So when an ensign shoots himself in the leg, will the ship's captain be standing on the catwalk with a 9mm?
On many levels this is completely asinine. First, it creates a large burden on senior Es and Os that now there are fewer people who can stand a watch... how proficient are we as a Navy as a whole with fireams (EOD and SEAL types excluded)? I have had zip point shit weapon training, and that's pretty sad I think as a member of the military. If incidents like this suggest that our people aren't to be trusted with weapons, why isn't there a bigger push for a thorough weapons qual for everyone at accession?
If officers and chiefs have little, if any, more small arms experience than the junior sailors, what good is a rank-based policy like this?
Perhaps a policy of not handling weapons unless one has fired said weapon in the past year might be more appropriate, but then again, perhaps there wouldn't be enough sailors to stand watch with that in place. Maybe not being able to stand watch until one has completed "weapons safety" on NKO! :icon_tong
It's been over ten years since the Cole incident, which should have woken up big Navy to the need for qualified individuals to guard ships. Guess inertia is more powerful than operational necessity. But at least these sailors have all likely logged a couple hundred hours of EEO and driving safety classes. I'm sure AQ will be deterred by our proficiency in those!
A surface ship doesn't need a damn range to achieve minimal proficiency among its crew--sail out to a Warning Area and shoot at silhouettes off the fantail. Do a shoot during every underway period. Problem solved.
Slap the magazine...immediate corrective actions (SPORTS)....
Sadly it's not just the junior enlisted who have these issues. Everyone from Aircrewman who are supposed to be proficient having ND's with M11's and .50's to an O-6 leaving a hole in a ready room chair have happened in the not too distant past.
Oh and my favorite part of the article.
"and to order ships to fully qualify their watchstanding teams."
Shouldn't you be qualified with a weapon before being handed one to stand watch with anyway? I thought that was already mandatory????
Aircrewman? Pilots at the range are the worst
Aircrewman? Pilots at the range are the worst
Oh, I have no doubt about that. I was just pointing out the broad range of personnel involved. Said O-6 was a pilot. Though to the best of my knowledge so far only an aircrewman has put a hole in an aircraft from the inside out while in flight.
More rent-a-cops, fewer MAs, condition three carry, fewer officers/enlisted packing heat while on "watch", heavy restrictions on privately owned firearms on base...a small band of rednecks could invade a military installation if they really wanted to.
If officers and chiefs have little, if any, more small arms experience than the junior sailors, what good is a rank-based policy like this?
Forcing more senior members to be on duty during shitty watches "to supervise" motivates them to get their house in order quicker.
Weapons training in the Navy is a farce and we should all be professionally embarrassed by this
Brett
And I haven't seen an ARGIE-licensed Browning Hi-Power for a long, long time .... BUT:....still have the Argie Hi-Power I carried....
... Anyone who serves in any branch of the military should expect to come out with the basic capability to handle and shoot a handgun / rifle and shotgun. It's a basic skill.