|
Post by nonamouse on Jan 6, 2010 16:52:35 GMT -5
Lots of great input here. I hope that the tragedy in Vegas has at least raised the topic of better security within our agency.
In answer to the question about the location of the Vegas hearing office, it was directly across the street in the other federal building. We will never know if the shooter picked the "wrong" federal building or if he meant to go to the one he entered. The email from our Commish stated that some employees in our hearing office witnessed the shooting and all of them were allowed to go home for the rest of the day.
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Jan 6, 2010 17:36:51 GMT -5
I agree with PF. I can think of several ALJs in my office who I would not want to carry a concealed weapon. I just do not think they could safely handle a firearm. The risk of accidental discharge is too great, and SSA cannot expose federal employees to the risk of accidental discharge. Enhanced security by way of trained guards and good solid doors with locks to keep the public from entering employee work areas is the way to go. I have served in the military, including combat zones, have plenty of training with firearms, and have a concealed weapon permit. However, I still believe firearms should be kept out of the non-law enforcement federal work place. Even the Army has very strict rules regarding circumstances where a soldier can carry a firearm and ammo. I think "enhanced security" at work would be grand, but we need to think of whatever won't cost them a dollar because the agency won't pay for it! They could make a good start by requiring that all offices search bags and at least wand all non-employees. I also agree that there are numerous people I would not want to have a gun at work (or anywhere). I would be a bit happier if we had the option to carry to the secured part of our floor and then use the type of lock box drop found at the county jail where you unholster, lock your handgun in the security box and keep the key with you until you leave the facility. I know what you mean in your post but if we limit firearms to real "law enforcement" then we are SOL at many hearing offices. We don't even rate a real federal protective services cop. Can you say "rent-a-cop" who met the minimum state standards to carry a gun and has less training than I do . . . but I'm sure they are saving the taxpayers a dollar or two an hour on that wage plus all kinds of bucks with the lack security equipment. Just an aside, your point about the military and their weapon controls highlights a huge difference between military policies and those of civilian law enforcement. In the civilian population there is no "rear" and no "combat zone" allowing that type of weapons restriction. There is a need to carry weapons and to be ready to respond with any needed level of "force" everywhere and all of the time. Most of the time our "weapon" was our brain. We learned to always be aware of our surroundings and to think ahead when going to a new location about approaches, possible points of ambush and a whole lot of other things even if it was a "lost dog" or something else seemingly harmless. I carry those lessons from the street with me to this day and I thnk that everyone should take some personal responsibility for their safety at a minimum by being aware of their surroundings and having some minimal plans for possible scenarios like a berserk claimant. The plan could be as simple as throw the nearest object at their face and run like heck for the fire escape. I had someone try to kill me after I responded to give him medical attention, so maybe I'll never just be a passive civilian. I think a good point was already made that anyone can pay attention and report things that don't seem right.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 6, 2010 17:58:50 GMT -5
"if you can't hit your target, you shouldn't be carrying a gun - it's not that hard if you've had any training" I beg to differ. Hitting paper targets on a range is easy with training. Hitting a live human being that is shooting back is very different. There is no real training for a live firefight. If you have never been shot at you have no idea of your physical and psychological reaction. Most firefights have a very low number of "hits." You are moving, ducking, hiding, your heart is racing and you can not take your nice stance to shoot back. Plus your "target" is moving so you can't aim at him. Jamie's point about the number of trained officers and the number of shots is well taken. This isn't TV where everybody hits someone on the first shot. Actually it is very hard to hit a target under real life circumstances. What chinook says you can take to the bank and receive interest. Most folks who pack as permit-holders of a concealed weapon have never been in a firefight. Having been in a few (what I call a stand-up shoot-outs) I can tell you that what was described in Las Vegas is no surprise. And that points to the fact that hitting a moving target when you are scared crap-less is a hard thing to do. Further, its not something I'd like to do again. Now, if I really thought I needed to pack, I would. And I've talked about it with my contemporaries. But I follow my advice earlier in this thread. And I hear what has been said. Having felt that level of fear, it tends to stay with you. But we are here and they are there.
|
|
|
Post by wilddog on Jan 6, 2010 18:51:52 GMT -5
Lots of great input here. I hope that the tragedy in Vegas has at least raised the topic of better security within our agency. ------------ I couldn't agree more, Nonamouse, and I'm really glad that while there have been some disagreements, the tone has stayed civil during this discussion - this discussion could have become somewhat nasty, as the subject of guns can be quite controversial, but fortunately it didn't.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Jan 6, 2010 18:57:43 GMT -5
I agree wholeheartedly with Chinhook and PF. A live firefight is not something you can really prepare for, and no matter how good you are at shooting paper targets, you REALLY don't know how you will react until you're in the midst of one.
|
|
|
Post by zarco522 on Jan 7, 2010 23:30:58 GMT -5
I generally agree with those who argue against adding guns to a fire fight. I do want to add, however, that my office provided two officers to one of my hearings, without my even asking. My scheduler had looked at the file and extensive psych and criminal record. I was fairly sure that the claimant wouldn't go off at his current age, but his history was not great and the VE and HR had to sit very close to him (both women). No one batted an eye about adding security, and I think he assumed they were always there.
|
|