Purplehood wrote:Please explain to me how I am going to run in my PT shorts, t-shirt and tennis shoe with my weapon. Have you ever been in a unit that tried it?
You got to run in PT shorts? When I was in, our PT uniform was our fatigue uniform without the shirt or hat. I remember many times when we would fall in for morning formation and the commander would tell us to remove our shirts and hats and then we would go for a run. I also remember running in full uniform while carrying a rifle. It really is possible to go through a unit's full PT routine while armed.
I also hated those days and really am glad the Army has change to proper running gear for PT. Combat boots are really hard on the feet and legs when you run long distances in them.
To be honest, of all the time I was in, the only parts about being disarmed that bothered me were the checking of private weapons into the arms room instead of keeping them in my barracks room. I never complained about it, because the part that bothered me wasn't where it was kept but the hassle of getting it when I wanted to shoot. The truth is that I accepted all of these impositions and many more because that is what you do when you are a soldier. You understand that you give up many of your rights in order to serve. We may be asking why the soldiers were disarmed, but I bet the thought doesn't even cross most of their minds.
As to the academic discussion of why they get disarmed and whether or not it is right, I will add a few minor points. I know why the issue weapons are kept in the arms room. It is truly the only way to keep track of the government property. There are way too many cases of property being lost or stolen (or pawned). Look at how the public reacts when a police van is broken into and weapons are stolen. Consider the same thing multiplied by the number of soldiers and the reputation of the military.
On the private weapons, there are a lot of points. If I were a base commander, my soldiers would obey whatever the state laws are. I would let people with a CHL carry. I would probably still restrict the possession in barracks (or require the weapon be properly secured in a safe), but people who live off base or in quarters would have their own.
I am aware of the risks, as one of my friends was killed when the squad was at a member's house off base and they were showing their pistols around (MP's are probably a little more gun guys - fans not experts - than the average cop). The problem is that they are kids (most under 21, very few over 25 - and I look back now and say kids though I would have argued then) and they are not as safe as they could be. There was also alcohol (cops and soldiers both drink as a general rule) and obviously the two don't mix. Someone thought the gun was empty (we know better) since it had been shown around to four or five people before he got it. When he pulled the trigger, there was still a round in the chamber and it hit the soldier in the spine.
I would be willing to run that risk for soldiers, but I can understand the Army not be willing to do so. Look at the investment they have and their attitude towards protecting that investment. Look at their programs on motorcycles as one example. If they thought they could get away with banning motorcycles for soldiers, they would. They know they can't so they make it really hard to register a bike on post or ride it (must have helmet, long sleeve jacket, gloves, MSF rider course, and reflective vest - good advice, but carrying the mandatory a little far). They can get away with banning carrying of weapons, so they do. They still allow personal ownership and use, just ban carrying for safety (in their mind).
With any decision, there are always risks to both sides. In the case of Major Hasan, the guess worked out wrong. But we have no way of knowing how many soldiers are alive because the risk worked the other way, unlike my friend.
