Reading the swarm of comments over on Oleg's blog, it seems a lot of military folks, those with real experience, favor keeping people disarmed in barracks and around the base;
It may be hard for some to comprehend, but putting on ACUs doesn't make you a weapons proficient commando. If they let every cook, clerk, and nurse carry around loaded weapons 24/7 there would be many more "accidental" deaths than this per year.
Exactly what the anti gun rights activists say about the population in general, and it's been proven wrong. We have more guns than ever, and the accident rate continues to fall. Not weapons proficient? Them train them, then arm them. In that order. Takes only a short while. Put the second amendment back in force and more of them will be proficient, to some degree, when they arrive, which was of course the original idea, wasn't it, Skippy?
The average "soldier" doesn't shoot for a living and non-combat arms (the vast majority is support) troops are lucky to even see the range twice a year.
Poor training. Basing policy on poor training is worse than just poor training alone. So, we can afford billion-dollar bombers, and gazzillion-dollar satellite networks and all that, but a few extra cartridges for a week of training is out of the freaking question. Even then, I assume there has to be at least a few in the barracks who know one end of a gun from another. I know-- I just don't understand. I'd understand if I were in the military, that you don't train too many people too well, 'cause that's "dangerous", even though I see every day here in the real world that that line of thinking is pure horseshit. The more people equipped and trained in the use of arms, the safer your whole society, and the more versatile and effective your military. If you people don't trust your own, you need to seriously get the f^#K out. Now.
They would also have to lock the base down from un-verified (without prior clearance) civilian entry as weapons would be too easily accessed.
"Civilian entry"? Like at my house, where there's infinitely more firepower than in military barracks? Like at a gun store or a gun show, or a shooting range, practically anywhere in the country? So then, it's fine to just let any stranger onto a military base so long as that base is almost as unarmed as a kindergarten-school-gun-free-zone, and it would be worse to let strangers in if people on the base were mostly all armed and capable of defending themselves? That's hippie logic, right there, folks. It's right out of Diane Feinstein's teeny tiny little bird brain.
Somebody (re)educate me here (haul me to a camp or something) 'cause I figure that if you're training an army, any time, any where, they should all know how to handle a weapon, from the nurse, to the cook, to the electrician, to the floor sweeper, to the truck driver, etc. (just like in the civilian population) all the way through to the actual combat units. Falling short of that (because you're in the military and afraid of guns?) I would think that, at the very least, anyone trained in weapon handling should be well-trained, and should be hauling at the very minimum a sidearm around at all times (just like millions of civilians do every day already).