don’t be so fucking lazy.
I’ll see your attempts at making NRA a bogeyman, and raise you Israeli school teachers.
“and raise you Israeli school teachers.”
…..who are not armed, except in unusual very circumstances.
For example….
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/23572/Default.aspx
WARNING!
The article is written by an Israeli on the ground. Many here will hate his factual description of the very strict gun control laws in Israel.
The actual situation there would drive the US gun lobby to despair.
Fox News / NRA / etc. are not dependable information sources on this topic.
So, Israeli school teachers aren’t armed, except for when they are.
Good show.
Chip,
The article is in English, not in Hebrew.
To save people the trouble of clicking the link, here are some extracts to give a flavor
=================================================
In the picture, the students are on an outing. While it appears that the teacher is holding a rifle, I have never seen such a thing in ten years of living here. Rest assured however, they are under armed protection. In most cases it is an armed guard or a soldier that will accompany a class, not the teacher. And my guess is that the woman with the gun is a security guard, not a teacher.
…..
Secondly, they are not armed in the classroom. Is that really the image you want to imprint on the minds of six-year-olds? (That would be Hamas) On the other hand. I have never seen a school in Israel that was not fenced in. You must go through a locked gate that is guarded by an armed shomer, a security guard. He or she, on the other hand, is not concerned with educating, but protecting. He or she will ask you why you are there? “What is your child’s name?” “Show me your I.D. card.” And he or she would not let you bring a weapon inside.
These types of massacres don’t seem to happen here for other reasons as well. Despite the stereotype of Israel being a violent nation, it is a million times (slight exaggeration) easier to get a weapon in the US than it is in Israel. Gun Control laws are very strict here.
………….
Two types of people have guns in Israel: Soldiers and those with licenses. Mentally unstable people don’t have guns—and thus, don’t shoot people. And it is not as easy to steal a gun as it is in the US. When you are drafted you go through mental tests to see if there are any red flags. If so, you will be discharged or placed in an area where you would never see a rifle.
Only those with the rank of Captain or Lieutenant Colonel for at least two years can qualify to own a gun after the army. And those who do have guns are taught to guard them carefully. For soldiers who take their weapons home, it must be on their persons at all times or under lock and key.
Losing a weapon will get you a jail sentence, as my wife’s childhood friend, Moti, found out two decades ago. He left his gun in his car because he was just running into a mini-mart. He came back and the gun was gone. He spent six months in jail and God only knows where that gun ended up.
………..
Israel’s successful gun ownership laws both serve to make sure upstanding, brave and mentally sound citizens have access to guns, and that those who present even a minor threat are prevented from possessing one. It would be a mistake to use Israel as the poster child for more weapons in the US, as our success here is much more connected to limiting weapons and enabling strategies such as gates, fences and armed guards (not armed teachers), to protect our children. Sorry to disappoint, but the truth is important.
=================================================
.
Here is a US-based link
Israel rejects NRA’s guns-in-schools claim
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57560761/israel-rejects-nras-guns-in-schools-claim/
Extracts
=================================================
“Israel had a whole lot of school shootings until they did one thing: They said, `We’re going to stop it,’ and they put armed security in every school and they have not had a problem since then,” LaPierre said on the NBC News show “Meet the Press.”
Israel never had “a whole lot of school shootings.” Authorities could only recall two in the past four decades.
In 1974, 22 children and three adults were killed in a Palestinian attack on an elementary school in Maalot, near the border with Lebanon. The attackers’ goal was to take the children hostage and trade them for imprisoned militants.
In 2008, another Palestinian assailant killed eight young people, most of them teens, at a nighttime study session at a Jewish religious seminary in Jerusalem. An off-duty soldier who happened to be in the area killed the attacker with his personal firearm.
Israel didn’t mandate armed guards at the entrances to all schools until 1995, the Education Ministry said — more than two decades after the Maalot attack and two years after a Palestinian militant wounded five pupils and their principal in a knifing at a Jerusalem school.
Israel’s lightly armed school guards are not the first or the last line of defense. They are backed up by special police forces on motorcycles that can be on the scene within minutes — again bringing out the main, but not the only, difference between the two systems.
…………………..
Gun licensing to private citizens is limited largely to people who are deemed to need a firearm because they work or live in dangerous areas, Amit said. West Bank settlers, for instance, can apply for weapons licenses, as can residents of communities on the borders with Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. Licensing requires multiple levels of screening, and permits must be renewed every three years. Renewal is not automatic.
=================================================
In short… you comment equates to….
So, Israeli school teachers aren’t armed with thermonuclear devices, except for when they are.
Good show.
Try reading.
In Israel, the threat is from terrorism, and not from J Random Malcontent/Crazy.
In Israel, even J Random Quite Normal will have difficulty getting his hands on a gun. J Random Malcontent/Crazy doesn’t really have a chance.
They have very strict and restrictive gun laws.
They don’t have the sort of mass-shootings-by-John-Doe seen in the US.
…. for some reason.
Since I’m on a roll…
Gun shows – forbidding loaded weapons – even by licenced CC
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/11/1435631/gun-show-safety/
Extract:
I do see a very good reason for banning loaded weapons at shows.
All around, guns are being demonstrated and handled.
There is a possibility that some total moron will have a brain-fart and pull out his/her own legal gun and pull the trigger. “Look, this is my gun for comparison.”
The problem with this explanation is that the premise is that one can be licenced to carry a weapon in public and still be a complete and utter dangerous moron.
“It’s blacks with guns that are the problem”.
If you really believe that, it leaves you with two only options, doesn’t it?
One of them involves getting rid of firearms – the other getting rid of African-Americans.
Tell me – which are more valued in your country?
I know where Oz is; I’ve lived there since 1973. Now if you couldn’t work out that I knew you were consripted read the post again. I’ve worked with National Servicemen, they tended to be the least impressive material called to the colours. They were all in the SAS, all won the VC and bar, all been on secret squirrel missions.
Now get this champ, if guns frighten you, see a psychiatrist. A fear and loathing of firearms is a sign of sexual and emotional immaturity.
And drop the pathetic Eureka Stockade logo. Bet you voted ‘Green’. Sad.
“Guns work better than blacks”.
The indigenous bloke in my section worked pretty well.
So well that he took a round through his throat when we ran into bunkers in April 1970.
He survived, was RTAd, but never fully recovered and died in 1996.
You dishonour his memory, and the memory of all the Nashos who died fighting for you.
You are a rascist disgrace. If you are indeed an Australian citizen you are an embarrassment.
Hey sunshine, get this straight: nobody has died protecting me. You must live in Sydney: the preferred domicile of the tiresomely self-righteous.
“Hey sunshine, get this straight: nobody has died protecting me”
You’re absolutely correct – unlike the vast majority of Australians, you wouldn’t be worth fighting for.
And I live in rural Queensland…
“just never met a nigger I liked”
Perhaps you should head across the Pacific. There are parts of the deep south where you’d be right at home.
Your’heroes’, couldn’t wait to fight for Australia. Is that why you got called up instead of volunteering? I’ve heard your song before, every ANZAC day. Get over yourself. My race is my nation.
“Is that why you got called up instead of volunteering?”
Did you volunteer?
Yes I volunteered, during the ‘Confrontation’ with Indonesia. No big deal.
WWII: My dad lost two brothers, one on HMS Hood and one on HMS Prince of Wales.
WWI: My dad lost an uncle, killed by the Turks in Palestine. My mum’s cousin (on the Canadian side) was killed at Vimy Ridge.
My family’s done enough. And what have I got to show for it?
” To save your world you asked this man to die. If he could see you now would he not ask why?”
Dear Keith Sandford:
I appreciate your passion, but we don’t do obscenity here, and avoid even the hint of racism, even when satiric–some people just don’t get satire. It’s not a matter of being politically correct, but my choice and a matter of manners. I’ve removed a bit of that from your recent comments, and would appreciate your help in the future? Thanks!
Thanks Mike, as usual you are scrupulously fair. But as Hamlet said to Horatio, I am “to the manner born”. I’ll visit from time to time. Warmest regards.
Dear Keith Sandford:
You’re welcome, and you’re welcome.
Not only only are you a rascist – you’re a hypocrite. If you are so gung-ho about volunteering you could have stayed in the military post Confrontation and served in Vietnam.
Many in my unit did so.
I will not have my service – voluntary or otherwise – rubbished by the likes of you.
I will not have the sacrifice of thouands of Australians who served in Vietnam dragged through the mud.
Once in the army, race was a non-issue. If you had shown thoses attitudes in my section, which included a mix of Regs and Nashos, and had two Aboriginals, a Polish immigrant, a black West Indian, a Sri Lankan, and a Scot in the ranks, you would have copped a well-deserved hiding.
For the Americans reading here, the sentiments expressed by this individual on race are abhorred by most Australians.
For the Americans reading here, the sentiments expressed by this individual on race are NOT abhorred by most Australians, they are at most not shared – and I, too, have been here in Australia long enough to know. While comparatively few share those views these days, most Australians are more indifferent to them being held by others than anything else, and just ignore them. You can call that apathy or tolerance, as you prefer. You might want to google “black armband theory” to see just the sort that does get worked up like that – and why others take that as a cue to deal with such things in quite another way.
Racist YES! Hypocrite NO! You’re the flag waving ‘hero’ trying to make a virtue of necessity. Conscription is coercion, volunteering is……well….voluntary. Save your moral outrage. You’re not special.
It’s true that US military bases are generally “gun-free zones.” Even military police only carry when on duty, signing out a handgun at the start of their shift, then turning it back in when they go off-duty. And more and more MP’s are being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan for combat support duties, so most military bases in the US are being patrolled by civilian Defense Department police (who, like MP’s, only carry weapons when on duty). After the Ft. Hood shooting, a local newspaper columnist sneered that it proved that owning a gun for protection was futile, since “being armed didn’t do those victims any good, did it?” Sigh. It was a hospital, not an armory, and the victims were all unarmed (although the MD’s and RN’s had trained and qualified with handguns in officer basic training). And, of course, what stopped that rampage was an armed Dept. of the Army cop (just as every mass shooting has been ended by armed resistance, whether by law enforcement or by armed civilians). And the Daily News “same gun” (AR-15) headline just shows how the MSM are more interested in promoting an agenda than in accurately reporting facts. If a pedestrian is run over by a reckless driver, the media will look for a way to blame it on assault rifles and/or Stand Your Ground laws.