Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley says 8 minute response time in mass public shootings is “adequate” and “pretty quick,” opposes letting soldiers carry weapons on military bases

8 Apr , 2016  

Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley says 8 minute response time in mass public shootings is fast enough

Here is a video clip of the Army chief of staff testifying on April 7th that it isn’t necessary to arm soldiers on military bases, such as Fort Hood attack, because:
“We have adequate law enforcement on those bases to respond … You take the Fort Hood incident number two, the one where I was the commander of Third Corps, those police responded within eight minutes and that guy was dead.”  (This discussion starts at 1:57 into the video.)
It is true that 8 minutes is a “pretty quick” response time, as the General says, but to say that eight minutes where 3 people were killed and another 14 were injured is “adequate” is pretty amazing.  In the first Fort Hood attack, the response time was about 10 minutes and 13 people were killed and 30 wounded.
Either 8 or 10 minute response times are much too slow when you are talking about stopping these mass public shootings.  Soldiers stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq have been required to carry their military weapons with them at all times on US military bases.  General Milley wanted to talk about this in terms of privately owned weapons, but that isn’t the question here.
A recent Rasmussen Report poll shows that 81 percent of military service members support the ability for the military to carry concealed weapons while they are on base.
The entire transcript is here:
“I’ve been involved in this such for quite time … such as recruiting stations, such as Chattanooga, the assessments are done by the local commanders … and make a determination whether it was appropriate or not appropriate to arm them. So he delegated the authority in the assessment to the commanders, which is appropriate. Commanders should make those decisions because one size won’t fit all. But some of the constraints on that: people have to be trained, it must be a government owned weapon, can’t carry privately owned weapons, et cetera … In terms of carrying privately owned weapons on military bases, concealed, privately owned weapons, that is not authorized. That is a DOD policy. I do not recommend that it be changed. We have adequate law enforcement on those bases to respond … You take the Fort Hood incident number two, the one where I was the commander of Third Corps, those police responded within eight minutes and that guy was dead. So, that’s pretty quick and a lot of people died in the process of that, but that was a very fast, evolving event and I am not convinced, from what I know, that carrying privately owned weapons would’ve stopped that individual. I’ve been around guns all my life, I know how to use them, and arming our people on our military bases and allowing them to carry concealed, privately owned weapons, I do not recommend that as a course of action.”

,


18 Responses

  1. Rick says:

    This guy probably has armed guards who protect him while he sits behind a desk. IF he ever ventures outside of that protective bubble, he’s probably still guarded by armed individuals wherever he goes. He’s a typical tool of the regime currently occupying our White House, parroting the party line like a good stooge. He’s also fully compliant with the regime’s active decimation of our military capabilities. He’s a coward who’s only interested in covering his own backside in order to protect/preserve his career. He does not care about the lives and safety of those who are unfortunately under his pathetic excuse for a command.

    • CG says:

      He may well be the coward described but I think it’s also possible he had the choice of make these inane comments or lose his job, which doesn’t speak well of him either. As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes (and minutes) away…

    • TCHall says:

      He’s a General, that means he can carry a weapon anywhere, anytime.

      http://m.army.mil/article/6938/General_officer_pistol_program_has_rich_history

    • Friar Jak says:

      Rick (and all the name callers below) clearly has no military experience. Consider, in Vietnam all pistols were taken away from the troops in the combat zone after the first year because there were so many “accidents”. Basically, the young 90 day wonders didn’t have the common sense to not play quick draw cowboys with live weapons. If you have experienced Friday night just off base or even sometimes in the on base clubs, you would not want to arm these well and deservingly intoxicated kids. More would die than have already died in these mass shooting incidents. One careless discharge, one car backfire, and bam, everyone returns fire. Inebriated fire, but still deadly. The more who are shooting, the more who will continue to shoot until control is gained by the authorities. Many more would be dead and wounded than in infrequent incidents now.

      • johnrlott says:

        Dear Friar Jak:
        The ban was not proposed until 1992/1993. At that point there was no examples of problems, just a concern about creating a professional working environment. Since then what is clear is that there were no accidental discharges for troops that carried guns with them on military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. In both places troops were mandated to carry at all times.

  2. Tom Hatter says:

    When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. How can a General of the United States Army say that 8 minutes is a quick response time to an active shooter incident! That is one outrageous statement! Give the men of the military their weapons to prevent and respond to these active shooter incidents at military facilities!

  3. Larry Bassett says:

    How in the name of hell did this moron get to this rank? Proves the old point that when seconds count, the police are minutes away!

  4. Christopher Hoffman says:

    The stupidity of that claim in mind numbing. The response time cannot be “adequate” until an assailant can be stopped BEFORE killing multiple victims.

  5. oatka says:

    When one of these people are up for investigation and bring up something like this “adequate response” lunacy, I wish one of the interrogators would stop him and play an 8-minute tape of a gunshot every 5 seconds and have have everyone sit through the entire run. Then ask this person if he still thinks eight minutes, or three, or four, our five . . . is “adequate”.

    What comes to mind is the old tale of a defense attorney claiming that his client couldn’t have murdered the victim as “he was only there for three minutes”. The prosecution asked the court to be silent for three minutes and let everyone’s imagination do the rest. (The guy was convicted. )

  6. M says:

    If one is old enough to be in the military and have to fight in wars with weapons in more dangerous situations that that, then thay are damn well old enough and qualified to be armed anytime they so choose, damn ignorant asshole!

    • Friar Jak says:

      M and all the name callers below, clearly have no military experience. Consider, in Vietnam all pistols were taken away from the troops in the combat zone after the first year because there were so many “accidents”. Once inside the wire, all weapons were stacked and not carried around. Basically, the young 90 day wonders didn’t have the common sense to not play quick draw cowboys with live weapons.

      If you have experienced Friday night just off any base or even sometimes in the on-base clubs, you would not want to arm these deservingly well intoxicated warriors. More would die than have already died in these mass shooting incidents. One careless discharge, one car backfire, and bam, everyone returns fire. Inebriated fire, but still deadly. The more who are shooting, the more who will continue to shoot until control is gained by the authorities (MPs, NCOs, Officers). Many more would be dead and wounded than in infrequent incidents now.

      It is interesting how often the ones calling others ignorant ___s show their own inability to comprehend or comment intelligently.

  7. I believe procedure should Allow their rifles with ammo on their person but they should not lock and load until a threat is percieved?
    I worked South central L.A, after the Army. My area was busy and congested but I would easily make it in half the time, and where MPs?.

  8. Rules of engagement get us killed. The military brass is why we haven’t won a war since Korean War. We will fight WW III on American soil because of their failed , political correct, policies. General Milley and his ilk are a disgrace to the uniforn. He sounds like a bedwetting liberal to me.

  9. Don Kretzer II says:

    We train our men an women in uniform in combat training with live ammo. But having them on base with live weapons and ammo is a bad idea????? What reality is this guy living in?

    • Friar Jak says:

      Again I say, If you have experienced Friday night on any base, you would not want to arm these deservingly well intoxicated warriors. More would die than have already died in these mass shooting incidents. One careless discharge, one car backfire, and bam, everyone returns fire. Inebriated fire, but still deadly. The more who are shooting, the more who will continue to shoot until control is gained by the authorities (MPs, NCOs, Officers). Many more would be dead and wounded than in infrequent incidents now. Reconsider your own question; What reality [are you] living in?

      • Cook says:

        You must not have any faith in the men and women in uniform to think we would just start shooting when we hear a back fire from a car. We are trained to acquire distance, direction and positive id of target before we open fire. And their must have been a problem with soldiers during Vietnam if they couldn’t carry weapons on bases while deployed because in Iraq and Afghanistan it was s.o.p and mandatory to carry our weapons with ammo on the bases while deployed so thanks for your vote in confidence

  10. Eric says:

    General Milley is obligated to follow the policy of elected officials (eyes roll at those officials). Being said, it seems he is following Bill Clintons’ executive order in affirmation of which prohibits his stance to speak openly concerting legal carry of personal firearms by our “Soldier Citizens” as well as our own militia’s, states, and people despite being upon said installations. I remind you Bill Clinton as well implemented open bases: It was freakish driving onto Norfolk Naval Base with no guards, ID checks, while being a Navy Veteran and working for a military contractor, it made no sense, back then!

  11. Red Baron says:

    Another government stooge. This guy didn’t get where he is by bucking the system. Did anyone expect otherwise? If terrorists become aware that anyone and everyone leaving a military base is unarmed, they could be shooting outside the gate like fish is a barrel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *