Should our men and women in the armed forces...

[E4 No More]

I am as usual completely ignorant of the topic. A couple of years ago researched modern volunteer military enlisting requirements, which apparently make it near impossible to accept recruits below the mean population intelligence. So if the bottom of the enlisted bell curve is around the population mean, then the middle of the bell curve for modern military folk would HAVE to be significantly higher than the general population bell curve. About any current military or the younger veterans, as best I could tell, should be virtually guaranteed smarter than the average citizen.

 

Of course wisdom is not exactly the same as intelligence, and there can be good dumb folk or evil smart folk. Nevertheless, it seems that modern military packing heat on base would be expected to work better than, or at least as good, as law abiding civilians packing heat?

 

However, from historical perspective-- Please pardon my ignorance, just asking-- In the old days the ship of the line would lock up the flintlocks and sabers, and only break em out when sails of the enemy appeared on the horizon? Am guessing over much of history the mean intelligence of military was about the same as mean intelligence of the general population, and perhaps in times of war, at least some of the wars, the mean intelligence of the military could dip lower than population mean, as they begin scraping the bottom of the barrel?

 

Also, in the past men tended to be rowdier than modern times. I recall it from my childhood onward. Men might not be any more  likely to shoot each other back then, but they sure were more likely to punch you in the nose. It has got progressively more "civil" over time, except in the ghetto or certain rural areas.

 

Am just wondering, in the old days, with a lower mean intelligence in the military, packing men together in unpleasant conditions, men more likely than moderns to kick yer ass if you piss em off-- Just wondering if maybe some times in the past it might have made sense to lockup the weapons except for imminent battle?

 

Dunno the answer, just asking.

I think that's more of a condition due to the feudalistic customs of the military, and that the military treatment of the enlisted ranks was much harsher than it is today.

[TMF]

Go for it :)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ugly]

Go for it :)

I've got one,
There are 2 LT's sitting at the bar. They are arguing about wether sex is more work than pleasure. They call a Chief over to settle the dispute and ask the Chief wether it's more work than pleasure. The Chief says well it must be all pleasure, otherwise you guys would have the enlisted man do it for you. :)

[E4 No More]

I think they do. I recall folks getting bounced outa MEPS when I processed. Pretty easy to hide crazy there I suppose. Once a person is around others for 24/7, it tends to come out. I recall going to the DS with my battle buddy during rifle marksmanship to report a member of the platoon who acted like the dude from Full Metal Jacket. The DS said the guy was pretending so he could get discharged. The dude had a meltdown not too long after that and spent the rest of his time in a road guard vest with a suicide guard on him 24/7 until he was booted out. For all I know he went on a rampage or killed himself in the civilian world, and they likely said he was crazy because of his "service". Thing is, if he hadnt had his meltdown, he would have ended up in a unit and done God knows what. If he'd a stayed in long enough to when the war started he may have done some crazy things. I think it's hard sometimes separating the looneys from the malingerers when you have so many joes and a mission to accomplish. That's why folks slip through the cracks and make it in to the military when they have no business being there. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't remember an evaluation back in 1982. I don't know how it is today. I think all who were in years ago had personal examples of people who clearly used testing substitutes in order to qualify for enlistment standards. We had a guy so dumb that you had to show him what you wanted him to do in order for him to understand what you were telling him to do. His name was Stewart, and I had to show him how to swab a deck in order for him to understand. He graduated boot camp with me. :(

[TMF]

[quote name="SWJewellTN" post="1136724" timestamp="1397147296"]I don't remember an evaluation back in 1982. I don't know how it is today. I think all who were in years ago had personal examples of people who clearly used testing substitutes in order to qualify for enlistment standards. We had a guy so dumb that you had to show him what you wanted him to do in order for him to understand what you were telling him to do. His name was Stewart, and I had to show him how to swab a deck in order for him to understand. He graduated boot camp with me. :([/quote] Haha, well, you know, I didn't know what my pecker was for in 1982. However, things ain't so different now. I met some of the smartest people I'll know and the dumbest people I know during my time in the military. It all comes down to numbers and the inability (or unwillingness) to identify folks that shouldn't be there. I've had to recommend folks for separation for things that should have been discovered long before me. I think everyone before me just didnt want to deal with the trouble. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Grunt67]

 Not allowing a trained soldier to carry a weapon on base has to be one of the dumbest ideas & could

only have originated from the brilliant minds in DC........which it did.

 On a personal note, when I was in 'Nam, being a lowly grunt, I was issues a NIB M16 + a NIB M203. Get back

to the world, I have to do paperwork, background checks, pay excessive fees, all to do the same thing.

 Apparently, you're only trusted to carry when out of the country.

 Their policy has worked out really well at Ft. Hood though, don't you think.

[E4 No More]

Haha, well, you know, I didn't know what my pecker was for in 1982. However, things ain't so different now. I met some of the smartest people I'll know and the dumbest people I know during my time in the military. It all comes down to numbers and the inability (or unwillingness) to identify folks that shouldn't be there. I've had to recommend folks for separation for things that should have been discovered long before me. I think everyone before me just didnt want to deal with the trouble. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Me too, and most of them were officers!

 

To the officers on the forum, notice that I didn't say all. :)

[TripleDigitRide]

If they would be allowed to carry a firearm in the civilian world, they should be allowed to carry on base.

[dcloudy777]

PFC Jackalope can do way more damage with his car than a pistol, and we let him drive on base.... 

[bersaguy]

Well, I have always been in favor of our soldiers to be allowed to have side arms while on an American base in country. The proof of it was provided in the last shooting but it seems that most have missed it when it was reported. They said the shooter was on a rampage and shooting everyone he could right up to the point he was faced against another armed person. At that point he quit shooting and shot and killed himself. Had our military people all had sidearms on how many would he had shot before getting shot? Probably none because when he was faced against another armed person he shot himself. That very possibly means he would have gone off somewhere and killed himself without hurting anyone else or he would have picked another soft target off base. The shooting back in 2009 at Ft Hood was also ended when the shooter was taken down but another armed soldier MP but only after having his way for over 15 minutes before the MP's arrived. Had our soldiers been armed the shooter would have been dead a lot quicker with far less death and carnage. Unarmed soldiers on a military base are as vulnerable as a Gun Free School Zone and we have seen how well those work...............jmho

Edited April 10, 2014 by bersaguy

[Grunt67]

Saw a clip of the big brass in DC making a statement after the first Hood shooting, when asked if the policy

would be changed. He said, not necessary, the MPs could handle it. And they did.....came in & cleaned up the mess.

Again!

[whitewolf001]

Sounds like the general Libtard response of, "If you find yourself in a tight situation, just call the police." Yes, because an officer can arrive there within seconds of me calling...

[bersaguy]

Sounds like the general Libtard response of, "If you find yourself in a tight situation, just call the police." Yes, because an officer can arrive there within seconds of me calling...

Like I said in my previous post. In 2009 the shooter was stopped by an MP 15 minutes after he began killing our troops and was only stopped by another person with a gun. During this last shooting it was only stopped because of another person with a gun confronted the shooter but in the second case the MP didn't even have to shoot. Once the MP confronted iwith her gun he shot himself. That should be more than enough proof that the way to end the shootings on our military bases is to arm our troops with side arms even if they make it optional. Let the troops make the decision about whether they want to be armed and it will deter these idiots and take away a soft target GUN FREE ZONE.......jmho

[enfield]

I'm in favor of sidearms and ammo being issued to NCO's and officers.

Edited April 11, 2014 by enfield

[Dolomite_supafly]

Well, I have always been in favor of our soldiers to be allowed to have side arms while on an American base in country. The proof of it was provided in the last shooting but it seems that most have missed it when it was reported. They said the shooter was on a rampage and shooting everyone he could right up to the point he was faced against another armed person. At that point he quit shooting and shot and killed himself. Had our military people all had sidearms on how many would he had shot before getting shot? Probably none because when he was faced against another armed person he shot himself. That very possibly means he would have gone off somewhere and killed himself without hurting anyone else or he would have picked another soft target off base. The shooting back in 2009 at Ft Hood was also ended when the shooter was taken down but another armed soldier MP but only after having his way for over 15 minutes before the MP's arrived. Had our soldiers been armed the shooter would have been dead a lot quicker with far less death and carnage. Unarmed soldiers on a military base are as vulnerable as a Gun Free School Zone and we have seen how well those work...............jmho

It was NOT an MP who stopped Hasan, it was a female DA civilian that was part of the civilian police on base.

 

Like I said in my previous post. In 2009 the shooter was stopped by an MP 15 minutes after he began killing our troops and was only stopped by another person with a gun. During this last shooting it was only stopped because of another person with a gun confronted the shooter but in the second case the MP didn't even have to shoot. Once the MP confronted iwith her gun he shot himself. That should be more than enough proof that the way to end the shootings on our military bases is to arm our troops with side arms even if they make it optional. Let the troops make the decision about whether they want to be armed and it will deter these idiots and take away a soft target GUN FREE ZONE.......jmho

The second shooting did have an MP shoot at the suspect but he was never hit.

 

As far as crazy people in the military I have met a few as well. They can easily fit in and slip through the cracks of basic training. We had Michael Easterday who came to our unit who was CRAZY, with a capital C. His roommate reported he would sit on his bed and tell himself a joke, squeeze his two buck teeth together, tell himself the punch line and laugh. He would do it for hours. Easterday was 29 years old when he came to our unit. At some point Easterday got himself a girlfriend and she was something like 63. I thought he was acting like he liked her so she would do his laundry and stuff. But his roommate said it was a lot more than that. Well a few months later he broke up with her and found another women. I was talking to him and said please tell me she is a younger. He got excited and said she was. I said thank God to which he replied she was 55. He got shipped off to the states and the last I heard he went AWOL looking for the 55 year old because he thought she was pregnant.

 

I have zero problems with an NCO having a sidearm but not so much Lieutenants. I worked with and trained brand new Lieutenants for a few years and some of them are worse than privates. Not sure if it was all the drinking in college or just that college pushed out all the common sense but some were absolutely clueless. Had one LT warn us about the "snake tick eggs" and how they will bite us in the field so we needed to protect ourselves. I didn't even know we had a LT until we went to the field and even then she was well hidden in her tent. Had another tell us to put engineer tape on our gear with anything that might hurt us. We asked if she meant stuff we were allergic to and she said absolutely not just what you are allergic to but stuff that can kill you. Most of us knew what she meant but one of the soldiers had about 100 pieces of white engineer tape hanging off him. They said things like shark attacks, car accidents, drowning, stairs, lone gunman, etc. I almost had to go to the ER because I couldn't catch my breath I was laughing so hard when he walked up.

[TMF]

I forgot; the basic training company I was in was the same one Timothy McVeigh was in years prior.

[Guest PapaB]

My copy of the Constitution must be defective. I can't find where it says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people, not in the military, to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." in the 2nd Amendment