Should all branches of the US military, including the Coast Guard, be required to have basic weapons qualifica

Question

When I was in Iraq, we had some Navy personel that had never fired a rifle in their life, and the Marines of other Navy people had to show them how to use them. I believe that all branches need to qualify all personel on the M-16A2 and the M-9. The Marines and Army are required to qualify on the basic infantry/ riflemen weapons, such as the M-16, SAW, M-60, M-203 grenade launcher, laws rocket (forgive me if they no longer use the LAWS rocket), claymore mine, and a few others I have forgotten about. The other branches should be required to qualify o the m-16 and M-9 and familiarized with the same weapons that the above mentioned are used by the Marines and Army on a regular basis. What do you think?

Answer 1

They ARE required to have basic weapons training. My husband is Air Force and is a sharp shooter on the M-16, My brother is Coast Gaurd and he too is a sharp shooter on the M-16. They are taught those basic weapon skills at basic just like the Army and Marines. Although the trianing is definitely not as intense as Marine training :) Those Navy personnel probably were trained and just totally blanked when it came to shooting the weapon. Some branches only require recertification every 3 years. The Air Force certainly has no reason to trian thier personnel for grenade launchers and other weapons. It all depends on the branch and the missions they accomplish. My husband has been on 6+ deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and has yet to fire a weapon there.

Answer 2

Don't know whats up with that. I know that in order to go through USAF basic you have to show proficiency on the M-16A2. The same goes for the Army and Marine Corps. If the Navy doesn't train their people on this then they have a problem. People say the Air Force is soft, but at least we are trained in rifle and small arms.

Did some recent research on the topic. The Navy does not have basic familiarization with small arms because we do not worry about people trying to board and take over our ships, they just sink them. The bases, however, are protected by shore patrol who are trained with the weapons after basic or by the Marines. Other than that the bridge officers are trained in small arms training, so that if by chance someone does get into the control room of any of our ships they can do whatever necessary to stop them.

Answer 3

No. I see no reason why a Navy airplane captain (crew chief) working on a carrier should have to demonstrate proficiency with small arms. Why waste time training him on something he will never touch?

There are many other examples.

If the service members get sent to an area where they need weapons training, they should get weapons training.

Answer 4

YES and they do, after all you must be able to pick up your weapon or any bodies elses and be able to defend yourself and others if someone in the U,S Armed forces could'nt use a weapon the had to "SKIP OR SLEPT THROUGH BASIC TRAINING" PERIOD! My weapon was the 203 and who said they dont use the LAW anymore?

Answer 5

Yes, I can't believe that's not a requirement!! That's very important to know in the military; it could save your life. My daughter also had to have medical training before she left and carries a "Dr.'s" bag around with IV's, syringes, etc. That is very very important!

Answer 6

every single of them, from kitchen sweeper to general should be able to use a rifle. Other weapons too if possible- essentially every trooper should know how to drive any vehicle and operate any weapon that he/she/it may come across- be it one of yours, your allies or your enemies.
By "know" and "operate" I don't mean they have to be expert level. But definetly enough to know how to use the stuff safely.

Answer 7

I loved teaching the Navy how to shoot , always a laugh .
They couldn't hit a barn if they were inside it .