Skip to main content

View Diary: If only armed guards would stop a school massacre ... (323 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No military bases do NOT have lots of armed guards (8+ / 0-)

    In fact, we recently lost our contracted civilian gate guards, and had to call up several dozen augentees from their normal jobs to take up the slack, due to manning shortages and deployments.

    Not to mention that they are mostly on the base entry points, with a few patrol cars.  Response time slightly better than city police, but not by much when you're trapped in a defenseless building with no serious weapons and no cover.

    But hey, feel free to actually do some research on the subject, or maybe, just fucking maybe, ask some questions before looking like an ignorant ass.

    Thanks, from the USAF.

    •  and I'm pretty sure (4+ / 0-)

      ...military personnel aren't free to just stroll around the base with their weapons and ammunition. That's pretty much restricted to the training areas, isn't it, unless you're an MP or otherwise authorized?

      That being said, trying to staff every public school with one or more armed guards is just impractical. Either you'd pay through the nose for professional security (one estimate was $5.4 billion a year) or you'd have staff volunteers with a bit of training who, though they could possibly deter an armed attacker, also might react inappropriately to a nonlethal disturbance and cause a tragedy. Or a secured gun could fall into student hands, which would be bound to happen with some 100,000 public schools in this country.

    •  PavePusher, thank your Congress Critter for the (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Otteray Scribe, meagert, PavePusher

      lack of funding.  My brother served the USAF in Viet Nam.  My Navy brother served in Nam as military police. My Marine brother survived Nam, falling to Agent Orange.

      Forgive me for going off topic.  

      Why are we outsourcing the protection of military bases, domestic or foreign, to civilian, for profit corporations?

      •  It's not completely "outsourced"... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Otteray Scribe

        and the theory (as far as I can tell) is that it's either less expensive (but I haven't seen the civilian pay packages) and/or that it frees up personnel to deploy.

        But I've never had anyone high enough in the chain of command to know, tell.  That in itself may be a data point...

    •  Both my sons told me (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      meagert, PavePusher, ban nock

      that armed security at all their duty stations was worse than most small cities with police departments.  The only places with heavier than average security was the armory.  The flight line was not all that secure either.  They had weapons, but were not allowed to have ammunition on base.

      The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

      by Otteray Scribe on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 07:01:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As far as I know, they have ammo. (3+ / 0-)

        They'd better be after the active shooter day (turned out to be a false alarm) we had last year.

        But, as with civilian police, there aren't enough of them, and their training is.... ummm.... suspect.

        And yes, I blame this as a training problem more than anything.  Train everyone, arm everyone.  We're the fucking military goddamnit, we should at least be ble to defens ourselves on our own fucking bases.

        I'll note that not one anti-gun civilian volunteered to provide unarmed security on a military base after Ft. Hood.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site