Why are military members forced to disarm on military bases?

http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r190_14.pdf
FYI

 

and I quote:

"2–7. Persons prohibited from carrying firearms
a. The following persons are not authorized to carry firearms:
(1) Those exhibiting unsuitable behavior as defined in AR 50–6,
AR 190–56, or AR 380–67.
(2) Those with medical conditions, traits or behavioral characteristics
are defined as disqualifying factors in AR 50–6, AR 190–56,
or AR 380–67.
(3) Those whose security clearance has been revoked or denied
under AR 50–6, AR 190–56, or AR 380–67.
(4) Those taking prescription drugs or other medications that may
produce drowsiness or impair reaction or judgment.
b. Personnel authorized to carry firearms are prohibited from
consuming alcoholic beverages 8 hours prior to carrying a firearm.
An officer in the chain of command or supervisory chain in the
grade of at least colonel may grant an exception to this provision for
USACIDC special agents and supervisors, military police investigators,
and DA civilian investigators operating in a covert role."

 

Highlighted for clarity.

 

So irregardless of your irrelevant to the topic post about who isn't allowed to carry, is there a provision in this regulation for allowed carry by everyday soldiers?

 

Can he not store them in the Base Armory? On our local base, the permanent sailors have that option. The visiting students are not allowed to keep their guns there.

 

I'm sure he can now. He just got to his first permanent duty station. They can store their guns at the base armory with advance permission from the base commander. It's a lot of hassle, so I'll let him do what he wants. My biggest gripe is that since nobody is allowed to carry on base or to and from base, they will be recognized as easy targets when they are off base.

No one seems to take the current threats seriously until someone is killed.

 

From what I've read on different military forums (used by the military), it's common for trainees to get storage units "in town" to store their guns (and other things). Not sure I'd trust it myself, but that's what I found researching the issue.

 

This mostly stems from a misconception that military personnel are actually disciplined adults when in fact they are largely teenagers and young adults under constant peer pressure to get drunk and act stupid. In my five years active I had two friends attempt suicide, had two more die drunk driving, was myself hospitalized for riding with a drunk driver, helped steal a bus to go to a concert, knew four guys who committed armed robbery, had another get shot 11 times at a gas station over an argument at a bar with a fellow serviceman, had a supervisor get demoted for fighting an officer at a BBQ, had another get demoted for breaking into his room and cutting his arm on the glass so badly he was hospitalized, had a friend shoot at his wife through their neighbor's door, knew a guy who kept a loaded AK in his trunk, witnessed blanket parties, saw fights, knew of dozens who used drugs, once "rolled deep" to assault an ex-wife's lover and another time forcibly entered a frat house and trashed it in retribution for one of our guys getting punched there. We were considered a mild unit. In perspective, I had an MP friend who drunkenly crashed into a parked MP cruiser. They knew it was her because she left her bumper attached to the cruiser. She got off with a warning because she was already home when they found her. That is the sort of culture military life breeds when you have a bunch of drunk 20ishes doing a bunch of drunk 20ish things monitored by a bunch of 20ishes. Heck, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan possibly Saved lives just by keeping soldiers from drunk driving. I know my post had a Days Since Last Vehicle Death board and it never got passed a few months.

That is why it is in the military's best interest to restrict the carrying of firearms for servicemen.

 

My service was nothing like that. Did you know John Kerry?

 

My service WAS like that. I was overseas, and I had a guy bet me $100 ( in today's money) that within 6 months I'd be a boozer, a doper, or in a mental institution. He lost, instead I had black belt levels of karate skill. But the great majority of my buddies most certainly were boozers and dopers. A couple of best friends got into a drunken fight, cut on each other with pocket knives. We had a guy on guard post load his M16 and threaten the SOG, we came up missing some grenades, too. this was in a peaceful country and time, and without all the possibilities of any of us having cars, or access to more than pot, and only 3.2 beer, with a limit of one case per day per man.

 

It's all about control. Apparently the military does not really believe it can trust its own soldiers.

 

They can't trust them, and they shouldn't, given what they have proven to be (way too often)

 

You're right the government doesn't trust anybody they can't control with a gun. The American people are fine with it.

You've been listening to John Kerry too much. The families of the victims at Fort Hood would disagree with you. Why don't we just disarm our military if we can't trust them with guns?

 

Actually I think I saw a statistic somewhere years ago that the overall servicemen death level was lower because we were at war. Tens of thousands of soldiers were in theater with no alcohol. If they had been back home, they would have been drinking, and some probably driving drunk.

I do think it's an issue to have guys in the barracks on the weekends drinking and access to weapons. Sounds like a bad combination.

 

I don't agree that soldiers who aren't M.P.'s are better able to handle carrying firearms on post than Cops.

And because of the screening that service members undergo their demographic is less likely to commit crimes and less in need of weapons than those in a comparable civilian situation.

 

The 0.01% is projecting, because although many of us do not yet realize how they are screwing us over, they know it, and are afraid.

 

The issue is not the soldiers in general are better trained then MP's, the soldiers are not replacing MP's. Allowing soldiers to carry is a backup to the MP's. Just like outside the ilitary, cops and MP['s are not everywhere all the time, and have a significant response time.

"Need" is extremely subjective and prone to abuse. If the general population is qualified to carry firearms, then soldiers are also.

 

definitely agreed. soldiers are not decrepit old fools. many of the "general public" fit that description to a "T"