PDA

View Full Version : Official: Mahan Sailor Shot Intruder



BURAWSKI
03-26-2014, 01:24 AM
This article surprised me a little because it seems to be a trend. The second shooting I have heard about recently occurring in a secure stateside Naval facility. I hope I am wrong about that. I was fortunate never to encounter anything like what I am reading about when I stood watches aboard ship, either stateside or overseas.

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140325/NEWS/303250065/Official-Mahan-sailor-shot-intruder (http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140325/NEWS/303250065/Official-Mahan-sailor-shot-intruder)





http://cmsimg.navytimes.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=M6&Date=20140325&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=303250065&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Official-Mahan-sailor-shot-intruder

Chief Bosun
03-26-2014, 11:04 AM
Two incidents in six months may indicate a larger issue.

In the case of what happened at NAVSEA, it is pretty obvious there was a systemic issue as the shooter had been displaying some disturbing behaviour and no one either in the Navy or in his employer seemed to care. I suspect the guy did the NMCI tech refresh at my facility last year (I'm in a restricted area) as I work at a NSWC in the same area. Gives you food for thought.

In this case, it will be interesting to see what the background on the shooter is in case there is something that should have been acted on and wasn't. It will also be interesting to see the after-action report on what the POOW and OOD did/did not do in this case that resulted in the shooter gaining control of the weapon the watchstander had.

My condolences to the family of the Sailor that lost their life doing their job.

AJBIGJ
03-26-2014, 11:19 AM
I have to say, considering everything, the outcome was much better than it could have been. At least the roving sentry was on their game and the assailant was stopped beyond a single death.

Stalwart
03-26-2014, 12:18 PM
When comparing the MAHAN incident to the Navy Yard incident what I find to be overly similar is that both 'shooters' are reported to have actually had access to the base/facility (how good of a job is being done to screen personnel for access, to periodically rescreen and of supervisors / leaders to report behavior that may warrant suspension of access. It does seem that the ship’s security did a better job of immediate response than what happened at the Navy Yard, I am not sure of where onboard the DDG the shooting(s)took place or if the responders had to maneuver to engage the responder.

A big difference in these two most recent incidents is that the Navy Yard shooter came armed and the MAHAN shooter is reported to have disarmed a sentry / rover and was subsequently dealt with by ship's force security personnel.

I am particularly bothered that a sentry was disarmed but not overly surprised that it happened; I have said to a few people in the past that it would not be hard to do. I have been off the waterfront for nearly 19 months, but when there most of the AT/FP and security was focused on an external threat (someone coming across the brow, swimming to the hull etc.) vice someone who was actually authorized to be onboard becoming hostile; I am not sure how much of the security protocol for the Navy Yard or for most shore facilities cover an internal threat. After 10 years of observing Sailors standing posts either topside of a ship or at entry control points, I am fairly confident that if I wanted I could overpower, disarm and kill most of those I have seen standing their security watch (even though I am 41 and not in the same shape I was when I was in the Marines -- I am still in better shape than the vast majority of those I observe.)

Part of my logic is no doubt from my time as a Marine, but this is in part why (In my opinion) we should look (in part) at physical conditioning as more than a 'check in the box' requirement and strength, hand to hand or combatives training as a consideration for Sailors (especially for those expected to be a topside watchstander in port.) I have also argued many times that I view the main necessity for physical conditioning for Sailors based on the expected physical demands of fighting a fire – I could really care less if a Sailor can run 1 ½ miles in 10 minutes as opposed to the expectation that the average Sailor carry another average-sized person from the Engine room to the main deck or topside or can that Sailor, having donned all the firefighting equipment exert themselves physically for a couple of hours (possibly with periodic breaks) – if not that Sailor is probably not in good enough shape to be of use to the fire fighting party.

Admittedly, sentry duty is another duty we are putting on a Sailor who is already trying to balance proficiency with their rating, their shipbourne duties (ESWS etc.) and their general Navy duties/training; recent incidents are making me wonder the following questions:

1. Is there enough time in the typical day / week to maintain proficiency in everything?
Probably not

2. Does our shipboard training for sentries adequately plan for a threat that is internal to the lifelines of the ship?
In my observations, not for the average sentry.

3 Is the Navy doing enough to train every Sailor who is expected to be a Sentry to deal with an up close personal (physical) attack?
No, not even close.

4. Are leaders reporting questionable behavior that may warrant suspending a person’s access to the base, a ship, firearms etc?
I would guess not all are willing to do it ‘officially’ which to me is a problem.

Rusty Jones
03-26-2014, 01:44 PM
I've wondered this for a while myself. The Marine Corps has MCMAP, the Army has Army Combatives... so why doesn't the Navy have anything similar?

I remember SRF-B training, where one of the stations was punching a bag a few times... and that's the only requirement for that station. You don't actually have to look like you know what you're doing.

I remember SRF-B going on underway on the flight deck, and our new TRAINO started punching the bag... and couple of the guys on the aft missile deck just started busting out laughing. It's not that this guy didn't look "cool" like a professional fighter training for the next fight. He didn't look like he wasn't any putting effort into it. He just looked totally... pathetic. Most of the women onboard were punishing that bag better than he could. I was actually more upset than anything; not at him... but at the fact that what he was doing actually met the requirement to pass SRF-B.

I will say that SRF-B is pretty valuable, as it provides Sailors with training that wasn't provided years earlier. Before, all you had to do in order to stand a watch was a PQS and a weapons qual. So SRF-B is better than nothing. However, "better than nothing" just isn't good enough; and it looks like the Navy has just learned that lesson.

It's my understanding that the Marine Corps and Army routinely practice their martial arts programs frequently, just like PT. So not only are they trained in it, but their proficiency is always maintained. Why the Navy can't adopt something similar, I don't know.

Absinthe Anecdote
03-26-2014, 01:49 PM
Active shooter scenarios are hard to train the general workforce for.

Most police departments and security forces train a great deal on how to handle them.

People that pull sentry duty as an extra duty, deserve the benefit of practical training that is relevant and useful.

This sounds a little cold, but unfortunately it is a reality, sometimes the best a sentry can be expected to do is sound the alarm. That is actually part of the security strategy in posting sentries, they aren't really expected to eliminate every threat that comes their way, but to sound the alarm.

The Mahan incident sounds like a strange one, a truck driver making a delivery goes nuts and takes a sentry's weapon. The motivation behind that could be almost anything.

It will be interesting to read exactly what precipitated this incident.

Rusty Jones
03-26-2014, 01:59 PM
Active shooter scenarios are hard to train the general workforce for.

Most police departments and security forces train a great deal on how to handle them.

People that pull sentry duty as an extra duty, deserve the benefit of practical training that is relevant and useful.

This sounds a little cold, but unfortunately it is a reality, sometimes the best a sentry can be expected to do is sound the alarm. That is actually part of the security strategy in posting sentries, they aren't really expected to eliminate every threat that comes their way, but to sound the alarm.

The Mahan incident sounds like a strange one, a truck driver making a delivery goes nuts and takes a sentry's weapon. The motivation behind that could be almost anything.

It will be interesting to read exactly what precipitated this incident.

Not in the case of shipboard force protection. The ONLY two armed watchstanders on the ship who are tasked with sounding alarms are the Officer Of the Deck (OOD) and the Petty Officer Of the Watch (POOW). And the ONLY alarms they're sounding is for OTHER people on the ship who do it as an "extra duty."

Although it's not said, it's generally understood: just like every shipboard Sailor is a firefighter, every shipboard Sailor is part the ship's security force. The buck stops with the crew of the ship.

In the case of the other watchstanders - in particular, the topside rover(s) and the internal rover (if the ship stands) - their SOLE PURPOSE is to watch for threats and neutralize them. Nothing else.

BURAWSKI
03-26-2014, 02:09 PM
It seems to me that being in a stateside secure facility the mindset is a little different than what would be if you were on deployment say either in Afghanistan or Iraq or some place like that. I agree that the buck stops with the crew of the ship on duty or whoever is present at the time in order to eliminate the threat. It just seems that in the past these types of threats were not really expected to take place inside a base but now it appears the world has changed to the point that even our stateside bases are becoming active targets for terrorists (either domestic or international). Of course in overseas bases the understanding was that force protection had to be more stringent.

efmbman
03-26-2014, 02:14 PM
I've wondered this for a while myself. The Marine Corps has MCMAP, the Army has Army Combatives... so why doesn't the Navy have anything similar?

to take it a step further... why isn't there a DoD-wide standard for this? Should each service have a different flavor of the same basic principle?

Rusty Jones
03-26-2014, 02:25 PM
to take it a step further... why isn't there a DoD-wide standard for this? Should each service have a different flavor of the same basic principle?

Because I don't think this is likely to happen. And I'm not trying to take a shot at the Marine Corps when I say this; I'm just saying that this is the way it is: the Marine Corps has established a track record of wanting to "trademark" things and hold a monopoly over them, even though it may benefit the other services.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Army had to develop its own combatives, and would have adopted MCMAP were this not the case.

When it comes to helping all services win the the war, the Army appears to be the most altruistic service and is more than eager to share what they have. I think that the Navy and Air Force can simply adopt Army Combatives.

Stalwart
03-26-2014, 02:31 PM
I will say that SRF-B is pretty valuable, as it provides Sailors with training that wasn't provided years earlier. Before, all you had to do in order to stand a watch was a PQS and a weapons qual. So SRF-B is better than nothing. However, "better than nothing" just isn't good enough; and it looks like the Navy has just learned that lesson.

SRF-B is okay (IMO ... but I had a lot of QRF training before I came in the Navy), but then again not every topside watchstander (as of 2012) had to attend SRF-B, and for the watchbill we only had to have a specific number of SRF-A personnel onboard; this concept is poor when inport in Norfolk or San Diego -- totally unsat when deploying the ship overseas. To me, just from a perspective of the world as it is today -- if you are in uniform, you should probably have some level of training in how to protect yourself from an attacker (armed or unarmed.)


It's my understanding that the Marine Corps and Army routinely practice their martial arts programs frequently, just like PT. So not only are they trained in it, but their proficiency is always maintained. Why the Navy can't adopt something similar, I don't know.

It is actually used AS PT a lot of the time. The Marines Corps had a shift in an old mentality that PT had to be pushups, situps and jogging to allowing PT to be anything that exercises your muscles and your 'fighting spirit.' When we did Close Combat training (precursor to MCMAP) and MCMAP, I was definitely exercising my muscles. MCMAP introduced discussion / training on the continuum of force (what level of force is appropriate for certain situations etc.) How do we incorporate that mentality into the Navy (the 'warrior ethos' if you will), a fundamental change that just because you aren't in the Army or Marines, you need to be prepared to fight, not just push a button or pull a trigger -- but that you may have to up close and personal fight one day. We used to have 'smokers' (boxing matches) on deployoment, at the USNA midshipmen are required to do some boxing training. Today we are in many cases struggling to get people proficient with pushups, situps and 6 laps around a track. I have my ideas on how to do it, part of it is expectation management from the senior levels of the Navy & part of it is effective time management and leadership at the unit and small unit leader level.


The Mahan incident sounds like a strange one, a truck driver making a delivery goes nuts and takes a sentry's weapon. The motivation behind that could be almost anything.

It does sound wierd and am curious if this was somehow a case of 'grab-ass' gone wrong.


It just seems that in the past these types of threats were not really expected to take place inside a base but now it appears the world has changed to the point that even our stateside bases are becoming active targets for terrorists (either domestic or international).

That is part of the problem; I think we (most Americans in general ... not just USN or DoD) do a poor job of 'expecting the unexpected' or training people to think outside of a preplanned scenario ... 'off the script' if you will.

If I was to role-play as an insurgent or partisan, I would not attack a 'hard target' -- fighting positions or guard towers; I would find where people felt relatively safe and had their guard down(chow halls, exchanges, internet cafes etc.) , and strike there -- just my way of thinking based on what I have observed.

Absinthe Anecdote
03-26-2014, 02:51 PM
to take it a step further... why isn't there a DoD-wide standard for this? Should each service have a different flavor of the same basic principle?

Exactly!

How hard would it be to mandate a weekly Krav Maga session for all personnel? You could mandate every Wednesday afternoon be the dedicated Krav Maga training time.

I'm sure you'd have plenty of contractors lining up to bid on providing the initial training to certify a cadre of Krav Maga instructors. It couldn't cost that much, could it?

Plus, you could really run wild with the Krav Maga training and integrate it with sexual assault prevention. You could claim the female personnel are better trained to fight off potential sexual predators since they now know Krav Maga. However, you would have to distract people from the fact that the sexual predators in the ranks also know Krav Maga.

I think looking to the Marine Corps for providing the lead on this training would be a mistake. The Air Force and the Navy would be in much better hands looking to defense contractors to provide a training program.

Just think how awesome it would be to report to a weekly Krav Maga class taught by a Blackwater employee.

SomeRandomGuy
03-26-2014, 03:01 PM
Exactly!

How hard would it be to mandate a weekly Krav Maga session for all personnel? You could mandate every Wednesday afternoon be the dedicated Krav Maga training time.

I'm sure you'd have plenty of contractors lining up to bid on providing the initial training to certify a cadre of Krav Maga instructors. It couldn't cost that much, could it?

Plus, you could really run wild with the Krav Maga training and integrate it with sexual assault prevention. You could claim the female personnel are better trained to fight off potential sexual predators since they now know Krav Maga. However, you would have to distract people from the fact that the sexual predators in the ranks also know Krav Maga.

I think looking to the Marine Corps for providing the lead on this training would be a mistake. The Air Force and the Navy would be in much better hands looking to defense contractors to provide a training program.

Just think how awesome it would be to report to a weekly Krav Maga class taught by a Blackwater employee.

This idea might have some legs to it. I heard there could be as many as 20,000 people leaving the Air Force this year. We can't let all that talent just walk out the door. We need to do the same for them that we do for people who retire at 20 years. We need to bring them back as contractors for twice as much as they used to cost. Who better to teach about inside threats than people who used to be on the inside? Now that they have made it out of the AF they know all about being in and how to escape. They would be perfect to teach this class.

Gonzo432
03-26-2014, 03:16 PM
The male civilian gained access to Naval Station Norfolk with proper credentials while driving a tractor-trailer onto base Monday
Is that over the road driver with a bill of lading stating he's making a delivery, or a civil service/contractor driver in a truck that says US NAVY? We aren't getting a great deal of info on this one.

Stalwart
03-26-2014, 03:41 PM
The male civilian gained access to Naval Station Norfolk with proper credentials while driving a tractor-trailer onto base Monday
Is that over the road driver with a bill of lading stating he's making a delivery, or a civil service/contractor driver in a truck that says US NAVY? We aren't getting a great deal of info on this one.

Probably the first part (is how I translate it). Deliveries from food companies etc. come on NOB all the time.

Stalwart
03-26-2014, 03:54 PM
to take it a step further... why isn't there a DoD-wide standard for this? Should each service have a different flavor of the same basic principle?

To some extent, I do think there should be (my opinion). Each individual service also has to consider what is best/needed for its personnel and if the individual service needs a higher standard than the DoD minimum then so be it. I think everyone should on some level be trained in how to physically defend themselves or engage a potential threat. Not every Airman needs the same level of proficiency as a Soldier or Marine. But as other threads have pointed out, people deploy now to less and less 'traditional' roles than before and Airman Jones deployed to AUAB or BAH does need to be able to contribute (not be the focus of effort or the tip of the spear ... but contribute) if/when the fight comes to him or her.

The Navy has a pretty unique scenario where the command (ship) deploys and everyone goes, and takes the 'building' with them, while deployed members of the command provide all their own power, heating/cooling, security, communications, support services etc. Host nation will usually provide some kind of security on the pier, but the safety of the ship is the responsibility of the CO and has to man the security watches from the people that are organically assigned.

AJBIGJ
03-26-2014, 04:21 PM
To some extent, I do think there should be (my opinion). Each individual service also has to consider what is best/needed for its personnel and if the individual service needs a higher standard than the DoD minimum then so be it. I think everyone should on some level be trained in how to physically defend themselves or engage a potential threat. Not every Airman needs the same level of proficiency as a Soldier or Marine. But as other threads have pointed out, people deploy now to less and less 'traditional' roles than before and Airman Jones deployed to AUAB or BAH does need to be able to contribute (not be the focus of effort or the tip of the spear ... but contribute) if/when the fight comes to him or her.

The Navy has a pretty unique scenario where the command (ship) deploys and everyone goes, and takes the 'building' with them, while deployed members of the command provide all their own power, heating/cooling, security, communications, support services etc. Host nation will usually provide some kind of security on the pier, but the safety of the ship is the responsibility of the CO and has to man the security watches from the people that are organically assigned.

Adding to this, where a ship is in its operational schedule bears heavily on where and in what areas the efforts of the crew are specifically focused on. Whereas in most of the services it seems to hold true that your "Day Job" is your "Everyday Job" most of the time, Navy on sea duty can find themselves doing all sorts of things at a given moment. Some rates obviously being extremely heavily utilized while underway while extremely bored in port. Some the reverse, and some able to establish more of a steady strain. If a ship is in the yards, a lot of the time the focus will be geared towards maintenance and repairs because the environment in the yards can be challenging and even hazardous for much of the training. It's the whole ramp up at the last minute for the next inspection/assessment/evolution that makes us not exactly the best service in terms of maintaining sustained readiness. I certainly can't say the other services don't have MOSs that experience similar things, but I am extremely certain that it is most pervasive in the Navy culture.

garhkal
03-26-2014, 05:27 PM
I have to say, considering everything, the outcome was much better than it could have been. At least the roving sentry was on their game and the assailant was stopped beyond a single death.

True, but the POOW definitely needs to get his pecker smacked hard for allowing someone to get ahold of his gun let alone take it from him!


to take it a step further... why isn't there a DoD-wide standard for this? Should each service have a different flavor of the same basic principle?

IMO Yes. When i was stationed in Bahrain, the marine corps in charge of base security and the Aux sec force, tried their damnedest to get us Navy/AF bubs that joined ASF to go through MCMAP. Some of the higher ups were for it, others not so much..

Stalwart
03-26-2014, 05:42 PM
True, but the POOW definitely needs to get his pecker smacked hard for allowing someone to get a hold of his gun let alone take it from him!

I agree with you to a point. My concern is that we really don't teach ship's force (via PSQ, SRF-B or A ... maybe we do informally) how to engage or defend someone who is up close and personal. If the shooter got to the quarterdeck, then entered into a grappling scenario with the sentry (was it the POOW? I don't know.) he took the weapon from there is not much the POOW could reasonably do since they are not trained how to grapple with someone. If the person becomes a threat while more than about six feet away, you can draw a weapon and fire; inside of six feet most attackers will be on top of someone before a trained shooter (more or less a pseudo-qualified E-2 or E-3 who just qual’d as a rover last week) could unholster a pistol or bring a rifle up from the ready or other carry position.

Rusty Jones
03-26-2014, 06:04 PM
True, but the POOW definitely needs to get his pecker smacked hard for allowing someone to get ahold of his gun let alone take it from him!

You can only be held responsible for what you're trained on.

I know that sounds naive as hell, but...

I think this shows that there is a need for people in all service - not just the Army and Marine Corps - to be trained in hand to hand combat. Disarming someone isn't at all difficult, especially when the armed person in question doesn't even know that you're a threat until it's too late.

The average American male SHOULD have some ability to fight. Those that don't... I really wonder how the hell they made it to adulthood without having to fight somebody... that's just a reality that's unimaginable to me.

However... two things:

1. I don't think that whatever fighting ability that the average untrained American male has is really sufficient for a life and death scenario, such as this shooting incident. All military personnel should be trained to have similar skills as police officers, or other people who are subject to hostile situations.

2. I'm not even sure if Sailors really feel that they're even ALLOWED to engage in hand to hand combat, even if they felt that they could successfully do it. It's never covered in ATFP training, nor are they ever told when to do it, or that they should even do it all.

CaliMC
03-26-2014, 08:54 PM
Face it, the Navy has become distracted by social issues to a point they've almost ceased to operate as a bona fide military organization. Honestly, how many times have we "qualified" someone on small arms, knowing full well that there was no way they could ever use them if the need arose? Or did so just to balance a watchbill or meet some PQS reporting requirement, all the while hoping that nothing would happen? Too many people don't take this seriously until something tragic happens. Now people are talking about mandatory hand to hand combat training? I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you think there is a snowballs chance in hell that the Navy will adopt this? Even if they did, how effective do you think it would be? The Navy can't get people to pass the PRT!

Rusty Jones
03-27-2014, 12:05 AM
I've watched Army and Marines do command PT. Command PT in the Navy will keep you in shape, but PT in the Army and Marine Corps is actually focued on what they're tested on. This would be a pretty easy fix on the Navy's part, but I don't see it happening.

BURAWSKI
03-27-2014, 12:32 AM
I've watched Army and Marines do command PT. Command PT in the Navy will keep you in shape, but PT in the Army and Marine Corps is actually focued on what they're tested on. This would be a pretty easy fix on the Navy's part, but I don't see it happening.

I am curious to see if the Navy is going to approach these shootings as business as usual. We will know soon enough if another shooting occurs similar to these two. I don't understand why the Navy's Force Protection isn't being critically evaluated since these fatalities started occurring.

garhkal
03-27-2014, 05:10 AM
2. I'm not even sure if Sailors really feel that they're even ALLOWED to engage in hand to hand combat, even if they felt that they could successfully do it. It's never covered in ATFP training, nor are they ever told when to do it, or that they should even do it all.

True.. I do remember that question getting asked during one 'indoc' session on ship, whether the sentries could engage in hand to hand to 'restrain someone' if needed.. the instructor told us "Just call security!"


I am curious to see if the Navy is going to approach these shootings as business as usual. We will know soon enough if another shooting occurs similar to these two. I don't understand why the Navy's Force Protection isn't being critically evaluated since these fatalities started occurring.

How often have we heard that the govt is going to "critically look at something" after an incident, but nothing happens?

Gonzo432
03-27-2014, 09:42 AM
True.. I do remember that question getting asked during one 'indoc' session on ship, whether the sentries could engage in hand to hand to 'restrain someone' if needed.. the instructor told us "Just call security!"



How often have we heard that the govt is going to "critically look at something" after an incident, but nothing happens?

When seconds count, help is minutes away.

With that said, I was on the Norfolk Navy Yard a few times during my Langley days. I've driven by where the carriers are docked, it's not a controlled area at X number of yards before you get to the ship?

Stalwart
03-27-2014, 10:16 AM
Face it, the Navy has become distracted by social issues to a point they've almost ceased to operate as a bona fide military organization. Honestly, how many times have we "qualified" someone on small arms, knowing full well that there was no way they could ever use them if the need arose? Or did so just to balance a watchbill or meet some PQS reporting requirement, all the while hoping that nothing would happen? Too many people don't take this seriously until something tragic happens. Now people are talking about mandatory hand to hand combat training? I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you think there is a snowballs chance in hell that the Navy will adopt this? Even if they did, how effective do you think it would be? The Navy can't get people to pass the PRT!

I see what you are saying, but as a DIV & DH on a DDG, I had no real issues with my time as a result of 'social issues'; my usual headaches centered around meeting training requirements from the SFTM and from ATG (Afloat Training Group -- which IMO should be called AEG - Afloat Evaluation Group since they never actually conduct 'training' but just review checklists and certify that we have accomplished the checklist.) The biggest headache is when a program manager for [pick a program] fails to adequately manage their program and suddenly a known, projectable requirement is a last minute scramble to get done because they have a deliverable due in 72 hours.

Lax qualification standards, I know it is done ... I personally have never done it. I was a Special Evaluator & Fleet NATOPS Evaluator on the EP-3E for three years and had a reputation as a very stringent qualifier (I once failed a CWO who did not pre-op his parachute as required -- many said it was BS since "no one ever checks their parachute" even though the preflight check list is very black and white.) When I first arrived at my DDG there was some adjustment by the Sailors to the way my expectations differed from my predecessor; but about a year later when we performed our jobs with a very high degree of efficiency it was easy to see the confidence they had in their abilities and the pride they took in their jobs. I am and have always been comfortable that I am following the standard as dictated by instructions; but yes, I know some people do not do that for the sake of a balanced or eased watchbill -- an culturally that is something we have to alter. Where we can alter that depends; I am a LCDR so my sphere of influence is not the same as that of a CAPT etc., however a GM1 running a M9 course of fire can stand firm on the qualification requirements when he or she is running the range.

As far as hand to hand combat, infighting defensive, or combatives training in the Navy, I do think it is something that we should look at -- based on the expectation we have of everyone being a sentry on a ship etc. I am bothered that a trained sentry had a weapon taken from them, but I don't know the specifics of the situation enough to know if the shooter rushed down the pier, across the brow and to the sentry (issue with threat assessment and engagement) or was the shooter granted permission to come aboard, stood next to the sentry and then attacked (at this point some sort of defensive training would have been beneficial.) How effective do I think implementing such a program would be? As effective as the leaders want to make it; personally I am an eternal optimist with nearly 24 years in uniform adding a dash of realism so I probably won't be able to 'fix' anything Navy-wide. A lot of people will get a task and throw their hands in the air and say it can’t be done. However as long as I wear a uniform it is my job to execute direction as best as I can given the resources I have or can get.

AJBIGJ
03-27-2014, 01:43 PM
True, but the POOW definitely needs to get his pecker smacked hard for allowing someone to get ahold of his gun let alone take it from him!

IMO Yes. When i was stationed in Bahrain, the marine corps in charge of base security and the Aux sec force, tried their damnedest to get us Navy/AF bubs that joined ASF to go through MCMAP. Some of the higher ups were for it, others not so much..
In this case a her, and it appears it was her life that was saved by a very heroic MA2 Mayo, we don't see many MOH's in the Navy, but this is a fair candidate IMO.

AJBIGJ
03-27-2014, 01:52 PM
I would encourage people to visit the Naval Station Norfolk facebook page, it provides a fair amount of updates that would be good to have before speculating too much.

navyskcs
03-27-2014, 01:54 PM
I see what you are saying, but as a DIV & DH on a DDG, I had no real issues with my time as a result of 'social issues'; my usual headaches centered around meeting training requirements from the SFTM and from ATG (Afloat Training Group -- which IMO should be called AEG - Afloat Evaluation Group since they never actually conduct 'training' but just review checklists and certify that we have accomplished the checklist.) The biggest headache is when a program manager for [pick a program] fails to adequately manage their program and suddenly a known, projectable requirement is a last minute scramble to get done because they have a deliverable due in 72 hours.

Lax qualification standards, I know it is done ... I personally have never done it. I was a Special Evaluator & Fleet NATOPS Evaluator on the EP-3E for three years and had a reputation as a very stringent qualifier (I once failed a CWO who did not pre-op his parachute as required -- many said it was BS since "no one ever checks their parachute" even though the preflight check list is very black and white.) When I first arrived at my DDG there was some adjustment by the Sailors to the way my expectations differed from my predecessor; but about a year later when we performed our jobs with a very high degree of efficiency it was easy to see the confidence they had in their abilities and the pride they took in their jobs. I am and have always been comfortable that I am following the standard as dictated by instructions; but yes, I know some people do not do that for the sake of a balanced or eased watchbill -- an culturally that is something we have to alter. Where we can alter that depends; I am a LCDR so my sphere of influence is not the same as that of a CAPT etc., however a GM1 running a M9 course of fire can stand firm on the qualification requirements when he or she is running the range.

As far as hand to hand combat, infighting defensive, or combatives training in the Navy, I do think it is something that we should look at -- based on the expectation we have of everyone being a sentry on a ship etc. I am bothered that a trained sentry had a weapon taken from them, but I don't know the specifics of the situation enough to know if the shooter rushed down the pier, across the brow and to the sentry (issue with threat assessment and engagement) or was the shooter granted permission to come aboard, stood next to the sentry and then attacked (at this point some sort of defensive training would have been beneficial.) How effective do I think implementing such a program would be? As effective as the leaders want to make it; personally I am an eternal optimist with nearly 24 years in uniform adding a dash of realism so I probably won't be able to 'fix' anything Navy-wide. A lot of people will get a task and throw their hands in the air and say it can’t be done. However as long as I wear a uniform it is my job to execute direction as best as I can given the resources I have or can get.


Completing the POOW PQS and going to the range twice a year to shoot hardly qualifies a sailor to be standing a watch that puts him in a position to make deadly force decisions to protect the ship. Espcecially if this sailor is non-security oriented rating such as a YN, LS, or PS (some of the rates that typically stand POOW). You can bet that at 23:20 on a Monday night, the only thing that this POOW was thinking about was if his relief was going to show up on time. Taps has already gone down, the CDO has gone to bed, and the ship is quiet. The watch team was most likely just standing around BS'ing waiting for their watch to be over and not thinking for one second that someone would charge the brow. We have ALL been there before.
I'm not saying that this is wrong. The ship, ISIC, and the Navy make conscious decisions on FP while in home port based on the THREATCON. And there probably is no way that what this truck driver did could ever be predicted in any type of FP scenerio. However, I don't think the commenters on this thread should blaming the tactically unqualifed POOW who just happened to be selected to fill a spot on the watchbill that night....

Absinthe Anecdote
03-27-2014, 01:54 PM
In this case a her, and it appears it was her life that was saved by a very heroic MA2 Mayo, we don't see many MOH's in the Navy, but this is a fair candidate IMO.

A MOH for the Mahan incident?

Please tell me you are talking about something else.

Rusty Jones
03-27-2014, 02:00 PM
In this case a her, and it appears it was her life that was saved by a very heroic MA2 Mayo, we don't see many MOH's in the Navy, but this is a fair candidate IMO.

Considering what Soldiers and Marines go through on the battlefield to rate the MOH, I don't see it happening. And if it does, Sailors are going to get a shit ton of flack from Soldiers and Marines... who I really wouldn't be able to blame.

I really don't want that to happen on this Sailors account. Navy Cross would be more appropriate, but even that's pushing it. At the MINIMUM, the Navy and Marine Corps Medal (that's equivalent to the Soldier's Medal and the Airman's Medal for you non-DoN types). Navy and Marine Corps Medal or Navy Cross, or something in between.

TJMAC77SP
03-27-2014, 02:16 PM
A MOH for the Mahan incident?

Please tell me you are talking about something else.

I was wondering the same thing

TJMAC77SP
03-27-2014, 02:21 PM
Considering what Soldiers and Marines go through on the battlefield to rate the MOH, I don't see it happening. And if it does, Sailors are going to get a shit ton of flack from Soldiers and Marines... who I really wouldn't be able to blame.

I really don't want that to happen on this Sailors account. Navy Cross would be more appropriate, but even that's pushing it. At the MINIMUM, the Navy and Marine Corps Medal (that's equivalent to the Soldier's Medal and the Airman's Medal for you non-DoN types). Navy and Marine Corps Medal or Navy Cross, or something in between.

I assume the Navy and Marine Corps medal has the same requirements as the Airman's Medal. If so, and if he definitely saved a life or lives you are correct in assuming that is appropriate. I don't see anything higher being awarded. Navy Cross requires "extraordinary heroism in combat".

AJBIGJ
03-27-2014, 02:24 PM
A MOH for the Mahan incident?

Please tell me you are talking about something else.


Considering what Soldiers and Marines go through on the battlefield to rate the MOH, I don't see it happening. And if it does, Sailors are going to get a shit ton of flack from Soldiers and Marines... who I really wouldn't be able to blame.

I really don't want that to happen on this Sailors account. Navy Cross would be more appropriate, but even that's pushing it. At the MINIMUM, the Navy and Marine Corps Medal (that's equivalent to the Soldier's Medal and the Airman's Medal for you non-DoN types). Navy and Marine Corps Medal or Navy Cross, or something in between.

I don't see a drastic difference between this and PFC Oscar Austin, the namesake of one of our DDG's, but it's just a personal opinion.

Stalwart
03-27-2014, 03:19 PM
In this case a her, and it appears it was her life that was saved by a very heroic MA2 Mayo, we don't see many MOH's in the Navy, but this is a fair candidate IMO.

I think a Navy & Marine Corps Medal would be fairly easy to justify.

Rusty Jones
03-27-2014, 03:23 PM
I could help but to shake my head when looking at the Navy Times newsfeed on facebook. All the Sailors saying he should get the MOH.

It made me realize something. The Navy is the most insular branch of the military within the DoD. Compared to the other services, it really seems like Sailors are the most ignorant when it comes to knowing anything about any branch of the military other than their own.

I really think that were this not the case, they'd be considering what goes on in the sandbox before saying that this guy rates the MOH.

AJBIGJ
03-27-2014, 03:24 PM
I think a Navy & Marine Corps Medal would be fairly easy to justify.

I'm not particularly concerned either way, but all considered I do think the actions of this particular individual warrant very high level recognition. Especially since this happened pierside Norfolk, and not in the middle of a firefight in the middle of a warzone. The fact that he had his wits about him to react in a situation where, let's be honest, most sailors most of the time consider themselves to be perfectly "safe" in the environment, makes it all the more impressive!

AJBIGJ
03-27-2014, 03:30 PM
I could help but to shake my head when looking at the Navy Times newsfeed on facebook. All the Sailors saying he should get the MOH.

It made me realize something. The Navy is the most insular branch of the military within the DoD. Compared to the other services, it really seems like Sailors are the most ignorant when it comes to knowing anything about any branch of the military other than their own.

I really think that were this not the case, they'd be considering what goes on in the sandbox before saying that this guy rates the MOH.

Well, since we're on the subject, what is your personal definition of the actions that warrant a MOH? Is the simple fact that it was not on a traditional battlefield what's holding you back here? The individual himself, from my own understanding, has spent a considerable amount of time in his brief career in those types of locations. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if that experience specifically is what allowed him to be sufficiently alert and aware in a typically much less dangerous environment on a late night at the end of a weekend. If America was at this level of alert on the morning of December 7, 1941 it may have turned out a lot differently I would speculate.

Stalwart
03-27-2014, 03:31 PM
Especially since this happened pierside Norfolk, and not in the middle of a firefight in the middle of a warzone.

He should be recognized, absolutely. But Navy & Marine Corps Medal is pretty much the highest medal you can give for heroism that is not part of an armed conflict.

Rusty Jones
03-27-2014, 03:39 PM
Well, since we're on the subject, what is your personal definition of the actions that warrant a MOH?

Why are you asking for my "personal" definition? No one's "personal" definition matters. He wasn't part of armed conflict which, to my understanding, is a requirement.

It's also my understanding that what separates the MOH from the Cross is whether or not the person intended to sacrifice - not "risk" - but actually "sacrifice" their lives in the act in question.

I'm wrong, correct me. Because, like I said, the only requirements that matter here are the ones that are established by law.

TJMAC77SP
03-27-2014, 03:47 PM
Folks, much of this is a moot discussion. If I am reading the requirements correctly you cannot be awarded any of the top three decorations for valor unless serving in a combat environment. To quote the DoD...

- While engaged in action against an enemy of the United States;
- While engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or
- While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

Also, there is much talk of the relevant training and qualifications of sailors. Wasn't PO Mayo a Master at Arms? Which means he was a navy cop and received more relevant training than the average sailor standing watch. Maybe I am reading some of the comments incorrectly.

Stalwart
03-27-2014, 03:53 PM
Also, there is much talk of the relevant training and qualifications of sailors. Wasn't PO Mayo a Master at Arms? Which means he was a navy cop and received more relevant training than the average sailor standing watch. Maybe I am reading some of the comments incorrectly.

PO Mayo was not the one who had his weapon taken from him; that was the Petty Officer of the Watch from the MAHAN.

TJMAC77SP
03-27-2014, 03:56 PM
PO Mayo was not the one who had his weapon taken from him; that was the Petty Officer of the Watch from the MAHAN.

I see said the blind man. So the comments about training were in relation to that sailor.

Rusty Jones
03-27-2014, 03:57 PM
Also, there is much talk of the relevant training and qualifications of sailors. Wasn't PO Mayo a Master at Arms? Which means he was a navy cop and received more relevant training than the average sailor standing watch. Maybe I am reading some of the comments incorrectly.

He was standing chief of the Guard. In other words, he's not assigned to a ship or even a pier. He's simply in charge of pier sentries. His very presence there was by sheer chance. Normally, the pier sentries and the topside watches onboard the ship would be the ones who would actually have to take care of this.

AJBIGJ
03-27-2014, 03:59 PM
Folks, much of this is a moot discussion. If I am reading the requirements correctly you cannot be awarded any of the top three decorations for valor unless serving in a combat environment. To quote the DoD...

- While engaged in action against an enemy of the United States;
- While engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or
- While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

Also, there is much talk of the relevant training and qualifications of sailors. Wasn't PO Mayo a Master at Arms? Which means he was a navy cop and received more relevant training than the average sailor standing watch. Maybe I am reading some of the comments incorrectly.

Results vary within the MA community but that is essentially correct. I'm interested to see where this goes as it probably comes down to the "motives" of the assailant to determine what level of recognition this whole incident warrants (much like Ft. Hood). Which is kind of backwards-thinking to me. I think having any sailor be at that level of readiness outside of the battlefield to take the actions he took are even more commendable than those taken by somebody who is already in the thick of it.

AJBIGJ
03-27-2014, 04:11 PM
Why are you asking for my "personal" definition? No one's "personal" definition matters. He wasn't part of armed conflict which, to my understanding, is a requirement.

It's also my understanding that what separates the MOH from the Cross is whether or not the person intended to sacrifice - not "risk" - but actually "sacrifice" their lives in the act in question.

I'm wrong, correct me. Because, like I said, the only requirements that matter here are the ones that are established by law.

I don't know if I would say you are "wrong" in the definitive sense but to me it does bring to question how we define a "battlefield"? There was obviously an intent to potentially "sacrifice" his life to the extent which that can be defined in this case, I don't even think that is able to be disputed. I think this individual potentially saved more lives than the actual MOH recipient I cited earlier. With the quarterdeck security essentially compromised already by that point this could have turned out a whole lot worse than it had. I think it is time to revisit the way we define a MOH because sometimes the "conflict" doesn't happen where we expect it to.

BURAWSKI
03-27-2014, 04:21 PM
I don't know if I would say you are "wrong" in the definitive sense but to me it does bring to question how we define a "battlefield"? There was obviously an intent to potentially "sacrifice" his life to the extent which that can be defined in this case, I don't even think that is able to be disputed. I think this individual potentially saved more lives than the actual MOH recipient I cited earlier. With the quarterdeck security essentially compromised already by that point this could have turned out a whole lot worse than it had. I think it is time to revisit the way we define a MOH because sometimes the "conflict" doesn't happen where we expect it to.

Pretty interesting comments. I was just thinking about the whole status of where we are at as far as stateside terror threats go aboard military installations. It seems we are already fighting a war on terror, and now it seems to be ramping up on stateside military installations. Battlefield scenarios might be a good way to compare, but maybe I am wrong about this.

Rusty Jones
03-27-2014, 05:28 PM
I don't know if I would say you are "wrong" in the definitive sense but to me it does bring to question how we define a "battlefield"? There was obviously an intent to potentially "sacrifice" his life to the extent which that can be defined in this case, I don't even think that is able to be disputed. I think this individual potentially saved more lives than the actual MOH recipient I cited earlier. With the quarterdeck security essentially compromised already by that point this could have turned out a whole lot worse than it had. I think it is time to revisit the way we define a MOH because sometimes the "conflict" doesn't happen where we expect it to.

Maybe, but do the "shoulda coulda wouldas" really matter? We're speculating as to what award he might receive. There's the way we might feel things should be, and then there's the way things are. The latter is the only thing that's relevant to our speculation.

AJBIGJ
03-27-2014, 05:51 PM
Maybe, but do the "shoulda coulda wouldas" really matter? We're speculating as to what award he might receive. There's the way we might feel things should be, and then there's the way things are. The latter is the only thing that's relevant to our speculation.

Not necessarily, I'm not sure at the number, but I'm more than certain there have been more than a few MOHs awarded multiple decades after the event itself after the rules changed.

Also, breaking news, the assailant is also an Ex-Con, convicted of both manslaughter and the sale of crack-cocaine at different times, he had base access!
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140327/NEWS06/303270044/EXCLUSIVE-Ex-convict-ID-d-gunman-Norfolk-Naval-Base-shooting

garhkal
03-27-2014, 05:57 PM
As far as hand to hand combat, infighting defensive, or combatives training in the Navy, I do think it is something that we should look at -- based on the expectation we have of everyone being a sentry on a ship etc. I am bothered that a trained sentry had a weapon taken from them, but I don't know the specifics of the situation enough to know if the shooter rushed down the pier, across the brow and to the sentry (issue with threat assessment and engagement) or was the shooter granted permission to come aboard, stood next to the sentry and then attacked (at this point some sort of defensive training would have been beneficial.) How effective do I think implementing such a program would be? As effective as the leaders want to make it; personally I am an eternal optimist with nearly 24 years in uniform adding a dash of realism so I probably won't be able to 'fix' anything Navy-wide. A lot of people will get a task and throw their hands in the air and say it can’t be done. However as long as I wear a uniform it is my job to execute direction as best as I can given the resources I have or can get.

Nicely said. If we were to do a requirement, what sort of 'requal' do you see happening. Like how we treat weapons, where is an every 6 mo requal time?

BURAWSKI
03-27-2014, 06:17 PM
I see a perfect storm in the horizon. Several years ago I remember hearing about stateside Navy shore installations wanting to eliminate the base sentries in order to save money and manpower. Not sure where that option is but with the current budget I have to ask myself how can they do that? I don't think the majority of the Navy's Force Protection is up to standards and can use more than a little improvement. But with the budget crisis the country and the military is facing is there any hope?

AJBIGJ
03-27-2014, 06:23 PM
I see a perfect storm in the horizon. Several years ago I remember hearing about stateside Navy shore installations wanting to eliminate the base sentries in order to save money and manpower. Not sure where that option is but with the current budget I have to ask myself how can they do that? I don't think the majority of the Navy's Force Protection is up to standards and can use more than a little improvement. But with the budget crisis the country and the military is facing is there any hope?

After this incident I imagine people will be seeking to make manning cuts elsewhere in the short term.

TJMAC77SP
03-27-2014, 06:44 PM
He was standing chief of the Guard. In other words, he's not assigned to a ship or even a pier. He's simply in charge of pier sentries. His very presence there was by sheer chance. Normally, the pier sentries and the topside watches onboard the ship would be the ones who would actually have to take care of this.

Got it. I wondered about his presence in what seems like a short time.

Rusty Jones
03-27-2014, 06:44 PM
I see a perfect storm in the horizon. Several years ago I remember hearing about stateside Navy shore installations wanting to eliminate the base sentries in order to save money and manpower. Not sure where that option is but with the current budget I have to ask myself how can they do that? I don't think the majority of the Navy's Force Protection is up to standards and can use more than a little improvement. But with the budget crisis the country and the military is facing is there any hope?

This is easy. I'm pretty sure that pier watches and everything are taken into account when determining ship manning levels for topside ratings. That being said, you could easily chop down a few billets; and start using a bunch of GS-5 base cops to do the same job. A GS-5 is even cheaper than an E1, he'll stand there for his whole eight-hour shift; and the best part is that security is his sole job, so it would only stand to reason that he would have all of the training that big Navy might consider impractical to give Sailors in general.

The only drawback to that, is that Sailors would still need to learn some hand to hand, as the base cops aren't going to be there when the ship makes port visits.

BURAWSKI
03-27-2014, 07:40 PM
This is easy. I'm pretty sure that pier watches and everything are taken into account when determining ship manning levels for topside ratings. That being said, you could easily chop down a few billets; and start using a bunch of GS-5 base cops to do the same job. A GS-5 is even cheaper than an E1, he'll stand there for his whole eight-hour shift; and the best part is that security is his sole job, so it would only stand to reason that he would have all of the training that big Navy might consider impractical to give Sailors in general.

The only drawback to that, is that Sailors would still need to learn some hand to hand, as the base cops aren't going to be there when the ship makes port visits.

The Navy is going to try and save money at the expense of personnel; it seems to always work out that way, or at least that seems to be one of the first places they look at. I have always felt that it looks to me like an automatic knee-jerk reaction whenever the budget comes up. There are a lot of programs that don't seem to be looked at the way they do when it comes to cutting people. There is enough fraud, waste and abuse that as far as I can see not enough effort is made to look for it, but it is there (a lot of it). As far as Force Protection I don't think the Navy can afford to cut on this or contract it out to civilians. Too much is at stake. Heck, the Navy is already looking bad because of this and the other shooting in Washington, DC. You would think this would be a wake-up call for some house-cleaning. It should be noted that it was reported that this shooter had penetrated three (3) levels of security on board Naval Base Norfolk before he was subdued. It looks like he never should have gotten past the sentries at the main gate. The investigation will provide the answers to how this all happened.

Stalwart
03-27-2014, 08:17 PM
Nicely said. If we were to do a requirement, what sort of 'requal' do you see happening. Like how we treat weapons, where is an every 6 mo requal time?

I really haven't thought about it that in depth; am just of the opinion that we should teach sentries how to defend themselves a bit better than the way we currently do. Without too much information specifically on the MAHAN incident, I am left to wonder if the situation may have turned out differently if the POOW who had her weapon taken from her would have some training on how to defend herself from an up-close attacker.

JoeMorgue
03-28-2014, 12:43 AM
Even on a carrier you only have a couple of dozen MAs. The bulk of the security forces and practically all watchstanders are made up of TAD people.

It's the Navy's pathetic "Just grab any random sailor from their job, make sure they can load a pistol without shooting themselves in the foot, and put them on watch" mentality.

I mean standing security, mess cranking... it's all the same thing to the number crunchers.

garhkal
03-28-2014, 03:33 AM
After this incident I imagine people will be seeking to make manning cuts elsewhere in the short term.

Or who's going to start off the "I told ya so" bandwagon against those cuts.


The Navy is going to try and save money at the expense of personnel; it seems to always work out that way, or at least that seems to be one of the first places they look at. I have always felt that it looks to me like an automatic knee-jerk reaction whenever the budget comes up. There are a lot of programs that don't seem to be looked at the way they do when it comes to cutting people. There is enough fraud, waste and abuse that as far as I can see not enough effort is made to look for it, but it is there (a lot of it). As far as Force Protection I don't think the Navy can afford to cut on this or contract it out to civilians. Too much is at stake. Heck, the Navy is already looking bad because of this and the other shooting in Washington, DC. You would think this would be a wake-up call for some house-cleaning. It should be noted that it was reported that this shooter had penetrated three (3) levels of security on board Naval Base Norfolk before he was subdued. It looks like he never should have gotten past the sentries at the main gate. The investigation will provide the answers to how this all happened.

It's the same with any Organization. Need a quick cost cut, fire people. The lower on the 'totem pole' the better. When in fact if they were to fire the uppers, they would get MORE in savings!

BURAWSKI
03-28-2014, 03:47 AM
They could start looking at possibly firing the base Security Officer, the XO & CO as well. I wonder who the CMC is?

Gonzo432
03-28-2014, 11:01 AM
They could start looking at possibly firing the base Security Officer, the XO & CO as well. I wonder who the CMC is?

The Air Force fired a bunch (10) yesterday. Will the Navy see our 10 and raise 1? To be determined...

Serious note: several comments on the Navy using "Joe Boson" to be security in port. I saw this at Keflavik my two tours there. I was a bit stunned, guy/gal doesn't have a job on land, make them a cop? I got pulled over once because "it looked like I was going to speed". Can't make this stuff up.

Stalwart
03-28-2014, 02:18 PM
They could start looking at possibly firing the base Security Officer, the XO & CO as well. I wonder who the CMC is?

I heard this morning that the shooter had a worker's ID that would allow him access to the base for work, but that he had no reason to be on base that night. So in that case, security personnel may have failed.

It sounds like the POOW was overpowered/lost her weapon in a scuffle, definitely a failure but also you have to look at the situation and ask some questions:

1. Were NOB Gate personnel properly trained and qualified to be standing their post?
a. If so, were the PQS's & SOP's adequate to meet the perceived threat? (If not, issue for the CO, XO, CMC, ATFPO, TRAINO etc)
b. If not, why were they standing that post? (Possible action on the Security Officer or whoever approved them to be on post)

2. Was the POOW properly trained & qualified per all applicable instructions?
a. If so, were the PQS's & SOP's adequate to meet the perceived threat? (If not, issue for the CO, XO, CMC, ATFPO, TRAINO etc)
b. If not, why was she standing that post? (Possible action on everyone that signed and approved that watchbill)

3. Did she and other personnel properly execute what they were trained to do ie:
a. Did the shooter improperly gain access to the base, to the pier, to a ship?
b. Did the POOW properly challenge the intruder and the scuffle ensued?

Where I would say this could be a tragic but 'no fault' situation is that once the scuffle ensued, was she simply overpowered by a more capable attacker? If so, yes she failed to maintain her weapon (which is wrong), but I do have to accept that even with training, my best person may run into a better opponent and be 'bested'. If they had the training and tools they needed to do the job, did their job as trained and expected and were simply the weaker fighter, they will lose. I don't like to lose and don't want my people to lose (especially when lives are at stake), but it is a fact that an enemy is likely trying just as hard as you to not be beaten or die.

BURAWSKI
03-28-2014, 02:26 PM
I heard this morning that the shooter had a worker's ID that would allow him access to the base for work, but that he had no reason to be on base that night. So in that case, security personnel may have failed.

It sounds like the POOW was overpowered/lost her weapon in a scuffle, definitely a failure but also you have to look at the situation and ask some questions:

1. Were NOB Gate personnel properly trained and qualified to be standing their post?
a. If so, were the PQS's & SOP's adequate to meet the perceived threat? (If not, issue for the CO, XO, CMC, ATFPO, TRAINO etc)
b. If not, why were they standing that post? (Possible action on the Security Officer or whoever approved them to be on post)

2. Was the POOW properly trained & qualified per all applicable instructions?
a. If so, were the PQS's & SOP's adequate to meet the perceived threat? (If not, issue for the CO, XO, CMC, ATFPO, TRAINO etc)
b. If not, why was she standing that post? (Possible action on everyone that signed and approved that watchbill)

3. Did she and other personnel properly execute what they were trained to do ie:
a. Did the shooter improperly gain access to the base, to the pier, to a ship?
b. Did the POOW properly challenge the intruder and the scuffle ensued?

Where I would say this could be a tragic but 'no fault' situation is that once the scuffle ensued, was she simply overpowered by a more capable attacker? If so, yes she failed to maintain her weapon (which is wrong), but I do have to accept that even with training, my best person may run into a better opponent and be 'bested'. If they had the training and tools they needed to do the job, did their job as trained and expected and were simply the weaker fighter, they will lose. I don't like to lose and don't want my people to lose (especially when lives are at stake), but it is a fact that an enemy is likely trying just as hard as you to not be beaten or die.

The investigation will hopefully get into all these areas. It sounds like there are problems with training and watch qualification procedures of a bigger issue than just what appears on the surface. These types of breaches offer a snapshot into what the physical security posture of the Navy really is, and it doesn't look good. I hope this leads to an improved physical security readiness not just aboard Naval Base Norfolk but throughout the Navy. It probably is a safe bet to say that the most vulnerable time to stage an attack would be on the night shift between 11:00 PM to 6:00 AM. Although the Washington Navy Yard shooter strolled in the facility at 9:00 AM. I wonder if this could involve training and ethical issues that have recently plagued some personnel in the Navy Nuclear Power Program. The investigation may prove to be a bigger learning experience than I originally thought.

BURAWSKI
04-01-2014, 01:01 AM
This was reported today:

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140331/NEWS06/303310048/Bases-tighten-access-after-Naval-Station-Norfolk-shooting

Seems that an across the board review should be had for all Navy Bases in the Continental United States. I would hope that our overseas bases are already being evaluated.

Gonzo432
04-01-2014, 01:33 AM
This was reported today:

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140331/NEWS06/303310048/Bases-tighten-access-after-Naval-Station-Norfolk-shooting

Seems that an across the board review should be had for all Navy Bases in the Continental United States. I would hope that our overseas bases are already being evaluated.

The guy had a valid ID (TWIC) even though he done time for selling crack and voluntary manslaughter? Any bets USIS (Aaron Alexis the Washington Navy Yard shooter and Putin's guest Snowden were vetted by USIS) vetted this guy's access? This is epic fail on many levels and someone had to lose their life for it to be addressed.

BURAWSKI
04-01-2014, 02:55 AM
It can't be justified. I know the investigation is beginning but all indications are of major negligence, if not incompetence, and if not criminal in nature.

garhkal
04-01-2014, 05:44 AM
The guy had a valid ID (TWIC) even though he done time for selling crack and voluntary manslaughter? Any bets USIS (Aaron Alexis the Washington Navy Yard shooter and Putin's guest Snowden were vetted by USIS) vetted this guy's access? This is epic fail on many levels and someone had to lose their life for it to be addressed.

What's the betting there will be millions of tax dollars wasted on a 'congressional review' of that company, and no one will spend any time in jail for it..

Stalwart
04-02-2014, 10:52 AM
An article on the Navy & Marine Corps Medal and MM2 Mayo.

Military Times: http://blogs.militarytimes.com/scoopdeck/2014/04/01/ma2-mayo-could-rate-rare-medal/

Also, he was from Hagerstown MD. If any active or retired Navy or other military wish to attend arrangements can be obtained from:

Please contact the following agency to send condolences or to obtain funeral arrangements:


United States Navy Security Forces
1530 Gilbert Street
Suite 2000
Norfolk, VA 23511

Phone: (757) 444-0000

BURAWSKI
04-03-2014, 01:07 PM
An article on the Navy & Marine Corps Medal and MM2 Mayo.

Military Times: http://blogs.militarytimes.com/scoopdeck/2014/04/01/ma2-mayo-could-rate-rare-medal/

Also, he was from Hagerstown MD. If any active or retired Navy or other military wish to attend arrangements can be obtained from:

Please contact the following agency to send condolences or to obtain funeral arrangements:


United States Navy Security Forces
1530 Gilbert Street
Suite 2000
Norfolk, VA 23511

Phone: (757) 444-0000


Looks like you are closer to where the funeral will be. If I lived closer I would attend. I hope that these killings don't start encouraging copy cats, since there was another shooting yesterday at Fort Hood with 4 dead and a number injured. The media plays a part in all this by devoting so much attention to it, especially the culprits.

garhkal
04-03-2014, 08:02 PM
Yea its a shame that after each and every shooting we have, more and more time seems t be spent by the press, focusing on the culprit, rather than the victims.

Stalwart
04-11-2014, 10:45 PM
The funeral was today, I attended.

The military honors were conducted well and about 200 military (mostly Navy) showed up in support.

BZ to the color guard, buglar and funeral detail.

garhkal
04-12-2014, 03:21 AM
Still surprised i have not seen anything on this, on any of the major news shows..

AJBIGJ
04-14-2014, 11:42 AM
Still surprised i have not seen anything on this, on any of the major news shows..

I don't think it sparked the level of controversy (or had the death toll) that the more "news-worthy" shootings do. Nobody was armed who wasn't supposed to be so the "gun control" back-and-forth goes essentially nowhere. It rankles me personally because this incident hit much closer to home personally than Ft. Hood or elsewhere (except maybe Sandy Hook, having a kindergarten aged son) but I do understand why it's not big in the national news networks.

BURAWSKI
04-14-2014, 12:34 PM
I don't think it sparked the level of controversy (or had the death toll) that the more "news-worthy" shootings do. Nobody was armed who wasn't supposed to be so the "gun control" back-and-forth goes essentially nowhere. It rankles me personally because this incident hit much closer to home personally than Ft. Hood or elsewhere (except maybe Sandy Hook, having a kindergarten aged son) but I do understand why it's not big in the national news networks.

President Obama took the time to got down to Fort Hood for a memorial service. I was surprised that he didn't make an appearance at the memorial service in Norfolk. I think he should have gone, and suspect that he went to the Fort Hood memorial because the media reported more widely on it.

AJBIGJ
04-14-2014, 02:18 PM
President Obama took the time to got down to Fort Hood for a memorial service. I was surprised that he didn't make an appearance at the memorial service in Norfolk. I think he should have gone, and suspect that he went to the Fort Hood memorial because the media reported more widely on it.

He also had a fundraising engagement in the area of Ft. Hood, and I am not saying that's necessarily where his priorities were, but it wasn't exactly out of the way...

BURAWSKI
04-14-2014, 03:35 PM
He also had a fundraising engagement in the area of Ft. Hood, and I am not saying that's necessarily where his priorities were, but it wasn't exactly out of the way...


I'm going to go out a limb and say that I believe it was more politically advantageous for him to go to Fort Hood.

AJBIGJ
04-14-2014, 05:12 PM
I'm going to go out a limb and say that I believe it was more politically advantageous for him to go to Fort Hood.

You're probably safe taking that one to the bank...

garhkal
04-14-2014, 08:16 PM
President Obama took the time to got down to Fort Hood for a memorial service. I was surprised that he didn't make an appearance at the memorial service in Norfolk. I think he should have gone, and suspect that he went to the Fort Hood memorial because the media reported more widely on it.

Exactly. Lack of govt foresight in allowing troops to remain armed on base is what lead to yet another shooting on Fort hood, so he 'needs' to be there, to wave the democrats flag.

BURAWSKI
04-14-2014, 09:10 PM
Exactly. Lack of govt foresight in allowing troops to remain armed on base is what lead to yet another shooting on Fort hood, so he 'needs' to be there, to wave the democrats flag.

Just my opinion but I believe all active duty servicemembers who are fit for duty should be authorized to carry arms on base. The rationale prohibiting them seems to me to involve a lack of trust, but again, just my opinion.

garhkal
04-15-2014, 05:07 AM
Very true. If i say am trusted enough for a TS clearance, and 1 mil+ of classified gear, why can't i be trusted enough to carry on base?

socal1200r
04-15-2014, 01:29 PM
Or, as an active Reservist who has a conceal carry permit in VA, my right to conceal carry ends at the base gate. Provisions should be made for folks like me, who are not only still in the Reserves and have to meet weapons qualifications, but are also permitted by the state that the military installation is located in to conceal carry. That's just a no-brainer. Where I would expect an idea like this to run into problems would be a place like CA, which is a "may issue" state when it comes to conceal carry permits, thus making it VERY difficult to get one without a compelling reason that the local sheriff approves of. Allowing military members to conceal carry on a base in CA could get around this state restriction, as long as they don't get into trouble once they leave the base.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-15-2014, 01:42 PM
Exactly. Lack of govt foresight in allowing troops to remain armed on base is what lead to yet another shooting on Fort hood, so he 'needs' to be there, to wave the democrats flag.


What makes you guys think that just because you have a state issued carry permit, you are in anyway qualified to act as a superhero?

Just because you are a military member and have a carry permit earns you no extra trust from me.

SomeRandomGuy
04-15-2014, 02:05 PM
What makes you guys think that just because you have a state issued carry permit, you are in anyway qualified to act as a superhero?

Just because you are a military member and have a carry permit earns you no extra trust from me.

I cringe everytime I hear people say they want to arm military members on base. As someone who worked finance customer service I can tell you it doesn't take much to make normally stable people go off. It also takes quite a bit to get them calmed back down. A few years ago I was working on some paperwork in the back when I hear someone bust in the door and yell, "Who's in charge here?". Next thing I hear is our NCOIC pop out of his office and yell back "I am!" I step around the corner just in time to see the customer try to drag our NCOIC across the counter. Myself and several customers jumped in. It took quite a bit to keep the two of them seperated. Both our NCOIC and customer were on edge all day and it didn't take much for the situation to explode. I can't imagine what would have happened if both were armed. Even worse if both were armed plus a few of the customers in the lobby also armed.

The situation that day was eerily similar to what is being described in the Fort Hood shooting. The customer was getting very frustrated about a simple issue. When it wasn't resolved he was ready to take matters into his own hands. Luckily, in my case the customer didn't have a weapon whereas the Fort Hood shooter did.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-15-2014, 02:12 PM
I cringe everytime I hear people say they want to arm military members on base. As someone who worked finance customer service I can tell you it doesn't take much to make normally stable people go off. It also takes quite a bit to get them calmed back down. A few years ago I was working on some paperwork in the back when I hear someone bust in the door and yell, "Who's in charge here?". Next thing I hear is our NCOIC pop out of his office and yell back "I am!" I step around the corner just in time to see the customer try to drag our NCOIC across the counter. Myself and several customers jumped in. It took quite a bit to keep the two of them seperated. Both our NCOIC and customer were on edge all day and it didn't take much for the situation to explode. I can't imagine what would have happened if both were armed. Even worse if both were armed plus a few of the customers in the lobby also armed.

Great example.

Plus, these wannabe heroes with guns are more likely to make the situation more difficult for the responding police officers by being confused with the actual aggressor.

They are just as likely to be engaged by the response force or worse yet, fire upon the responders in the confusion that ensues in a mass shooter scenario.

Rusty Jones
04-15-2014, 02:18 PM
Great example.

Plus, these wannabe heroes with guns are more likely to make the situation more difficult for the responding police officers by being confused with the actual aggressor.

They are just as likely to be engaged by the response force or worse yet, fire upon the responders in the confusion that ensues in a mass shooter scenario.

Funny. Not to long ago, I entered into a facebook discussion, on whether or not Batman could possibly be real. Like, could a billionare master several martials arts, have a bat suit and bat mobile made, as well as all of the other gadgets, and do what Batman does.

Someone brought up this particular scenario as the one in which he would likely end up dead.

SomeRandomGuy
04-15-2014, 02:42 PM
Great example.

Plus, these wannabe heroes with guns are more likely to make the situation more difficult for the responding police officers by being confused with the actual aggressor.

They are just as likely to be engaged by the response force or worse yet, fire upon the responders in the confusion that ensues in a mass shooter scenario.

Or another example. Look at the case in Florida where a retired police officer shot and killed a guy during an argument at a movie theater. The situation started when the ex-cop asked the other guy to stop texting during the previews. The other guy responded with some smart ass comments. Things escalated and the guy throws his popcorn at the ex-cop. The ex-cop responds by drawing his firearm and killing the guy.

This cop has no doubt been in tense situations in the past. He should have known better than to draw his weapon in a crowded theater and shoot someone. What was it that made this normally level headed cop snap? I bring that situation up because I think there are plenty of paralells to military members. Many have been in combat situations. Like the cop we would think we that we can trust them with a weapon. The only problem is on a bad day what is going to stop them from killing someone because they were texting during the previews of a movie. Or what is going to stop them from killing someone when their travel voucher gets returned for the fourth time?

BURAWSKI
04-15-2014, 02:53 PM
Or another example. Look at the case in Florida where a retired police officer shot and killed a guy during an argument at a movie theater. The situation started when the ex-cop asked the other guy to stop texting during the previews. The other guy responded with some smart ass comments. Things escalated and the guy throws his popcorn at the ex-cop. The ex-cop responds by drawing his firearm and killing the guy.

This cop has no doubt been in tense situations in the past. He should have known better than to draw his weapon in a crowded theater and shoot someone. What was it that made this normally level headed cop snap? I bring that situation up because I think there are plenty of paralells to military members. Many have been in combat situations. Like the cop we would think we that we can trust them with a weapon. The only problem is on a bad day what is going to stop them from killing someone because they were texting during the previews of a movie. Or what is going to stop them from killing someone when their travel voucher gets returned for the fourth time?


I didn't look at that perspective. You have a point about that. After considering that I would have to agree then that allowing everyone to carry arms on base wouldn't be such a good idea after all.

Rusty Jones
04-15-2014, 03:00 PM
I didn't look at that perspective. You have a point about that. After considering that I would have to agree then that allowing everyone to carry arms on base wouldn't be such a good idea after all.

Man, I wish VFFTSGT was here to see this...

Absinthe Anecdote
04-15-2014, 03:08 PM
I didn't look at that perspective. You have a point about that. After considering that I would have to agree then that allowing everyone to carry arms on base wouldn't be such a good idea after all.

This is a very powerful statement and I commend you for making it.

In the art of persuasion, a statement such as yours is called reluctant testimony, and it is prized for its ability to make others reconsider their notions.

Good stuff!

garhkal
04-15-2014, 08:54 PM
What makes you guys think that just because you have a state issued carry permit, you are in anyway qualified to act as a superhero?

Just because you are a military member and have a carry permit earns you no extra trust from me.

If people are that untrustworthy, why are they being consistently given security clearances and passing mental exams to stay in?

BURAWSKI
04-15-2014, 09:14 PM
If people are that untrustworthy, why are they being consistently given security clearances and passing mental exams to stay in?

I think what he is trying to say is despite that, people still can snap despite having been cleared for security clearance and have no diagnosed mental issues.

garhkal
04-16-2014, 05:15 AM
True. But that is imo not a reason to deny them the capacity to carry, especially if they have already gotten a permit and can do so out in town.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-16-2014, 11:20 AM
True. But that is imo not a reason to deny them the capacity to carry, especially if they have already gotten a permit and can do so out in town.

What does our military leadership have to gain by allowing service members to carry their personal firearms on base?

I can not see even one positive thing coming out of reversing that decades old policy of restricting personal firearms on military installations.

socal1200r
04-16-2014, 12:41 PM
What makes you guys think that just because you have a state issued carry permit, you are in anyway qualified to act as a superhero?

Just because you are a military member and have a carry permit earns you no extra trust from me.

That's fine...you go cower in a corner, we'll save you last...

socal1200r
04-16-2014, 12:44 PM
I cringe everytime I hear people say they want to arm military members on base. As someone who worked finance customer service I can tell you it doesn't take much to make normally stable people go off. It also takes quite a bit to get them calmed back down. A few years ago I was working on some paperwork in the back when I hear someone bust in the door and yell, "Who's in charge here?". Next thing I hear is our NCOIC pop out of his office and yell back "I am!" I step around the corner just in time to see the customer try to drag our NCOIC across the counter. Myself and several customers jumped in. It took quite a bit to keep the two of them seperated. Both our NCOIC and customer were on edge all day and it didn't take much for the situation to explode. I can't imagine what would have happened if both were armed. Even worse if both were armed plus a few of the customers in the lobby also armed.

The situation that day was eerily similar to what is being described in the Fort Hood shooting. The customer was getting very frustrated about a simple issue. When it wasn't resolved he was ready to take matters into his own hands. Luckily, in my case the customer didn't have a weapon whereas the Fort Hood shooter did.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda...you can "suppose" and play "what if" games all day long...in my experience, by the time someone actually has to show up in person at a finance counter, the situation is already seriously screwed up...

socal1200r
04-16-2014, 12:45 PM
What does our military leadership have to gain by allowing service members to carry their personal firearms on base?

I can not see even one positive thing coming out of reversing that decades old policy of restricting personal firearms on military installations.

Gosh, I don't know...Fort Hood times two...Washington Navy Yard times one...and these are just recent cases...

socal1200r
04-16-2014, 12:53 PM
I think what he is trying to say is despite that, people still can snap despite having been cleared for security clearance and have no diagnosed mental issues.

Like if you're a Reservist who gets involuntarily removed from AD orders with 2-days notice (was on AD orders for almost 5 years, with 1095 waivers), ends up being unemployed for 6 months, finally gets a job but the take-home pay is less than half of what he was making while on AD orders, loses a house to foreclosure and has to file bankruptcy as a result, has his credit history of 30+ years ruined by the AFR in a matter of months, has to hire a lawyer to appeal this action all the way up to the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records, which takes 18 months to render a decision in your favor, then it takes DFAS almost 2 years to issue a partial disbursement of the backpay that you're owed, now you have to file a new case in order to get the rest of the money you're owed, and here it is almost 5 years later...you mean something like that might make someone snap? Especially someone that has a .308 CETME Sporter with a stock of 75 loaded magazines? Yeah, I don't know anyone like that...

TJMAC77SP
04-16-2014, 12:57 PM
I am constantly amazed at the belief held by many that the people carrying weapons via a CCW will somehow, without a shred of doubt of hesitancy, save the day in a shooting situation. These gunslingers are prepared for this event by an average of 8 hours of classroom time and some hours on a shooting range punching holes in targets. Please excuse me if this doesn't allow me a measure of reassurance.

SomeRandomGuy
04-16-2014, 02:03 PM
Like if you're a Reservist who gets involuntarily removed from AD orders with 2-days notice (was on AD orders for almost 5 years, with 1095 waivers), ends up being unemployed for 6 months, finally gets a job but the take-home pay is less than half of what he was making while on AD orders, loses a house to foreclosure and has to file bankruptcy as a result, has his credit history of 30+ years ruined by the AFR in a matter of months, has to hire a lawyer to appeal this action all the way up to the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records, which takes 18 months to render a decision in your favor, then it takes DFAS almost 2 years to issue a partial disbursement of the backpay that you're owed, now you have to file a new case in order to get the rest of the money you're owed, and here it is almost 5 years later...you mean something like that might make someone snap? Especially someone that has a .308 CETME Sporter with a stock of 75 loaded magazines? Yeah, I don't know anyone like that...

This is exactly what I was saying above. I have seen many many situations like this. Often people will come in to base level finance and want us to solve their problem on the spot. In your case, and many others, those actions are handled at a much higher level. That still owuldn't stop a mentally unstable person from getting frustrated with finance and deciding it's time to teach someone a lesson. Heck, in your case the person might not even target finance. They could go after the commander who removed them from the orders, the doctor who made medical diagnosis or any number of people in the process. I just don't see the advantage to allowing military members to be armed on base.

When you posted this I though of another real life example. My old supervisor was telling me about some of the crazy stuff she saw stationed at Nellis. Apparantly, there was a MSgt in the unit who had a huge gambling problem. He was about to lose his entire career because he just couldn't stop. His commander decided it was time to do something. The commander pulled some strings and got orders for the guy to leave Nellis hoping to get him out of the enviroment. When the MSgt heard the commander was trying to force him to PCS he walked into his office and pulled a gun. He held the commander at gunpoint and told him to get the orders cancelled. The commander was able to diffuse the situation but it could have ended very different. There just flat out isn't any advantage to having a bunch of military members carrying weapons on base. Any number of issues could cause someone to snap whether they be personal, financial, medical, etc.

Measure Man
04-16-2014, 02:21 PM
I am constantly amazed at the belief held by many that the people carrying weapons via a CCW will somehow, without a shred of doubt of hesitancy, save the day in a shooting situation. These gunslingers are prepared for this event by an average of 8 hours of classroom time and some hours on a shooting range punching holes in targets. Please excuse me if this doesn't allow me a measure of reassurance.

Can't remember where I saw the statistic, but remember reading that a CCW permit holder is 40 times more likely to injure a family member or friend than ever shoot a bad guy.

OTOH, I'm sure the data was manipulated to prove whatever point the writer was trying to make.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-16-2014, 02:56 PM
Like if you're a Reservist who gets involuntarily removed from AD orders with 2-days notice (was on AD orders for almost 5 years, with 1095 waivers), ends up being unemployed for 6 months, finally gets a job but the take-home pay is less than half of what he was making while on AD orders, loses a house to foreclosure and has to file bankruptcy as a result, has his credit history of 30+ years ruined by the AFR in a matter of months, has to hire a lawyer to appeal this action all the way up to the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records, which takes 18 months to render a decision in your favor, then it takes DFAS almost 2 years to issue a partial disbursement of the backpay that you're owed, now you have to file a new case in order to get the rest of the money you're owed, and here it is almost 5 years later...you mean something like that might make someone snap? Especially someone that has a .308 CETME Sporter with a stock of 75 loaded magazines? Yeah, I don't know anyone like that...

WTF?

One could almost interpret your post as a veiled threat to go on a shooting spree.

I hope that isn't the case.

Rusty Jones
04-16-2014, 03:01 PM
Can't remember where I saw the statistic, but remember reading that a CCW permit holder is 40 times more likely to injure a family member or friend than ever shoot a bad guy.

OTOH, I'm sure the data was manipulated to prove whatever point the writer was trying to make.

I really can't help but think that many people who hold CCW's, and other types who are so outspoken about guns, aren't merely worried about protecting themselves and/or others. Seems to me like many of them have their guns, because they're eagerly waiting for that window of opportunity where they legally get to shoot someone.

Remember the incident from a few weeks back, where a man shot a teenage boy who was hiding under his daughters bed, after his daughter denied knowing who he was? That's an example right there. He could have kept the boy there until the police arrived, but no... it was "YES! I get too shoot to kill, and not go to prison!"

socal1200r
04-16-2014, 03:01 PM
Can't remember where I saw the statistic, but remember reading that a CCW permit holder is 40 times more likely to injure a family member or friend than ever shoot a bad guy.

OTOH, I'm sure the data was manipulated to prove whatever point the writer was trying to make.

Proves the old paradigm...there are three types of lies...lies, damn lies, and statistics...I highly doubt a CCW holder is 40 times more likely to injure a family member, because that would imply the CCW holder would actually fire his weapon at a family member...that statistic is probably interpolated from something more along the lines of folks with CCWs that have their weapons involved with injuring a family member, like someone playing around with it, etc., not the CCW holder themselves firing the weapon...

Measure Man
04-16-2014, 03:10 PM
Proves the old paradigm...there are three types of lies...lies, damn lies, and statistics...I highly doubt a CCW holder is 40 times more likely to injure a family member, because that would imply the CCW holder would actually fire his weapon at a family member...that statistic is probably interpolated from something more along the lines of folks with CCWs that have their weapons involved with injuring a family member, like someone playing around with it, etc., not the CCW holder themselves firing the weapon...

Right, I'm sure I phrased that incorrectly...I do think it was more along the lines of the gun injuring a family member through an accident/mistake etc. (except that guns don't injure people, people injure people ;-))

You are right about statistics, though. The other deal about those type of statistics, almost every gun-owner and CCW holder I know would look at them and say it's because "those people are stupid, I'm not stupid"

socal1200r
04-16-2014, 03:13 PM
WTF?

One could almost interpret your post as a veiled threat to go on a shooting spree.

I hope that isn't the case.

Relax...one can't spend that backpay sitting in a jail cell, right?! I'm just venting some frustration, because if people in this process would do their jobs, and actually be an advocate for the service member, instead of trying to screw them over, there wouldn't be such an adversarial relationship. Besides, it'd be rather obvious if someone was carrying a CETME Sporter and 75 loaded magazines, even if the Sporter had a collapsible paratrooper stock and could fit under a coat. That rifle and all those magazines would be HEAVY, lol! IMO, the latest Fort Hood shooter's mistake was using a 45. If his intent was to cause mass hysteria and casualties (notice I didn't say deaths), a 45 would not have been my weapon of choice. My conceal carry 45 carries 7+1, and I usually carry 2 extra mags, for a total of 22 rounds, all hollow points. My 9mm on the other hand, carries 17+1, with two extra mags, for a total of 52 rounds, mixture of ball rounds and hollow points. So if I wanted to cause mass hysteria and casualties, like I said, I would not have chosen a 45. But that's just me...the fact that he did use a 45 seems to indicate, like someone else has said, that his patience and bullsh*t meter got pegged, and he snapped. Sounds like it was building over time, and he finally reached his breaking point.

socal1200r
04-16-2014, 03:21 PM
Right, I'm sure I phrased that incorrectly...I do think it was more along the lines of the gun injuring a family member through an accident/mistake etc. (except that guns don't injure people, people injure people ;-))

You are right about statistics, though. The other deal about those type of statistics, almost every gun-owner and CCW holder I know would look at them and say it's because "those people are stupid, I'm not stupid"

Yup...I'd like to think of myself as a responsible firearm owner. I don't have kids in the house, so I don't keep my firearms locked up or have trigger locks on them. That would defeat the purpose of having them readily available for a self-defense, stand your ground type of situation. If I do have company over, or kids, of course I secure them. I go to the range at least monthly, with at least two of my firearms, to maintain proficiency and familiarity with them. When I visit my kids, they usually want me to take them to a range, so I've taught them basic firearm safety, and reiterate it to them every time we shoot. But I'll be the first to admit there are plenty of stories about accidental discharges by supposedly "responsible" firearm owners. Usually, it's because they failed to observe one or more of the basic rules of handing a firearm, and/or there was alcohol involved. Like they say, "ya can't fix stupid".

Measure Man
04-16-2014, 03:25 PM
Some more criticism on those "statistics"...

http://warriortimes.com/2011/04/28/firearm-in-your-home-22-times-more-likely-to-kill-or-injure-family-member/

http://stason.org/TULARC/society/guns-canadian/36-Isn-t-a-gun-in-the-home-43-times-more-likely-to-kill-a-f.html

Measure Man
04-16-2014, 03:36 PM
Yup...I'd like to think of myself as a responsible firearm owner. I don't have kids in the house, so I don't keep my firearms locked up or have trigger locks on them. That would defeat the purpose of having them readily available for a self-defense, stand your ground type of situation. If I do have company over, or kids, of course I secure them. I go to the range at least monthly, with at least two of my firearms, to maintain proficiency and familiarity with them.

I have a firearm in the house...well, it is actually my wife's .45. We don't go range shooting or anything with it. It's there "just in case". I support the 2nd Amendment and the right to own firearms, but I'm not all shouting from the rooftops about guns being our protection from tyranny and all that....and shooting guns has never particularly been a hobby of mine.


When I visit my kids, they usually want me to take them to a range, so I've taught them basic firearm safety, and reiterate it to them every time we shoot. But I'll be the first to admit there are plenty of stories about accidental discharges by supposedly "responsible" firearm owners. Usually, it's because they failed to observe one or more of the basic rules of handing a firearm, and/or there was alcohol involved. Like they say, "ya can't fix stupid".

I do kind of believe if they decide to allow military members to carry on base, we'll have more people injured/killed in accidental discharges than we've had people injured killed in these shooter incidents.

More safety though, IMO, is not always a good reason to limit rights. For example, I do believe we'd have more DUIs and alcohol-related deaths if we allowed 18-year olds to drink...but, I still think we should. They are legal adults.

TJMAC77SP
04-16-2014, 03:43 PM
I really can't help but think that many people who hold CCW's, and other types who are so outspoken about guns, aren't merely worried about protecting themselves and/or others. Seems to me like many of them have their guns, because they're eagerly waiting for that window of opportunity where they legally get to shoot someone.

Remember the incident from a few weeks back, where a man shot a teenage boy who was hiding under his daughters bed, after his daughter denied knowing who he was? That's an example right there. He could have kept the boy there until the police arrived, but no... it was "YES! I get too shoot to kill, and not go to prison!"

We agree on something Rusty...........................

TJMAC77SP
04-16-2014, 03:44 PM
Right, I'm sure I phrased that incorrectly...I do think it was more along the lines of the gun injuring a family member through an accident/mistake etc. (except that guns don't injure people, people injure people ;-))

You are right about statistics, though. The other deal about those type of statistics, almost every gun-owner and CCW holder I know would look at them and say it's because "those people are stupid, I'm not stupid"

For what it's worth that is exactly how I read your statement........not that a family member is 40 times more likely to injure a family member through a purposeful act. (regardless of how true the statistic is or isn't)

Rusty Jones
04-16-2014, 03:49 PM
More safety though, IMO, is not always a good reason to limit rights. For example, I do believe we'd have more DUIs and alcohol-related deaths if we allowed 18-year olds to drink...but, I still think we should. They are legal adults.

Or eliminate the minimum drinking age. Countries with no legal ages for alcohol tend to have less issues with it, because by the time people in those countries reach adulthood, they take alcohol for granted. Whereas, in the US, people who reach the legal age for alcohol tend to go out and overindulge in it because it was denied to them their whole lives up until that point.

With that being said... could it be possible that if we removed some legal regulations on firearms, that we might be able to get rid of all of the gun-nuttery, as people would then begin to take guns for granted?

Measure Man
04-16-2014, 03:50 PM
I really can't help but think that many people who hold CCW's, and other types who are so outspoken about guns, aren't merely worried about protecting themselves and/or others. Seems to me like many of them have their guns, because they're eagerly waiting for that window of opportunity where they legally get to shoot someone.

Perhaps. They do seem to cheer whenever someone uses a gun to shoot a bad guy, regardless of the extent of the badnesss.

I kind of think it's one of those "the fantasy is better than the reality" deals though...I hope I never use my gun.


Remember the incident from a few weeks back, where a man shot a teenage boy who was hiding under his daughters bed, after his daughter denied knowing who he was? That's an example right there. He could have kept the boy there until the police arrived, but no... it was "YES! I get too shoot to kill, and not go to prison!"

Yeah...I like to think he feels pretty bad about it now though.

socal1200r
04-16-2014, 03:53 PM
I have a firearm in the house...well, it is actually my wife's .45. We don't go range shooting or anything with it. It's there "just in case". I support the 2nd Amendment and the right to own firearms, but I'm not all shouting from the rooftops about guns being our protection from tyranny and all that....and shooting guns has never particularly been a hobby of mine.

I do kind of believe if they decide to allow military members to carry on base, we'll have more people injured/killed in accidental discharges than we've had people injured killed in these shooter incidents.

More safety though, IMO, is not always a good reason to limit rights. For example, I do believe we'd have more DUIs and alcohol-related deaths if we allowed 18-year olds to drink...but, I still think we should. They are legal adults.

I had a co-worker ask my opinion the other day about what would be a good firearm for home defense, and he mentioned 9mm, 40, and a 45. I told him the best one is the one he's the most comfortable shooting, practices with, and will be able to hit the target under stress, the caliber doesn't really matter (although having more rounds could make up for being a poor shot). And I'm also a firm believer that the primary job of law enforcement is NOT to protect you the citizen, it's to enforce the laws. As the old saying goes, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." YOU are responsible for your own personal protection and safety, both inside and outside the home.

And I'd probably agree with you, statistically-speaking, that if we allowed military members to carry on base, there would be a higher incident of accidental (or intentional) discharges than victims of another Fort Hood-style shooting. My Air Guard unit did airport security at LAX for several months after 9/11, and I distinctly remember a report about an accidental discharge of a pistol at one of the other airports. It was an Army Guard NCO who did this, and for it to occur, he had to violate all kinds of proper firearm handling procedures. One, he had a round in the chamber. Two, he had the pistol's safety off. Three, he had his finger on the trigger. All three of these violations had to occur for him to accidentally discharge that firearm. Could something like this happen if we allow military members to carry on base? Absolutely. But should the small percentage of knuckleheads that don't know or won't follow proper firearms procedures prevent the other 99 percent of military members (especially those with a CCW permit) from carrying on base? I would say no, but it's not up to me to decide.

Measure Man
04-16-2014, 03:55 PM
Or eliminate the minimum drinking age. Countries with no legal ages for alcohol tend to have less issues with it, because by the time people in those countries reach adulthood, they take alcohol for granted. Whereas, in the US, people who reach the legal age for alcohol tend to go out and overindulge in it because it was denied to them their whole lives up until that point.

With that being said... could it be possible that if we removed some legal regulations on firearms, that we might be able to get rid of all of the gun-nuttery, as people would then begin to take guns for granted?

Interesting point...

Absinthe Anecdote
04-16-2014, 04:47 PM
It has been a while since I've read any statistics on the number of accidental discharges and unlawful shootings by US troops in combat zones. I'm sure those stats are out there, and I think they would make an interesting comparison to what is being talked about here.

In the 36 months that I was a SP, I was aware of three accidental discharges at the bases I was assigned to.

Two were clearing barrel incidents, and one happened at the firing range. To me, that seems rather high, because they involved people that carried firearms every day as part of their job.

Someone mentioned allowing service members to carry on base being a matter of trust in a previous post.

I agree, it is a matter of trust; however, I don't automatically trust each and every service member to carry a firearm in a responsible manner, and neither should you.

I especially don't trust every service member to be able to respond to a bad guy in a responsible manner.

If you have been in any branch of the military for any length of time, you should know that all service members aren't trained as police officers, or even infantry troops.

In my opinion, the people advocating concealed carry for all service members are swallowing sound bites from Second Amendment activists without questioning the issue at all.

I believe it is possible for a person to support gun ownership rights, and still support some measure of gun control.

Rusty Jones
04-16-2014, 04:55 PM
If you have been in any branch of the military for any length of time, you should know that all service members aren't trained as police officers, or even infantry troops.

Probably the most important thing said in this thread. It takes police and/or infantry training to be able to take down a "bad guy" with gun, with the best possible efficiency and safety. If you don't know how to shoot and move while under fire, and other tactics... you're just as dead as everyone else without a gun.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-16-2014, 05:27 PM
Probably the most important thing said in this thread. It takes police and/or infantry training to be able to take down a "bad guy" with gun, with the best possible efficiency and safety. If you don't know how to shoot and move while under fire, and other tactics... you're just as dead as everyone else without a gun.

Even if a person has infantry training, there is still a lot to be concerned about, because the way police officers and infantry troops respond to shooters can be drastically different.

Plus, a random infantry troop on base with a gun will not have communications with the cops who are responding.

Rusty Jones
04-16-2014, 05:44 PM
Even if a person has infantry training, there is still a lot to be concerned about, because the way police officers and infantry troops respond to shooters can be drastically different.

Plus, a random infantry troop on base with a gun will not have communications with the cops who are responding.

Maybe, but those are the two professions of people who are specifically trained to take down people who are armed.

Infantry training is probably the most effective of the two, as there have been reports since 9/11 of LA and Chicago gang members joining the Army and Marine Corps to be infantrymen, for the sole purpose of doing one term and going back to their neighborhoods to train the rest of their gang members, and it has caused problems for police officers who've engaged in fire fights with these gangs.

If I recall correctly, there was a story about a man who was suicidal that didn't want to take his own life (I can't recall if he was in a gang or not). He was armed with an AR-15, and made a false police report to get the cops to show up. There was this one tactic that they called "slicing the pie" to take out the first police officer by actually running TOWARD him. He took out two or three more officers before finally going down himself. Some spokesperson for that police department commented that police are not trained to take down that kind of enemy. Now, whether or not police departments are going to start training for this kind of thing... that remains to be seen.

Taking down someone who is in the middle of a shooting spree is going to be a dangerous undertaking, no matter who is doing it. But, some people are better trained than others.

It's kind of like the disclaimer before watching a TV show where people perform stunts: Don't try this at home. Leave it to the professionals.

Rusty Jones
04-16-2014, 05:50 PM
Here's the aticle on the incident I was referring to: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/gang-warfare/

Measure Man
04-16-2014, 06:17 PM
I believe it is possible for a person to support gun ownership rights, and still support some measure of gun control.

Well said.

I often struggle with where and what the lines should be on gun control.

I remember having a conversation with a friend who is a big gun fantatic. I mentioned that my neighbor had a LOT of guns, and he often had his friends over who brought their guns and they would talk about guns and look at guns, etc. They would go to the range and shoot a LOT. So, he said this was awesome that my neighbors are 2nd Amendment Americans and I was safer for it.

Then I mentioned my neighbor and his friends were all Muslim-Americans...

TomTom093
04-16-2014, 06:38 PM
Another factor to consider with a military population is some members are going to have PTSD. Do we let them have firearms? Does their PTSD disqualify them? If it's the former, that can create a situation where somebody flies off the handle and someone ends up dead. If it's the latter, that creates a separate class of citizens with less rights than others. I don't think either are good options.

Commenting on an earlier discussion in this thread, we really do need combatives taught. I've had three instances myself where I've been off base in uniform, and someone has come up to me and asked why I would want to be in an organization that "wants to take guns and spy on people." Those situations could have gotten much worse than they did.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-16-2014, 07:51 PM
Infantry training is probably the most effective of the two,
....

In a combat environment, yes!

In the food court at the PX or another location with an inordinate amount of non-combatants about, I think most police officers are trained a little better at how to avoid killing innocents.



It's kind of like the disclaimer before watching a TV show where people perform stunts: Don't try this at home. Leave it to the professionals.

Exactly! Perhaps what disturbs me most is the people I hear advocating right-to-carry because it would deter or stop mass shooters are in essence asking for police powers.

If a person wants to carry a fire arm and fight crime so badly, I suggest they join a police department.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-16-2014, 08:02 PM
Another factor to consider with a military population is some members are going to have PTSD. Do we let them have firearms? Does their PTSD disqualify them? If it's the former, that can create a situation where somebody flies off the handle and someone ends up dead. If it's the latter, that creates a separate class of citizens with less rights than others. I don't think either are good options.

Commenting on an earlier discussion in this thread, we really do need combatives taught. I've had three instances myself where I've been off base in uniform, and someone has come up to me and asked why I would want to be in an organization that "wants to take guns and spy on people." Those situations could have gotten much worse than they did.

I'll agree with you on this, I think service-wide we could incorporate at least a basic amount of self defense training into physical fitness.

As discussed earlier there are some jobs that need it more than others and for it to be effective, it needs to be reoccurring.

If a service member is being tasked with guard duty and issued a weapon, they need to be trained not only how to use it, but how to keep from having it taken from them.

BURAWSKI
04-16-2014, 08:43 PM
I'll agree with you on this, I think service-wide we could incorporate at least a basic amount of self defense training into physical fitness.

As discussed earlier there are some jobs that need it more than others and for it to be effective, it needs to be reoccurring.

If a service member is being tasked with guard duty and issued a weapon, they need to be trained not only how to use it, but how to keep from having it taken from them.

The Army and Marines teach combatives in bootcamp and it is part of their doctrine. The Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard don't unless you are working as part of law enforcement capacity, or SEAL. The training would benefit all of the other members working in support roles and other communities like submarine, aviation and seabees.

garhkal
04-16-2014, 09:13 PM
I had a co-worker ask my opinion the other day about what would be a good firearm for home defense, and he mentioned 9mm, 40, and a 45. I told him the best one is the one he's the most comfortable shooting, practices with, and will be able to hit the target under stress, the caliber doesn't really matter (although having more rounds could make up for being a poor shot). And I'm also a firm believer that the primary job of law enforcement is NOT to protect you the citizen, it's to enforce the laws. As the old saying goes, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." YOU are responsible for your own personal protection and safety, both inside and outside the home.

And I'd probably agree with you, statistically-speaking, that if we allowed military members to carry on base, there would be a higher incident of accidental (or intentional) discharges than victims of another Fort Hood-style shooting. My Air Guard unit did airport security at LAX for several months after 9/11, and I distinctly remember a report about an accidental discharge of a pistol at one of the other airports. It was an Army Guard NCO who did this, and for it to occur, he had to violate all kinds of proper firearm handling procedures. One, he had a round in the chamber. Two, he had the pistol's safety off. Three, he had his finger on the trigger. All three of these violations had to occur for him to accidentally discharge that firearm. Could something like this happen if we allow military members to carry on base? Absolutely. But should the small percentage of knuckleheads that don't know or won't follow proper firearms procedures prevent the other 99 percent of military members (especially those with a CCW permit) from carrying on base? I would say no, but it's not up to me to decide.

That's why the Security officer at my last command said there is no such thing as an accidental discharge of a firearm, just Negligent use of it.

TJMAC77SP
04-16-2014, 09:37 PM
Well said.

I often struggle with where and what the lines should be on gun control.

I remember having a conversation with a friend who is a big gun fantatic. I mentioned that my neighbor had a LOT of guns, and he often had his friends over who brought their guns and they would talk about guns and look at guns, etc. They would go to the range and shoot a LOT. So, he said this was awesome that my neighbors are 2nd Amendment Americans and I was safer for it.

Then I mentioned my neighbor and his friends were all Muslim-Americans...

Oops.............

((and a hush fell over the room))

BURAWSKI
04-16-2014, 10:12 PM
Wonder what his reaction would be if instead of being Muslim-Americans, they were red necks from W. Virginia.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-17-2014, 12:04 AM
Wonder what his reaction would be if instead of being Muslim-Americans, they were red necks from W. Virginia.

Those guys can be a real pain in the ass, the smell of fried bologna sandwiches drifting out their windows amid the warbling cries of Billy Ray Cyrus music is enough drive anyone crazy.

Rusty Jones
04-17-2014, 12:02 PM
Oops.............

((and a hush fell over the room))

Makes you wonder if there's a motive behind their outspokenness on the 2nd Amendment.

Or, perhaps... this country being one that's founded on rebellion, Americans just wouldn't be Americans without something to protest. Even if that something isn't there. Like the threat of an all-out gun confiscation.

http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.16188054.8393/sticker,375x360.u1.png

Stalwart
04-23-2014, 10:04 PM
The SECNAV announced that MA2 Mayo will receive the Navy & Marine Corps Medal (posthumously).

Navy Times: http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140423/NEWS/304230057/Fallen-sentry-receive-rare-heroism-medal