NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just thinking about the old threads on who gets the right to bear arms.
Aside from some who think they have that right (including me), there are many who believe that they feel safer knowing that the government is bearing the arms.

Considering that from 1987 to 1991, I was bearing arms (including nuclear ones from 1988 to 1989, and under some circumstances was under no more control than I am as a civilian now (where I carry guns legally in a state where it is allowed), do you feel safer knowing that I was given arms (including the keys to an arms room 24/7)?

Do you wonder how they select who gets arms in the military? Are you under some misperception that somehow these people are specially selected for their psychological background?

Would it make you queasy to know that I remember a soldier (Category 4) who had an IQ of 85 who was a nuclear missile launch crewman?

Wouldn't suprise me. I've known a fair few soldiers over the years and some of them were mad as hatters.

the government (or military) is of course made up of individual people. however i believe that by virtue of those people having been trained, and perhaps being of a certain disposition anyway, they are less likely to use arms for their own personal gain as any old civilian might. these people have to be responsible and trustworthy. i hope that people who do not fit this description are not given sufficient power to be dangerous to the rest of us.

I'm in favour of arming police officers with nonlethal weapons, including tasers. But that's as far as it goes. All handguns should be destroyed, made illegal, ditto bullets, ditto manufacture/import. No guns, period. Rigorous monitoring of recreational hunting rifles, including registries and mandatory secure storage for same. Amnesty period, followed by harsher penalties for gun-crime.

Don't get me started on the military.

the government (or military) is of course made up of individual people. however i believe that by virtue of those people having been trained, and perhaps being of a certain disposition anyway, they are less likely to use arms for their own personal gain as any old civilian might. these people have to be responsible and trustworthy. i hope that people who do not fit this description are not given sufficient power to be dangerous to the rest of us.

The training includes nothing about being a responsible citizen with your weapon. Most of it involves instruction on how to blow things up and kill people. Thus, the instruction questions, "What makes the grass grow?" and the answer, "Blood! Blood makes the grass grow!" and further, "What is the spirit of the bayonet?", and the answer, "Kill!"

None of us were of a certain disposition. Some of us were previously criminals (and with no doubt, some currently were). So how does the government soldier get classified as a better bearer of arms than a typical civilian?

I'm in favour of arming police officers with nonlethal weapons, including tasers. But that's as far as it goes. All handguns should be destroyed, made illegal, ditto bullets, ditto manufacture/import. No guns, period. Rigorous monitoring of recreational hunting rifles, including registries and mandatory secure storage for same. Amnesty period, followed by harsher penalties for gun-crime.

Don't get me started on the military.

You're refreshingly consistent then, unlike a lot of other people.

I've wondered why most nations bother with an army in the first place. Who is going to attack Canada, anyway?

I'm in favour of arming police officers with nonlethal weapons, including tasers. But that's as far as it goes. All handguns should be destroyed, made illegal, ditto bullets, ditto manufacture/import. No guns, period. Rigorous monitoring of recreational hunting rifles, including registries and mandatory secure storage for same. Amnesty period, followed by harsher penalties for gun-crime.
sounds like the UK system. guns are still illegally smuggled in though. hence the need for world disarmament.

How did you know his IQ was 85? And if it was, what difference should that make as long as the guy does his job correctly? Obviously if he wouldnt be there long if he didnt know what he was doing.

I'm in favour of arming police officers with nonlethal weapons, including tasers. But that's as far as it goes. All handguns should be destroyed, made illegal, ditto bullets, ditto manufacture/import. No guns, period. Rigorous monitoring of recreational hunting rifles, including registries and mandatory secure storage for same. Amnesty period, followed by harsher penalties for gun-crime.

Don't get me started on the military.

Oh that's going to work. Cop tries to tase some guy with a gun and gets shot. Non-lethal weapons are ineffective, there were tests showing people getting tased and stunned and not going down. I've been stunned with a stun gun and it's not THAT bad.

sounds like the UK system. guns are still illegally smuggled in though. hence the need for world disarmament.

How are you going to disarm the world, when anyone with a light machine shop can make a machinegun?

Better yet, any kid with a CAD/CAM milling machine and an hour's time with a block of aluminum can make a factory-identical firearm receiver.

So, do we round up all the machining tools in the world as well?

I think people feel more safe with the military having arms because the government is (supposedly) overseeing the military.

Having known several soldiers, I still feel more safe with my own gun.

The training includes nothing about being a responsible citizen with your weapon. Most of it involves instruction on how to blow things up and kill people. Thus, the instruction questions, "What makes the grass grow?" and the answer, "Blood! Blood makes the grass grow!" and further, "What is the spirit of the bayonet?", and the answer, "Kill!"

None of us were of a certain disposition. Some of us were previously criminals (and with no doubt, some currently were). So how does the government soldier get classified as a better bearer of arms than a typical civilian?
well firstly there is a rigid chain of command in the military. only the intelligent and responsible few can reach the top of this hierarchy; it is these people who ensure responsible use as even your thickie friend (dude with IQ of 85) is answerable to his superior. civilians are answerable to no-one and could do what they want with the weapons at their disposal without fear of reprisal (except from the police of course). it is this chain of command, then, that keeps idiots doing stupid things with the weapons they are in charge of. hence it takes some kind of organised plan, involving many individuals and thier commanding officers in the military, to use weapons irresponsibly or illegaly.

secondly, which countries' military were you in?
thirdly, as it is not already, responsibility and respect for life should be taught to military personnel imo

When I was in the Army, I had the keys to a room full of machineguns and ammunition.

Although I was not the unit commander, I had the ability to open that room any time I wanted, take out anything I wanted, and leave with anything I wanted without anyone questioning me.

Now, if I had a room with over 200 M-16s, 12 M-240 machineguns, and 36 M-249 SAW machineguns and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition on hand at my house, you would be worried if I had that kind of access, would you not?

And yet without so much as a questionnaire or a background investigation, they gave me the keys.

No one was overseeing my access to that room.

How are you going to disarm the world, when anyone with a light machine shop can make a machinegun?

Better yet, any kid with a CAD/CAM milling machine and an hour's time with a block of aluminum can make a factory-identical firearm receiver.

So, do we round up all the machining tools in the world as well?
i'm not saying its going to happen, just what would be best. it is impractical and near impossible to do, i know. shame :(

US Army. At the time, my rank was E-4 (one rank below Sergeant).

Although answerable for the condition of the arms room, no one ever checked on me.

well then that is a wholly irresponsible army and quite frightening. i just hope the UK military is better.

but a question: if you (and assumedly others in the US army) had such unsupervised access to such weapons, why did you not steal any or use them for your own purposes? why did you not take a shitload of them and start an armed militia of your own? why has nobody else done this either (to my knowledge, at least in the UK)?

If you were a single woman living in a big-city you might be inclined to want some sort of effective weapon. For all of the complaints about guns, it is important to note that they changed combat drastically because they function pretty much as well in the hands of or targetting an elderly lady or a huge, angry mugger.

As you say, Mace, tasers and stun-guns are not effective means of stopping people who are determined, and without some sort of 'equalizer' a lack of guns will just put the advantage of people who are bigger rather than those who have guns, i.e. it takes away the choice of advantage (it's currently your choice to go out and buy a gun) and gives it to random genetics. While I believe that without guns it is likely that fewer people would die, it is also likely that a larger percentage of the people dying would be victims (as opposed to perpetrators of crimes). Also, it will decrease the cost of incorrectly choosing a victim for criminals (i.e. right now if I intend to mug someone in New York, there is some chance of getting shot and dying) but without guns, the chance of dying is much lower, and thus a totally rational person will be much more likely to resort to crime as an alternative source of income.

Hmmmm, I recently got out of the service and that is definitely not acceptable anymore. Our weapons were stored in a very secure arms room which only our S-4 Platoon Sergeant had the keys for. The ammunition was stored in a completely seperate facility, which is guarded by men with machine guns.

Maybe times changed since when you were in.

Hmmmm, I recently got out of the service and that is definitely not acceptable anymore. Our weapons were stored in a very secure arms room which only our S-4 Platoon Sergeant had the keys for. The ammunition was stored in a completely seperate facility, which is guarded by men with machine guns.

Maybe times changed since when you were in.

Oh, the arms room was secure. Alarms, etc. But I was on the list of people who had the keys and were allowed to enter. Also, we stored ammunition for our EDRE deployment alerts in the arms room.

So, a lot of stuff in there. No explosives, but plenty of ammunition.

When I was in the Army, I had the keys to a room full of machineguns and ammunition.

Although I was not the unit commander, I had the ability to open that room any time I wanted, take out anything I wanted, and leave with anything I wanted without anyone questioning me.
[...]
No one was overseeing my access to that room.Then I must say, the US Army is very, very sloppy. Where I was stationed in the Finnish DF, there was exactly one person around at a time with the keys to the weapons room, and he was a career officer with a high level security clearance. Nobody went into the room without that person watching over them, and the room was constantly checked.

Where I had my basic training things were a bit different. There every squad leader could pick up the key to the gun racks (which held the whole company's recruits' assault rifles) from the officer. Even then, you had to have a reason to pick up the key (e.g. the platoon was heading out for training), and the rifles were counted every 2 hours -- and nobody except the officers had access to ammunition. Plus even if you had stolen something, you'd have been 20 miles into Finnish DF territory, in an island fortress full of security cameras and sensors, with a platoon of armed MPs on duty at all times.

Stealing small arms ammunition would have been easy enough in live ammunition combat training, sure enough. I know several people who have "army memorabilia", in the form of different types of ammunition, smoke grenades, etc. No actual weapons, neither small arms or live explosives of any kind.

Oh, the arms room was secure. Alarms, etc. But I was on the list of people who had the keys and were allowed to enter. Also, we stored ammunition for our EDRE deployment alerts in the arms room.

So, a lot of stuff in there. No explosives, but plenty of ammunition.

Yeah, thats probably the case with a combat arms unit. I was a REMF, so it probably worked a little differently in my unit.

I had to go to the battalion office to pick up the keys, which were always available. They monitored the alarm system, and would allow me to sign for the keys and enter the arms room back at our company office.

I had to put a reason on the sheet, which was nearly always the same and never questioned - I was doing maintenance.

In their eyes, I was a good soldier tending my weapons at midnight.

But, no clearance. Just a little sign in sheet, and off I go.

When I was in the Army, I had the keys to a room full of machineguns and ammunition.

Although I was not the unit commander, I had the ability to open that room any time I wanted, take out anything I wanted, and leave with anything I wanted without anyone questioning me.

Now, if I had a room with over 200 M-16s, 12 M-240 machineguns, and 36 M-249 SAW machineguns and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition on hand at my house, you would be worried if I had that kind of access, would you not?

And yet without so much as a questionnaire or a background investigation, they gave me the keys.

No one was overseeing my access to that room.That really is very scary actually.

Well I for one am certianly glad you arent a psychopathic serial killer. You arent, are you? Well if you are then you missed your chance, buddy.

If you were a single woman living in a big-city you might be inclined to want some sort of effective weapon. For all of the complaints about guns, it is important to note that they changed combat drastically because they function pretty much as well in the hands of or targetting an elderly lady or a huge, angry mugger.

As you say, Mace, tasers and stun-guns are not effective means of stopping people who are determined, and without some sort of 'equalizer' a lack of guns will just put the advantage of people who are bigger rather than those who have guns, i.e. it takes away the choice of advantage (it's currently your choice to go out and buy a gun) and gives it to random genetics.
Lalala, nice, emotional intro. Mace, pepper spray etc are in most cases working defense tools. See, "not always effective" isnt the same as "not effective". But if guns are commonly available, the chance the mugger has one is pretty good. Plus, he already has his one drawn, as he is threatening you. Where is the big equalizing effect now? The single time i got held up by a guy i was rather happy he had no gun, thanks to the strict gun laws here. He was completely psycho, being a junkie on turkey, and threw whatever it was after me when i ran away and hit my shoulder. Suppose he had a gun, id have a nice scar on my back right now, if i was still living, that is.

I'm in favour of arming police officers with nonlethal weapons, including tasers. But that's as far as it goes. All handguns should be destroyed, made illegal, ditto bullets, ditto manufacture/import. No guns, period. Rigorous monitoring of recreational hunting rifles, including registries and mandatory secure storage for same. Amnesty period, followed by harsher penalties for gun-crime.
Why? What do you think this would accomplish?

And what sort of problems do you have with the military?

Well I for one am certianly glad you arent a psychopathic serial killer. You arent, are you? Well if you are then you missed your chance, buddy.

I'm trying to make the point that the Army trusted me. Enough to make me an infantryman. Enough to teach me how to shoot, blow things up, and give me access to guns and ammunition. Enough to let me shoot about 20,000 rounds per year in practice.

And yet - without a clearance.

And yet - there are those who claim that only the military can be trusted with arms.

And yet - I am not a psychopathic serial killer.

Would I be just as safe if those arms were in my house now, whether I had a "need" for them or not?

Very probably safe. In fact, perfectly safe.

If I was safe enough to be trusted that way in the Army, I should be trusted enough that way now.

question to John Browning: if you (and assumedly others in the US army) had such unsupervised access to such weapons, why did you not steal any or use them for your own purposes? why did you not take a shitload of them and start an armed militia of your own? why has nobody else done this either (to my knowledge, at least in the UK)?
what stopped you?

what stopped you?

Nothing stopped me. I stopped me.

And that's my point. If I'm obviously trusted by the Army (with no background investigation) to be responsible for a room full of arms and ammunition, why can't I be trusted in the same way as a civilian?

Nothing stopped me. I stopped me.

And that's my point. If I'm obviously trusted by the Army (with no background investigation) to be responsible for a room full of arms and ammunition, why can't I be trusted in the same way as a civilian?

What, you want an arms room full of M-16's in your basement?

What, you want an arms room full of M-16's in your basement?

No, I'm happy with a handful of weapons and several thousand rounds of ammunition.

But my point is, why do some say that only the government can be trusted, when it is composed of the SAME people that they propose to disarm?

Nothing stopped me. I stopped me.

And that's my point. If I'm obviously trusted by the Army (with no background investigation) to be responsible for a room full of arms and ammunition, why can't I be trusted in the same way as a civilian?
ah i see. i was thinking that you were saying the army was at fault (sorry, im half-working while i type).
its a good point. but the fact that the military do keep their weapons under guard, and only certain people may access them is favourable to civilians having the same weapons. a civilian would not be able to keep even that low level of control (from what you say) on their weapons, and would be more prone to having them stolen. only you (and a few others i daresay) had access and keys to that weapons room - not every soldier in the army. relatively few are trusted with that responsibility. conversely, as civilians can not safeguard their weapons it would be dangerous.
plus, you would be repromanded in the army for using the weapons illegally or stealing them - you did not stop you. your fear of being caught did - and it's a pretty high probablility that you would be. again this links to the command structure arguement i started with: those who truly command and control the military are (on the whole in the West) intelligent and responsible. they conduct the army in such a way, and you and your colleagues, and subordinates, followed their rule. a civilian would not need to and thus could act however they wanted with their weapons - this is why a civilian could not be trusted.

But my point is, why do some say that only the government can be trusted, when it is composed of the SAME people that they propose to disarm?I probably shouldn't answer since I do not really support the idea of simply illegalizing civilian ownership of small arms, and because this thread started with a question about "the right to bear arms" which means nothing to me.

However, my government is obviously more responsible with the weapons and acts in a far more trust-worthy way. Based on what you're saying, it seems to me a much saner response would be to do a major overhaul in access to weapons and ammunition in the US armed forces, and not use the sloppiness of the armed forces to argue for more guns to civilians.

I suppose it gives people warm fuzzies knowing that the force of the government is always monitering the weapons. But as you pointed out, this is not always the case.

My stance on guns is that they should only be put in the hands of responsible adults, with strong regulations put in place to make sure this happens. Also, I'm of the opinion that weapons used by military personnel should be restricted to just military personnel.

Thousands of rounds of ammunition, huh? LOL, when are the russians attacking?

ah i see. i was thinking that you were saying the army was at fault (sorry, im half-working while i type).
its a good point. but the fact that the military do keep their weapons under guard, and only certain people may access them is favourable to civilians having the same weapons. a civilian would not be able to keep even that low level of control (from what you say) on their weapons, and would be more prone to having them stolen.
plus, you would be repromanded in the army for using the weapons illegally or stealing them - you did not stop you. your fear of being caught did - and it's a pretty high probablility that you would be. again this links to the command structure arguement i started with: those who truly command and control the military are (on the whole in the West) intelligent and responsible. they conduct the army in such a way, and you and your colleagues, and subordinates, followed their rule. a civilian would not need to and thus could act however they wanted with their weapons - this is why a civilian could not be trusted.

Nothing would have stopped me from going downtown with a machinegun and killing hundreds of people. I could only have been stopped after the fact. And punished after the fact.

Just like a civilian. After the fact.

There was nothing preventing it from happenning, other than the law. Murder is already against the law. And that's why a civilian can be trusted, because we already have laws and police. To act AFTER the fact. As the military would act. AFTER the fact.

Raising the level of arms security within the military soon reaches an impractical level. In combat areas, soldiers keep their own weapons and ammunition with them at all times. They go everywhere with their weapons. Up until WW II this was common, even in peacetime.

To reach the level of security some might like, we would all have to have Top Secret clearances, psychological examinations, and have controls similar to those of nuclear weapon facilities. That's probably unlikely, even if only as a matter of cost.

The current system of acting AFTER weapons are stolen or AFTER weapons are misused seems to be working fine. Without having to waste money on background investigations of soldiers with the keys.

I suppose it gives people warm fuzzies knowing that the force of the government is always monitering the weapons. But as you pointed out, this is not always the case.

My stance on guns is that they should only be put in the hands of responsible adults, with strong regulations put in place to make sure this happens. Also, I'm of the opinion that weapons used by military personnel should be restricted to just military personnel.

Thousands of rounds of ammunition, huh? LOL, when are the russians attacking?

I practice quite a bit. So I have it delivered in bulk. I go through about 1000 rounds of 45 ACP per week. And don't get me started on the 308 or 223 volume.

Nothing would have stopped me from going downtown with a machinegun and killing hundreds of people. I could only have been stopped after the fact. And punished after the fact.

Just like a civilian. After the fact.

There was nothing preventing it from happenning, other than the law. Murder is already against the law. And that's why a civilian can be trusted, because we already have laws and police. To act AFTER the fact. As the military would act. AFTER the fact.

Raising the level of arms security within the military soon reaches an impractical level. In combat areas, soldiers keep their own weapons and ammunition with them at all times. They go everywhere with their weapons. Up until WW II this was common, even in peacetime.

To reach the level of security some might like, we would all have to have Top Secret clearances, psychological examinations, and have controls similar to those of nuclear weapon facilities. That's probably unlikely, even if only as a matter of cost.

The current system of acting AFTER weapons are stolen or AFTER weapons are misused seems to be working fine. Without having to waste money on background investigations of soldiers with the keys.
so your arguement basically is that military personel and civilians can act the same - and be trusted the same - because they are both subject to the law, and this can only be enforced after they have committed the act, if i understand correctly.
well this is either an arguement for letting everybody have guns, as is your stance. or the opposite: nobody should have guns (my stance). yours i suppose is more realistic but dangerous, as if anyone can have a lethal weapon then anyone can kill anyone else. if nobody has them, nobody gets hurt (in this most lethal way anyway). it depends on whether you trust other people at all (everything boils down to ethics imo ;) ). i certainly do not trust anybody, and if my neighbour had a gun i would live in fear... until i got a gun too. letting some people have weapons only propogates thier use. i trust the military to have guns simply because of the overall command structure and the fact that only a few people, out of all the people in the army, have direct access to the weapons. they are guarded (if badly), as are the places they are stored. i assume that if you tried to take weapons out of your army base somebody would start asking questions and stop you before you could injure anyone.
of course there is the middle ground you touched on... only responsible people may have guns. how do we tell if they are responsible or not? by psycological testing etc. expensive but necessary, and more practical than total disarmament.

I carry a loaded gun every day, and I'm not a policeman. It's perfectly legal.
I haven't killed anyone in the course of carrying that gun.
I have stopped two crimes from occurring. Robberies that the police would never have responded in time to prevent.

And I'm not a policeman.

Just because I carry a gun doesn't mean I'm a psychopath, or that I can't be trusted. If that were the case, then giving a gun to a soldier will turn him into a psychopath - into someone who cannot be trusted.

To reach the level of security some might like, we would all have to have Top Secret clearances, psychological examinations, and have controls similar to those of nuclear weapon facilities. That's probably unlikely, even if only as a matter of cost.(Emphasis mine.) Some, perhaps. I'm not one of those. Quite obviously the level of security can be high enough for me without need for thorough psychological examinations (although there is quite a bit of that, too, in the Finnish DF), and we certainly had no Top Secret clearances nor were there controls in place similar to nuclear weapon facilities. The horribly low-budget FDF could manage it, surely the US armed forces can.

In a combat area the situation is, of course, completely different. There's nothing much that can be done about that, when a soldier on patrol in a city can just open fire into a crowd at any time.

Nothing would have stopped me from going downtown with a machinegun and killing hundreds of people. I could only have been stopped after the fact. And punished after the fact.Again, my own experiences were radically different. Just to get the guns and the ammunition, I would have had to eliminate the 2 MPs pulling guard duty in the barracks building and the officer on guard duty (the person with the key, and incidentally a loaded gun with him at all times) without waking anyone up, preferably around 0400hrs. Then I would have had perhaps 15-30 minutes, if I were lucky, to get into the weapons room and the ammo storage, steal a car from the barracks parking lot and drive into the city to cause mayhem.

Trying to steal a gun and ammunition any other way, or failing with the above plan, would have simply gotten me captured or killed, well before I'd have gotten out of the military area.

I carry a loaded gun every day, and I'm not a policeman. It's perfectly legal.
I haven't killed anyone in the course of carrying that gun.
I have stopped two crimes from occurring. Robberies that the police would never have responded in time to prevent.

And I'm not a policeman.

Just because I carry a gun doesn't mean I'm a psychopath, or that I can't be trusted. If that were the case, then giving a gun to a soldier will turn him into a psychopath - into someone who cannot be trusted.
people have to earn their trust. i don't trust people even if they don't have a gun - i fear them (and still distrust them) if they do.
just because it is legal in your country does not mean it is right - it merely means you can do it. you may be trustworthy, but other people - and there are many - are less so. there are others who would use their weapons wrongly and for their own gain. this is why civilians should not be trusted with guns. in essence: a few spoil it for the rest. while there are few of them, criminals, the damage they can inflict with guns is too great to allow them access to them - and thus, because we cannot tell who would be responsible with their guns, all of society must be not allowed guns.

you have gun crime in the USA. in the UK and Europe, where guns for civillians are illegal, there is almost none. and this is a valid comparison based on gun crimes per 1000 population (i forget the link now). evidently some people do exploit their ability to have guns - you can't tell me that this is not the case. for the good of everyone else, these people should not be allowed guns - and therefore nobody should.

Yeah I'd love to walk around with a M4A1 with a foldable stock. Yah know just in case I need to have a heavy firefight with some random joe.

BTW the UK is seeing a small but steady increase in gun crime, as more bad boy yardies feel the need to carry weapons to seem big in front of their mates.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/14919.shtml

Just to get the guns and the ammunition, I would have had to eliminate the 2 MPs pulling guard duty in the barracks building and the officer on guard duty (the person with the key, and incidentally a loaded gun with him at all times) without waking anyone up, preferably around 0400hrs. Then I would have had perhaps 15-30 minutes, if I were lucky, to get into the weapons room and the ammo storage, steal a car from the barracks parking lot and drive into the city to cause mayhem.

Trying to steal a gun and ammunition any other way, or failing with the above plan, would have simply gotten me captured or killed, well before I'd have gotten out of the military area.
hence, unlike civillians, the military have control over their weapons to stop people getting hurt before an incident. civilians, as John Browning says, could do what they want and only be stopped after people are injured. controls are not tight enough to allow this trust.

you have gun crime in the USA. in the UK and Europe, where guns for civillians are illegal, there is almost none. and this is a valid comparison based on gun crimes per 1000 population (i forget the link now). evidently some people do exploit their ability to have guns - you can't tell me that this is not the case. for the good of everyone else, these people should not be allowed guns - and therefore nobody should.

Sweden, which has half the guns owned per household that Norway has, has twice the murder rate of Norway.

Luxembourg does not allow any firearms, yet they have a murder rate higher than the US.

It's not consistent. According to the Small Arms Survey group, there isn't a clear connection between gun ownership and violent crime. There just isn't.

In Brazil, firearms are also severely restricted. Yet they also have a much higher murder and violent crime rate than the US.

In the US, guns play a role in 7 percent of violent crimes - that is, if someone is going to rob or rape you, there's a 93 percent chance that they aren't carrying a gun.

When I was in the Army, I had the keys to a room full of machineguns and ammunition.

Although I was not the unit commander, I had the ability to open that room any time I wanted, take out anything I wanted, and leave with anything I wanted without anyone questioning me.

Now, if I had a room with over 200 M-16s, 12 M-240 machineguns, and 36 M-249 SAW machineguns and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition on hand at my house, you would be worried if I had that kind of access, would you not?

And yet without so much as a questionnaire or a background investigation, they gave me the keys.

No one was overseeing my access to that room.
Didn't the other armorers do an inventory?

Didn't the other armorers do an inventory?

The inventory took place when you got a new armorer, or a new company commander.

Otherwise, no inventory.

Once again, acting AFTER the fact.

US Army. At the time, my rank was E-4 (one rank below Sergeant).

Although answerable for the condition of the arms room, no one ever checked on me.
It's a little different in the Marine Corps. Even in the air wing armories, there was a daily inventory, checks by the duty officer, etc. I know you posted dates earlier, but it sounds like you were in the hippie army of the '70s.

It's a little different in the Marine Corps. Even in the air wing armories, there was a daily inventory, checks by the duty officer, etc. I know you posted dates earlier, but it sounds like you were in the hippie army of the '70s.

No, 1987-1991.

Then I must say, the US Army is very, very sloppy. Where I was stationed in the Finnish DF, there was exactly one person around at a time with the keys to the weapons room, and he was a career officer with a high level security clearance. Nobody went into the room without that person watching over them, and the room was constantly checked.

Where I had my basic training things were a bit different. There every squad leader could pick up the key to the gun racks (which held the whole company's recruits' assault rifles) from the officer. Even then, you had to have a reason to pick up the key (e.g. the platoon was heading out for training), and the rifles were counted every 2 hours -- and nobody except the officers had access to ammunition. Plus even if you had stolen something, you'd have been 20 miles into Finnish DF territory, in an island fortress full of security cameras and sensors, with a platoon of armed MPs on duty at all times.

Stealing small arms ammunition would have been easy enough in live ammunition combat training, sure enough. I know several people who have "army memorabilia", in the form of different types of ammunition, smoke grenades, etc. No actual weapons, neither small arms or live explosives of any kind.

Is military service compulsory in Finland?

Here's something more recent...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/11/guns.found.ap/index.html

Wonder who signed for them? And why they were able to get away with not turning them in for destruction?

Yes, there are supposed to be signatures on papers. And inventories.

what stopped you?

It's something that you are unfamiliar with. It's called HONOR!!!!

Is military service compulsory in Finland?
Yes. And i assume that is why the rules are strict. You never know about those conscripts. The staff on the other hand can easily take some guns with them when they take the weekend off drinking in their summer cottages.

My point is that soldiers and police are PEOPLE just like US.
They have the same strengths and weaknesses.
Tests, training, and after the fact controls don't provide any more assurance that a soldier will act correctly than it does for a civilian.

So, if we're all people, and we're all weak, we can either go with Dobbs' idea, and get rid of all the guns (even for the military and police), or we can go with my idea and say that we'll trust you until you mess up.

Something in between would be philosophically inconsistent. It would arbitrarily make one class of people "better" and "more trustworthy" than another, with no evidence to back it up.

Again, my own experiences were radically different. Just to get the guns and the ammunition, I would have had to eliminate the 2 MPs pulling guard duty in the barracks building and the officer on guard duty (the person with the key, and incidentally a loaded gun with him at all times) without waking anyone up, preferably around 0400hrs. Then I would have had perhaps 15-30 minutes, if I were lucky, to get into the weapons room and the ammo storage, steal a car from the barracks parking lot and drive into the city to cause mayhem.

Trying to steal a gun and ammunition any other way, or failing with the above plan, would have simply gotten me captured or killed, well before I'd have gotten out of the military area.

Now that I've had a few minutes to reflect, I think my experience during basic training in the Marine Corps was more like JMB that the Finns. We were issued a rifle and kept in in our wall lockers. As in John Browning's case, sorry I added the Moses out of habit, I could have taken my rifle, gone to Walmart and bought a load of .223 ammo and had fun. Hell to pay when I finished, but not until then. I didn't have quite the access he did, but you can only shoot one rifle at a time.

It's something that you are unfamiliar with. It's called HONOR!!!!
perhaps it's something stronger called morals too?

Sweden, which has half the guns owned per household that Norway has, has twice the murder rate of Norway.

Luxembourg does not allow any firearms, yet they have a murder rate higher than the US.

It's not consistent. According to the Small Arms Survey group, there isn't a clear connection between gun ownership and violent crime. There just isn't.

In Brazil, firearms are also severely restricted. Yet they also have a much higher murder and violent crime rate than the US.

In the US, guns play a role in 7 percent of violent crimes - that is, if someone is going to rob or rape you, there's a 93 percent chance that they aren't carrying a gun.
hmm well if that is true i really don't have a retort apart from that i simply do not believe all people can be responsible with guns. some people are not responsible with guns - fact. my arguement, as it was before, is that nobody should be allowed guns because of this.

violent crime is one thing, but with guns things can turn lethal. if civillians were not allowed guns at all there would be fewer fatalities. the inherently lethal nature of guns is why they must be controlled. brazil is evidently a different case to the US as it is still a 3rd or 2nd world country - the people are poor in general and crime will be more rampant in this situation. the US police force is also much more of a deterrant than a, relatively, poor Brazillian force.

My point is that soldiers and police are PEOPLE just like US.
They have the same strengths and weaknesses.
Tests, training, and after the fact controls don't provide any more assurance that a soldier will act correctly than it does for a civilian.

So, if we're all people, and we're all weak, we can either go with Dobbs' idea, and get rid of all the guns (even for the military and police), or we can go with my idea and say that we'll trust you until you mess up.

Something in between would be philosophically inconsistent. It would arbitrarily make one class of people "better" and "more trustworthy" than another, with no evidence to back it up.
but there are rules, regulations, safety protocols and a chain of command in the military that help prevent unjust use of guns. soldiers are people, but there is a structure behind those people to prevent them from doing wrong. there is no such structure with civillians. this is why one group of people, the government and military, can be more trustworthy than civillians and still be consistent.
Fundamentally, my arguement is that (as i have said) while you trust civilians with guns until they mess up, i think the risk and the cost of them 'messing up' to be too great, as guns are designed to be lethal. they cannot be allowed to mess up, and thus cannot be allowed guns.

but there are rules, regulations, safety protocols and a chain of command in the military that help prevent unjust use of guns. soldiers are people, but there is a structure behind those people to prevent them from doing wrong. there is no such structure with civillians. this is why one group of people, the government and military, can be more trustworthy than civillians and still be consistent.
Fundamentally, my arguement is that (as i have said) while you trust civilians with guns until they mess up, i think the risk and the cost of them 'messing up' to be too great, as guns are designed to be lethal. they cannot be allowed to mess up, and thus cannot be allowed guns.

I see. So there are no laws against murder or other violent crime, and no police who come around after the fact and arrest people for committing crimes. There's obviously no infrastructure for civilians - no courts and no prosecutors and no law.

Yes. And i assume that is why the rules are strict. You never know about those conscripts. The staff on the other hand can easily take some guns with them when they take the weekend off drinking in their summer cottages.
It's funny. Not this, but what I saw in Israel this summer. All the soldiers in Israel take their weapons home with them. Seems like a good practice, considering the environment. There were stories in the paper about how the policy was being reconsidered for soldiers that weren't deployed to the West Bank, Gaza, etc. Turns out the kids in the IDF and IAF just couldn't keep track of their weapons and they were being stolen by terrorists at alarming rates!

What does this have to do with gun control in the US? I guess as JB has said, the vast majority of people in the US Armed Services are trustworthy.

I see. So there are no laws against murder or other violent crime, and no police who come around after the fact and arrest people for committing crimes. There's obviously no infrastructure for civilians - no courts and no prosecutors and no law.
after the crime. after somebody has been, most likely with guns, killed. this is unacceptable risk for me.

sure laws and police are a deterrant, but this is not enough. guns can and do kill when they are used. thus people should not have them. nor should the military (or anyone) in my perfect little world, but as my first post said, this is utterly impractical for the time being.

after the crime. after somebody has been, most likely with guns, killed. this is unacceptable risk for me.

sure laws and police are a deterrant, but this is not enough. guns can and do kill when they are used. thus people should not have them. nor should the military (or anyone) in my perfect little world, but as my first post said, this is utterly impractical for the time being.

the protections in the Army are AFTER the fact as well.

John, what you have told us here is...well...somewhat disturbing.

What I would say is that the civilian and soldier are not that much apart, except that the soldier can really appreciate what this weapon can do to a human being. I would also hope that the U.S. army would at least instil into their soldiers that the consequences of using a weapon outside of self-defence and combat are dire, if not responsibility.

Civilians, on the other hand, vary so widely that trusting one of us is like trusting a baby with the Big Red Button. It might ignore it, but its a big shiny little thing and the baby might just waddle too close and...*poof*!

the protections in the Army are AFTER the fact as well.
you are missing my points... that i have reiterated more than one now.

the safety protocols, the guards, the chain of command, all are preventatives to others being hurt. the military can protect their weapons from unjust use while civilians cannot. if you go against the preventative measures in the military, as Erehwon Forest (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7918491&postcount=39) said, you would be stopped before you could do others harm. hence the trust in the military.
if this is not the case in the american army, then it is in a sad state of affairs and is utterly inadiquate in this respect. if an army that prides itself as being the best in the world, and that has the most money poured in it compared to the rest of the world too, cannot accomplish simple security of its weaponry, then it must be one of the worst run armies out there.

I'm saying I could have walked out with weapons and ammunition, and no one would have stopped me.

I would not have been stopped until after the fact. It might be sad to some, but it's evidently a compromise in practicality.

I'm saying I could have walked out with weapons and ammunition, and no one would have stopped me.

I would not have been stopped until after the fact. It might be sad to some, but it's evidently a compromise in practicality.
that is scary and wholly inadiquate on the part of the US military. that is not how it is supposed to be. i trust my military in the UK because they protect their weapons and train soldiers to understand their responsibility. if there is indeed no real difference between the accountability and preventability of civilians and soldiers to commit violent and unequivocally (with guns) lethal acts, then there is indeed no reason to trust one over the other, as you say.

i can still trust the UK's military however because they do their job responsibly. on your information i cannot, any longer, trust or respect the american military.

once again this brings us to the underlying issue: guns for all or for none? if neither the military nor civillians can control their weaponry, then either everyone should be allowed guns (unacceptable risk imo) or nobody should have them.

The staff on the other hand can easily take some guns with them when they take the weekend off drinking in their summer cottages.That again depends on who and where, and what gun. In the two places I served, it would have been absolutely illegal and impossible unless the other officers were in on it for anyone to take an assault rifle or any other long arm or heavier weapon out of the area on their weekend off.

The few who had been issued their own pistols might have been able to pull it off without as much trouble (since those were stored in a separate area that most officers could access on their own if they had the keys and the access code), but that'd still be illegal.

And if this happens, it only shows that there is not enough discipline in the officer ranks. The laws and ordinances are in place and very clear about these things. If they aren't followed, then someone should bloody well do something about it. The commander of our guard unit, a 1st lieutenant (yliluutnantti), was not the least bit afraid of giving hell to the commanders (komentajakapteeni) and higher ranking officers of the navy depot and the marine company. He was a nasty fucker, but at least he was an equal opportunity nasty fucker as far as rank was concerned.

Illegal, yes. Impossible, no. Not enough discipline in the officer ranks, true. I think you could find stories of officers shooting 7.62 Rk 95's for fun in their get- togethers if you bothered to google it up. I remember reading about at least 3 such events.

I think you could find stories of officers shooting 7.62 Rk 95's for fun in their get- togethers if you bothered to google it up. I remember reading about at least 3 such events.Yeah, I probably could. Before the new firearm law, it wouldn't have been that special either. It may have even been legal for officers to create a "training event", although that would clearly be against the intent of the laws.

Regardless of, or perhaps even because of this not being very rare, I still think the answer here is to put up stricter regulations and make sure they're followed. The argument of the author of this thread is completely lost on me.

1. Soldiers and police are no more reliable than civilians in terms of following rules. Even if you have rules, taken as a whole, they are just as likely to commit crimes, assaults, killings, and other abuses with weapons.

2. If this is true (and the US Army seems to have given me the liberty to hang out with weapons from 1987 to 1991 in such fashion), then why would someone believe that it's OK for the police and military to have weapons and not civilians?

There is no special instruction (hey! don't shoot civilians!) in fact, for soldiers, you get quite the opposite (kill it if you see it!).

So what makes a person believe that somehow it's safer with guns in military hands and not in civilian hands?

Yes, only authorities should have arms. Not individuals.

See http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvcoal/war2.html

Sure. But it must be a cultural thing. I won't even bother to think about it. Hell, it isn't so hard to get a firearm here, but when people get the urge to kill somebody, they choose an axe or a knife. And that's even if they owned a gun. Go figure. (I don't know how much the bullets cost here though... maybe they are extremely expensive).

EDIT: this referring to EF's post.

Hell, it isn't so hard to get a firearm here, but when people get the urge to kill somebody, they choose an axe or a knife. And that's even if they owned a gun.Must be in the blood. ;)

If this is true (and the US Army seems to have given me the liberty to hang out with weapons from 1987 to 1991 in such fashion), then why would someone believe that it's OK for the police and military to have weapons and not civilians?It is not true everywhere, and it does not need to be true anywhere. If the officers on guard duty were as strict to other officers as they are to non-officers, problems of this kind would be nearly non-existent here. There needs to be a change in attitude in the officer ranks, they have to be made to realize that just because someone is a buddy of yours isn't a good reason to let him take off with a machinegun.

And it happens that officers with a certain kind of training and background are equally strict for everyone, and I had the privilege of serving under a few of those. This means it's possible to train all officers in the same way, to impart them all with the same attitude: that they need to uphold the discipline of everyone, not just the conscripts.

With those minor changes to the training and working environment of officers, it would become just as hard for everyone to sneak off weapons from military compounds as I described it being for me earlier. People attempting it would, as a rule, be caught before or during the attempt, not after the fact.

Perhaps the most honest answer to your question that I can give you is that if the armed forces of my government were as sloppy and undisciplined as yours (by your description), I would not want them to have firearms.

Perhaps the most honest answer to your question that I can give you is that if the armed forces of my government were as sloppy and undisciplined as yours (by your description), I would not want them to have firearms.

Initially, I thought this was pretty lax. Maybe not. What JB hasn't told us is what the purpose of the armory was. If this was for a deployable rifle company, or MP company, or something like that, it would be beneficial to allow easy access to weapons.

If I were a member of a deployable unit, I'd like to be as familiar as I could be with all my gear. I'd like to field strip and clean my rifle regularly. I'd reallly like to shoot it as often as I could. Maybe we aren't seeing the whole picture.

Deployable rifle company - part of 2/502nd INF.

The armorer had to be someone who lived in the barracks so that the moment the alert was called, he could go down and immediately open the arms room before anyone else could really form a line to pick up weapons.

He was also expected to pull extra hours to keep everything in working order, so I was in there ALL THE TIME. No questions asked - that's the way the commander wanted it.

And we were ready to roll on a moment's notice.

People trust soldiers and police with weapons because both have a need for them. It is the job of the military to go out and kill people that we don't like and to defend the courtry agaisnt invasion. It is the job of the police to protect the majority from lawbreakers and kill the people who get too out of line. Obviously, firearms are necessary for proper performance of these duties.

On the other hand, civilians have no duty that requires them to have firearms. To protect others? That isn't a duty. In fact, it should be discouraged. Trying to protect others only causes trouble and opens one up to potential lawsuits. Self defense? There is no right to self defense. If you are about to be murdered you should call the police and wait patiently for them to arrive. Recreation? Is that really a good reason?

Of course, US citizens are subject to a law called the militia act. Under it, every male citizen 18-45 is a member of a reserve militia. This is the justification for the Selective Service, among other things. At one time, the militia act required male citizens is this age range to own and maintain the current standard issue weapon of the US Army .
Unfortunatly, that law is never going to be reinstated.

It should be noted, however, that jurisdictions with compulsery firearmy ownership have some of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.

As for methods of securing weapons used by the military, it is pretty stupid to severly restrict access. In the event of an attack, if those who have access can't get to the armory for some reason the people who need guns are prety well screwed.

well firstly there is a rigid chain of command in the military. only the intelligent and responsible few can reach the top of this hierarchy
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Obviously never heard of the term REMF then.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Obviously never heard of the term REMF then.
You read too many Tom Clancy books. High ranking officers aren't stupid. Most majors are, but that's a different problem.

Generals are usually pretty bright guys. The grunts wouldn't do nearly as well as they do without the kind of leadership that we have in the armed forces.

and Generals are what i was talking about.

what is the term REMF then? (showing my ignorance ;) )

and Generals are what i was talking about.

what is the term REMF then? (showing my ignorance ;) )

It's an impolite way of referring to the boobs in the rear that make the front line troops miserable. Rear Etchalon Mother F....

I've found most of the rear etchalon boobs really want the front line guys to do well. Otherwise, they might just be on the front lines themselves.

Yes, I can spell echelon.

destroy all guns and give everyone melee weapons or usually nonlethal weapons

then let everyone duke it out, last man standing wins

destroy all guns and give everyone melee weapons or usually nonlethal weapons

then let everyone duke it out, last man standing wins
I dunno. I'd much rather just give everybody a musket instead and say, "Try and rob a liquor store with this, biatch."

Man, funny mental picture there.

It's funny. Not this, but what I saw in Israel this summer. All the soldiers in Israel take their weapons home with them. Seems like a good practice, considering the environment. There were stories in the paper about how the policy was being reconsidered for soldiers that weren't deployed to the West Bank, Gaza, etc. Turns out the kids in the IDF and IAF just couldn't keep track of their weapons and they were being stolen by terrorists at alarming rates!

What does this have to do with gun control in the US? I guess as JB has said, the vast majority of people in the US Armed Services are trustworthy.
There were several incidents of palestinians trying to take out israeli civvies with machine guns and submachineguns. None of them went that well for the terrorists. After those they pretty much went with bombing. Having an armed populace works.

I dunno. I'd much rather just give everybody a musket instead and say, "Try and rob a liquor store with this, biatch."

Man, funny mental picture there.
oh yeah, black powder and ball musktes and pistols for all, hold up a store with a black powder pistol, i can see it now, some guy walks in and goes into the bathroom to try and load his gun ebcause oyu know you can load it aheado ftime something would fuck up, then walk out of the bathroom and try to rob the store with it

do you feel safer knowing that I was given arms

Without them, how would you scratch your nuts in the morning? I'm glad you have them.

Now, if I had a room with over 200 M-16s, 12 M-240 machineguns, and 36 M-249 SAW machineguns and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition on hand at my house, you would be worried if I had that kind of access, would you not?

Um. Actually, this may sound strange, but... Are you trying to tell me that while on base the soldiers have their personal weapons stored in an arms room, locked away? That *would* worry me.

I'd think there'd be a lot of benefits to carrying rifles at all times (loaded mag, chamber empty). Yeah it's somewhat dangerous for newbies, but it teaches the right habits, both about safety and about being armed 24/7.

I've also heard references to "unload bins" at the gates of bases in Iraq... are they just to eject chambered rounds, or?

As for methods of securing weapons used by the military, it is pretty stupid to severly restrict access. In the event of an attack, if those who have access can't get to the armory for some reason the people who need guns are prety well screwed.With the kind of system I described from the base I was stationed in, what kind of scenarios can you come up with where it would take longer for the grunts to get access to the room than it would take them to get their kit on? The person responsible for the weapons room was around the barrack 24/7.

As for getting used to carrying and operating the guns, we had them for training and maintenance for an average of about 15-20 hours a week (excluding the weekends, since most had those off), assuming there was no out-of-base training. When we were out of base on an exercise, we had the rifles with us, but we were also either in the constant supervision of the command chain up to the platoon training commanders (lieutenants) or camping in the middle of nowhere. That was quite enough to make the weapon feel like a part of you.

With the kind of system I described from the base I was stationed in, what kind of scenarios can you come up with where it would take longer for the grunts to get access to the room than it would take them to get their kit on? The person responsible for the weapons room was around the barrack 24/7.


Morter shell or bomb goes off near the barraks, the only person with a set of keys is crushed under a collapsing wall. Grenade goes off 3 inches from the only person with a set of keys. The force of the blast slightly warps the keys.

Any system which relys on one person not dying is a horrible manor is not reliable.

Morter shell or bomb goes off near the barraks, the only person with a set of keys is crushed under a collapsing wall. Grenade goes off 3 inches from the only person with a set of keys. The force of the blast slightly warps the keys.

Any system which relys on one person not dying is a horrible manor is not reliable.You seem to have some pretty strange ideas about how armies are mobilized. In peace-time, a unit stationed well within the borders of a sovereign nation will be warned of a possible incoming attack and will be ready and waiting way before any mortar shells are fired in any direction.

The likelihood of an artillery shell, bomb or missile killing the person responsible for the keys before every soldier is ready in full kit and waiting for the attack is about equal to the likelihood of an alien spaceship suddenly appearing into the base parking lot, Jesus stepping out and taking the guy with the keys away to space with him.

The thing is, we're talking about peace-time procedures, when there is no immediate threat of attack. An enemy combat force cannot simply teleport next door and commence firing. In a combat zone things are obviously different, as has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread.

Um. Actually, this may sound strange, but... Are you trying to tell me that while on base the soldiers have their personal weapons stored in an arms room, locked away? That *would* worry me.

I'd think there'd be a lot of benefits to carrying rifles at all times (loaded mag, chamber empty). Yeah it's somewhat dangerous for newbies, but it teaches the right habits, both about safety and about being armed 24/7.

I've also heard references to "unload bins" at the gates of bases in Iraq... are they just to eject chambered rounds, or?

We had to clear our weapons before entering certain areas. Then dry fire them into a barrel of sand. I think that's what the unload bins are.

As far as carrying weapons around, I don't think the base in North Carolina or Georgia, or wherever JB was stationed was in that much danger of being overrun. Typical for troops in garrison.

Different story in Iraq, I'm sure. In Desert Shield, I had a few magazines loaded and ready. Policy varied from base to base about putting loaded magazines in the weapons. When we were away from a base, my driver, radioman, and I all had loaded weapons ready to fire. Desert Storm found us with as much ammo as we could find and carry.

You seem to have some pretty strange ideas about how armies are mobilized. In peace-time, a unit stationed well within the borders of a sovereign nation will be warned of a possible incoming attack and will be ready and waiting way before any mortar shells are fired in any direction.

The likelihood of an artillery shell, bomb or missile killing the person responsible for the keys before every soldier is ready in full kit and waiting for the attack is about equal to the likelihood of an alien spaceship suddenly appearing into the base parking lot, Jesus stepping out and taking the guy with the keys away to space with him.

The thing is, we're talking about peace-time procedures, when there is no immediate threat of attack. An enemy combat force cannot simply teleport next door and commence firing. In a combat zone things are obviously different, as has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread.

There is always some possibility of attack. If Pearl Harbor has taught us nothing it should be that just because you're not currently at war with someone doesn't mean they won't attack your bases.

Sure, it is easy to detect entire army's mobilizing, but it is also easy get get small special forces units into a country. Bases deep inside a soverign nation can be attacked by suprise. It just requires a lot of planning to do so. Although, to be quite honest, I'd think they'd just use a low yeild nuclear bomb to vaporize the base.

I dunno. I'd much rather just give everybody a musket instead and say, "Try and rob a liquor store with this, biatch."

Man, funny mental picture there.

A blackpowder smoothbore shotgun is nothing to laugh at at close range.

It's also easier to load with things other than lead balls. Nails, for instance. Or loose change.

Maybe we should take away every form of media except old printing presses and quill pens, because that's all they had back in the days of the Founding Fathers when they came up with the First Amendment. Oh, and we'll bring back praying to God at all our meetings, just like they did. I don't think you would find that funny.

I was in a unit that had to deploy overseas by air within a few hours of receiving word. That's why things were set up that way.

Units in Europe were similar. It wasn't undisciplined. It was a trust system.

In Europe, we expected a rapid Warsaw Pact attack (back in the day). You would need to get to the arms room pretty quick.

I would expect that the UK units would be shot in their underwear, still getting dressed in their barracks.

Once again, having just one guy with the key wouldn't actually slow down the mobilization of a unit, since that person is always present to allow access when it is necessary. If there's the slightest hint of perhaps a war coming on, those weapons would be distributed in the blink of an eye.

And if you're really expecting a massive attack, radars are going to pick it up the second that large troops start moving, at which point all bases will be warned. Only when there are combat-ready units already in position in both sides of a narrow border area is it likely that there will be shots fired before everyone has had adequate time to equip -- in other words, in modern times in the areas discussed (civilized Western nations), it ain't gonna happen.

I would expect that the UK units would be shot in their underwear, still getting dressed in their barracks.Absolutely, because, as we all know, any restriction on the access of personnel without security clearance to weapons and ammunition during non-elevated defense conditions automagically deteriorates every soldier's Putting Clothes On skills.