Only Military and Police should have guns


PDA






leadcounsel
December 28, 2012, 11:46 PM
The silly notion that only "military and police" are trained enough to own guns is dangerous. In my years in the military, including time at some of the best trained infantry and special forces, there were countless mishaps with guns; negligent discharges were shockingly common and some resulted in injuries, and there were lost guns. In the Army as a whole, including the Military Police and Criminal Investigation Division (CID), the misconduct and assaults is staggering, including negligent discharges and horseplay resulting in deaths, murders, assaults, sex assaults, thefts of guns, breaking and entering, etc. So the idea that only the "military and police" should have guns demonstrates a dangerous lack of understanding. Remember, "military and police" are humans too, with their own faults and imperfections, including serious criminal misconduct. Allowing only them to own the guns is very dangerous for America.

If you enjoyed reading about "Only Military and Police should have guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Devonai
December 29, 2012, 12:24 AM
While I probably haven't spent as much time around soldiers with live rounds as you, I didn't see a ND either at Infantry school or after almost eight years in the Guard. So, my perception of such a danger is lower.

That being said, I don't hold soldiers up to an embellished standard. In fact, the elitism of some in law enforcement, and the public perception that persists, bothers me. Cops do not have some sort of special Jedi training that makes them more worthy of being armed. They are armed as part of the social contract, nothing more. I don't think any serious discussion of the reduction in arms in this country can be had without including cops, which of course is far too much of a golden goose to gore.

Grassman
December 29, 2012, 12:26 AM
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

HorseSoldier
December 29, 2012, 01:25 AM
Well, you can't disarm police because, of course, in a country with porous borders and 300+ million guns out there, there is no sane expectation that criminals will ever disarm. I read somewhere within the last few years London in the UK has about 3000 gun crimes per year with gun laws in place that make Washington DC and Chicago look like libertarian Meccas.

Which, of course, is also the critical flaw in restricting gun ownership for law abiding citizens but enough law abiding citizens are hoplophobes who are terrified by the thought of having to be responsible for their own protection that we're looking at another round of meaningless feel good legislation to keep the sheeple feeling safe at night.

infmp32
December 29, 2012, 01:37 AM
In one year of active duty when my unit was called up I saw enough ND's and dead clearing barrels to last a lifetime. And that was in an infantry unit. I laugh pretty hard at the notion that just because someone wears a uniform they're exempt from being a dumb ass. Much like the population at large, there are all types handling weapons on a daily basis in uniform. Some area absolute gurus with firearms, some make you want to stand behind them 24/7.

rcmodel
December 29, 2012, 01:37 AM
Only Military and Police should have guns Well thats what Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong, and many other famous world leaders all said.

SO, it must be true?

rc

runes
December 29, 2012, 09:21 AM
Having been in the Navy in 68-69, let me say that our firearms training was the biggest joke ever. Five shots from a bolt action .22 at no target.
Should we have been trusted with a real gun?

Kaeto
December 29, 2012, 09:29 AM
The only firearms training I got when I was in the Navy (1981-85) was instruction on how to disassemble and reassemble a 1911. No rounds fired as the range was being worked on.

Steel Horse Rider
December 29, 2012, 09:52 AM
My experience from 30+ years in a technical field is that across the board with humanity in any endeavor maybe 25% of those involved are actually competent in their field and diligently try to work to the best of their ability. 25% are competent in their field but do not care whether they actually perform up to expectations (give a crap that is), and the other 50% either don't have a clue as to what they are doing, why they are doing it, or when they are supposed to do it. I think of that often whenever I board an airplane......

Romeo 33 Delta
December 29, 2012, 02:22 PM
Only police should have guns ... like a former Chief in a nearby city who managed to shoot himself in the hand while cleaning his personal pistol.

Apparently I'm a more responsible gun owner, having in 58 years of continuous gun ownership (age: 68) NEVER shot myself, NEVER had an "ND/AD", NEVER wounded or killed anyone (except for my time as a Combat infantryman in 1968).

The Elitists just make me shake my head!

P.O.2010
December 29, 2012, 03:22 PM
As someone who has worked as both a civilian Police Officer and a U.S. Army Military Policeman I can say without hesitation that what leadcounsel says is correct.

Many people don't realize just how serious a crime problem the Army has. As an MP I responded to countless reports of rape, aggravated assault, assault with intent to commit murder, burglary, domestic violence etc. At my first post I was routinely assigned to a patrol area where the nearest backup unit was fifteen to twenty minutes away and where drug dealing, burglary and gang activity were commonplace. My first week on the road I was nearly murdered by an infantryman armed with a butcher knife who was attempting to kill several other infantrymen after being released from a locked neuro-psychiatric ward. Some of the worst crimes I responded to were in fact committed by other MPs to include one violent domestic where I had to arrest one of my own patrolmen at gunpoint. At one point I was approached by two CID agents about joining the organization. One of the two agents was later arrested by civilian police for burglary.

What firearms training was I given to perform my duties? Fire 50 rounds at a stationary target from 25 yards for practice followed by another 50 rounds at a stationary target from 25 yards for qualification. That's it. No weapons retention, no instruction on how to shoot and move, nothing. Yet according to the powers that be I was qualified to carry a loaded M-9 pistol and exercise full powers of apprehension. To become proficient I had to seek out private instructors and pay them to train me the way I should have been trained in the first place. As a civilian Police Officer my training has been better but is still minimal with 90% of instruction being dedicated to passing the state mandated qualification table rather than surviving a gunfight.

The idea that Soldiers and Police are as a whole adequately trained is a myth. The vast majority are not properly trained, refuse to practice on their own time with any consistency and largely view their weapon as something they will never have to use. I've met far more civilians who are truly proficient with their weapons than I have Soldiers and Police. Based on my experience the idea that only Soldiers and Police are competent enough to carry and use firearms is completely false.

Pismopal
December 29, 2012, 03:23 PM
Remarks about police officers who have accidents with firearms makes what point? They should NOT carry protection and you should be allowed?...a good safety record with firearms is what police work is about?....Felons who are expert with all firearms should be considered for CCW permits and police work? I am sorry...a police officer had an AD..and the point is? We have a lot of guns in this country because we have a right to have them so there are a few careless people who have accidents...like in cars. The rank and file police officers I have met support the 2nd amendment..management weenies do not count..they usually go along with politics..whatever they are. :scrutiny:

P.O.2010
December 29, 2012, 03:30 PM
I believe the OP's point is that Soldiers and Police shouldn't be built up into hyper-competent demigods not that they should be disarmed. The issue isn't that Soldiers and Policemen carry guns the issue is that their right to keep and bear arms is no greater than that of the citizens whose rights they've sworn to protect.

Pilot
December 29, 2012, 03:40 PM
P.O. 2010, that is an eye opener for many, and I wish I could quote you on some other boards I frequent who think just because you've been in the military or a LEO, that you are the be all and aend all of firearm experts.

My previous gun club (I left because of a move, and joined one near my new home) often had local police come to practice to qualify. I have never seen so many violations of firearms safety rules including firing at a close handgun target when others were changing targets farther down range and had asked for and were given the "clear" command. I was also painted by muzzles several times where I took it upon myself to explain why it was not allowed and dangerous, then I left because I felt at risk. Some of these officers had their memberships revoked and asked not to return.

SlamFire1
December 29, 2012, 03:59 PM
The silly notion that only "military and police" are trained enough to own guns is dangerous.

That is one of the selling points to anti gun fools, but it is really all about control of the population.

The military and police draw their paychecks from the Government. If you are in charge of the Government you can exercise a great amount of control over your military and police because you have the power of the purse over them.

In fact, Politicians found a real taste for mercenary groups, like Blackwater, because mercenaries are fanatically obedient to their funding source . These mercenary type organizations will be used to control both the Military and Police if they get out of line.

But the whole thing boils down to control and controlling the population.

ms6852
December 29, 2012, 06:25 PM
Speaks for itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aSJgcpqePk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pf3ID3XQ6o

herkyguy
December 29, 2012, 10:35 PM
I shot a whopping total of 100 rounds PER YEAR carrying the M9. That was under the guise of Federal Law Enforcement Officer. Just saying.....

Deaf Smith
December 29, 2012, 10:41 PM
Only Military and Police should have guns

Alot of experts argree! Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Id1 Amin, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Mugbe, Castro, and many others gong back centuries all firmly felt only the government needs guns!

In fact, the British experts under King George believed that to. They tried to take OUR guns and well, you know what happened, right?

Deaf

joeh84
December 29, 2012, 11:30 PM
i seem to recall a number of army times articles over the past few years regarding the numbers of soldiers with felony records upon joining...

colorado_handgunner
December 29, 2012, 11:45 PM
"I'm the only one in this room professional enough" and we all know where that went.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Flannelman
December 30, 2012, 12:30 AM
Relating to ADs my BIL A now reserve officer in the NG but prior had been active duty for 5yrs and a long time hunter had a AD with his shotgun after duck hunting when he was cleaning it. Thankfully it was pointed straight up and only took out some drywall and roofing but still anyone who tries to say that the military and police are perfect is nuts.

On a side note I have only been handling firearms for 15yrs now and I have yet to have an AD as a civie. Though on the other side my neighbor shot himself in the finger with his .22 pistol last summer so the coin flips both ways but I guess the point is that you need to pay attention and be careful sometimes it only takes being careless once to loose the chance to do it ever again.


On a final note Tyrants love an unarmed population. Though If someone ever tried to roll up the Midwest that would be a hell of a fight

velojym
December 30, 2012, 12:46 AM
When I was working for an armored truck company, the only ND we ever had was from a retired police officer. Fortunately, nobody was hurt (just a spalled spot on the concrete floor, never found the slug), but when we were securing the floor, I noticed that his pistol was so packed up with lint and crap that I was frankly a little surprised that it went off in the first place.
Funny thing was... he was checking his pistol not six feet from our sand-filled safety barrel.

Dr_B
December 30, 2012, 12:56 AM
Every person I have met who thought "Only Military and Police should have guns" has been, without fail, someone who is afraid of guns, knows only what they have seen in movies, and has never fired one.

HorseSoldier
December 30, 2012, 04:28 AM
Many people don't realize just how serious a crime problem the Army has. As an MP I responded to countless reports of rape, aggravated assault, assault with intent to commit murder, burglary, domestic violence etc. At my first post I was routinely assigned to a patrol area where the nearest backup unit was fifteen to twenty minutes away and where drug dealing, burglary and gang activity were commonplace.

I've always said that in the military I have met both the best people in the world and the worst people in the world, with both groups wearing the same uniform I did.

When I was at Ft Stewart (pre-Iraq invasion) there were standing orders that female soldiers were not to travel alone after dark in the barracks areas due to the risk of sexual assault. Pizza delivery drivers would not leave their cars and look for specific barracks rooms for fear of muggings. There were blocks of barracks personnel not assigned to were just advised to avoid after dark, period. MPs patrolling those and some other barracks areas on foot routinely had beer bottles and other debris thrown at them from upper floor rooms. There were at least two homicides involving both military victims and perpetrators while I was there (one may have been an accident -- the shooter killed himself before MPs could locate him so it's a question mark). There was at least one meth lab discovered in a barracks room.

In short, while I wasn't at Ft Stewart as an MP (being a cavalry scout), the conditions there for MPs (some of whom I hung out with enough to absorb work stories) were as bad if not significantly worse in many ways than what I saw as a civilian police officer on the streets of a moderate sized American city. I could never really fathom why the post Provost Martial did not just raise hell and have chains of command decimate entire units for things like raining beer bottles down on patrolling MPs. But the command climate tolerated it, for whatever reason -- and this was before you could at least claim you were giving some latitude and forgiveness to guys going a bit off the rails after tours downrange.

hso
December 30, 2012, 08:45 AM
ARs can be purchased "off the shelf" in calibers suitable for hunting any sort of game in America making them suitable for every sporting purpose and not just for military use.

They can be used for target shooting, hunting, varmint control, and plinking.

They are about the only firearm that you can purchase 2 guns (lowers) to drop a different upper on to go to the range, the hunting camp or the plinking range and shoot in almost any sport.

Like any gun they can be misused and be involved in accidents, suicides and murders, but unlike any other firearm I can think of you can use this one platform for just about any legitimate shooting purpose from self defense to plinking to hunting to competition.

valnar
December 30, 2012, 08:58 AM
negligent discharges were shockingly common and some resulted in injuries, and there were lost guns. In the Army as a whole, including the Military Police and Criminal Investigation Division (CID), the misconduct and assaults is staggering, including negligent discharges and horseplay resulting in deaths, murders, assaults, sex assaults, thefts of guns, breaking and entering, etc.

You do realize that this statement could be taken a completely different way by the anti-gunners? I wouldn't use it in an argument.

Anti-gunner response:
So...you're saying that EVEN our highly trained police and military make tons of mistakes that result in deaths? Then why would we want civilians playing with them? Sounds too dangerous for the common man.

vito
December 30, 2012, 09:27 AM
My guess is that the average participant on this forum is far better trained and prepared to use a gun than the average LEO. One of my sons was a street cop in a big city for a few years. He often remarked how few of his fellow officers ever went to the range, other than the twice yearly qualification shooting. The qualification shooting, he related, was at a paper target about 3 yards out and than as long as your rounds hit the large paper target you were OK. For awhile he worked with a female officer who was afraid of guns, and carried her service weapon unloaded, despite the risk of discipline had she been discovered doing so. He liked going to the range and felt professionally obligated to be a reasonably good marksman with his sidearm, but admitted he was ridiculed by some fellow officers for being so concerned with his ability to shoot straight. My point of this is that many cops are poorly trained and prepared and have no special skills as compared to the public. And as for the military, I served 24 years in the Army and retired as a Lieutenant Colonel. But being in the Medical Service Corps, I was only required to be "familiarized" with my issue weapon by firing 4 or 5 rounds downrange every other year or so if I recall. Hardly what you would call being proficient. And since most of the military are not combat soldiers, my experience may not be atypical.

d-dogg
December 30, 2012, 09:44 AM
I'd say you are totally correct there vito. The majority of today's military is not a combatant force.

Other than the annual of bi-annual qualification, I never carried a weapon in the line of duty in my 20 year military career.

Years ago I discovered if you passed the "we like you" test, civilians were allowed to shoot at the local PDs range if no training exercises were otherwise being conducted. Couldn't count how many cops couldn't hit a bull's butt with a bass fiddle.

The military and police forces are attractive career paths to folks who want a secure job and a pension. Not a general indictment, but you know what I mean.

X-Rap
December 30, 2012, 10:43 AM
In the worst form of pandering many states allow CC permits to military or those honorably discharged when as has been pointed out the majority have had little or no real training with firearms not to mention handguns and civilian doctrine of carry. My understanding of the NYS laws also allow LEO to buy and own private forbiden weapons and mags while employed and I'm betting other restrictive states do likewise.
Having 2 sons in the military I hear a lot about how little some know or care about the use of firearms and how that goes for the instutional structure as well.
I am not trying to endorse strict civilian training but more point out my agreement with the op. Military and police that like and know guns probably gained much of that background prior or exclusive to their service and make the extra effort to keep and hone those skills exclusive to their regular required training.

locnload
December 30, 2012, 11:05 AM
Whenever I hear someone say that only the Police should be allowed to have handguns, I wonder if they have ever considered the "black market" aspect.
Lets say as of January 1, 2013, no civilian is allowed to buy, own, or posses a handgun. For the Cop on the street that means that the $500 Glock on his hip is sudenly worth $5000 on the black market. Think he feels safer now? :confused:

Deanimator
December 30, 2012, 11:11 AM
While I probably haven't spent as much time around soldiers with live rounds as you, I didn't see a ND either at Infantry school or after almost eight years in the Guard.
When I was in Korea in '80-'81, just about EVERY time the Ammo Holding Area (AHA) guards at Camp Howze were issued live rounds, there were unauthorized shooting incidents.

Of course that was Mr. Carter's Army, the ranks often looked like the bar scene in Star Wars, and "discipline" was an exotic concept, not unlike the Higgs boson...

Queen_of_Thunder
December 30, 2012, 11:21 AM
It's falsely assumed that because you are military or police you know how to shoot. In a broad sense that's true and in fact anyone can shoot a gun, an opposable thumb being the only requirement. The problem we encounter is the proficiency of the shooter. Proficiency is acquired through constant practice under all conditions not once or twice a year in comfortable surroundings.


BTW two things.

After my qualifications in Basic I got to the range once a year if the funding was there. We never went to qualify but to familiarize yourself with the gun and noise it made.


The Higgs Boson is no longer exotic so to speak.

Kansan
December 30, 2012, 02:03 PM
With 16 years of active duty military, I can absolutely corroborate the OP's statements. First time I saw a ND was a Fort Riley where a tanker let off a .50 Cal round off the top of an M1 Abrams, narrowly missing the loader who was standing on the front of the tank.

I saw & heard several instances in Iraq of AD's into clearing barrels. I watched a soldier ND at a range at Fort Bragg. In Afghanistan, I watched (and jumped back 10 feet in a single bound) when a soldier stitched the ground in front of my vehicle upon exiting the back of his vehicle with a M240 machine gun (in front of a school, I might add). I've seen a soldier draw his weapon from the arms room and discover that it had a round in the chamber. I just heard a story last week from a fellow soldier about the time he accidentally discharged his CCW while off-post in a Target store.

On the other hand, I've been deployed for a combined total of almost 3 years and have rubbed shoulders with thousands of soldiers, 100% of whom were armed with a rifle or handgun or both, either locked and loaded or at the minimum with a loaded magazine in (chamber empty). During that time, I've never seen a gun go off by itself and in spite of the stories I mentioned above, I've never seen anyone injured by a ND or AD. That being the case, I wish that we were trusted with weapons and ammo back in the US so that things like the Ft Hood shooting could be prevented.

Another pertinent point - do you know where our top-trained soldiers, such as Special Forces and other special operations folks, go to get their top-tiered training? Many of them go to civilian-run shooting schools! Granted, the civilians at most civilian shooting schools are prior-military or prior-police, but the point remains that civilians can be and are just as highly trained as our highest trained military soldiers. Also, every soldier is a civilian both before and after being in the military. Also, as other posters mentioned, if you shoot more than 100 rounds a year, you have more shooting experience than 95% of all soldiers (although some soldiers also enjoy shooting in their off time).

SharpsDressedMan
December 30, 2012, 02:51 PM
Oh, dont forget the unorganized militia. Those guys who keep an eye on the government, in the event it needs to be re-secured.:D

Hapworth
December 30, 2012, 02:57 PM
I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.

--William S. Burroughs

HorseSoldier
December 30, 2012, 04:47 PM
My guess is that the average participant on this forum is far better trained and prepared to use a gun than the average LEO. One of my sons was a street cop in a big city for a few years. He often remarked how few of his fellow officers ever went to the range, other than the twice yearly qualification shooting. The qualification shooting, he related, was at a paper target about 3 yards out and than as long as your rounds hit the large paper target you were OK

That varies tremendously from department to department. My agency's academy ran a firearms training program, especially with handguns, that compared favorably to the training I got during the secret squirrel days of my .mil career when I was assigned to support the cool kids with beards and all the fun toys. Our qual course is a pretty involved course of fire involving engagements out to 25 meters, movement drills and various manipulation drills and assorted other bells and whistles and tight timelines that demand a shooter demonstrate real proficiency and competence with his or her weapon. And we qualify quarterly, not annually or twice yearly.

. . . But, bullets cost money, and funding all that weapons training is a big political football that the department leadership has to run past city government when they pretty routinely start looking for ways to save money. I can see that fight getting lost a lot in other locations where the politics run more liberal and/or it's harder to point out a serious threat environment (i.e. Chicago and NYC are "gun free zones" ;) whereas here in AK we have the highest per capita firearms ownership in the nation and police officers and AST troopers deal with armed law abiding citizens and criminal suspects daily.)

avs11054
December 30, 2012, 05:22 PM
I was wokring at a school one time, and there was a teacher there who was from India. He told me how much safer he felt in India compared to the United States because only the police and the military had guns. Almost immediately after he told me that, he stated that the only bad thing about India was how corrupt police and the military were...

My thoughts are that the police and military are corrupt because they are the only people with guns...but I was wrong once before.

k_dawg
December 30, 2012, 07:28 PM
Those who put forth this arguement do not _care_ that it is incorrect.

It is all about disarming the lawful citizens. Not safety. Not violence. Not crime.

SilentStalker
December 30, 2012, 07:53 PM
I agree with all other comments so far. Another question to ask in regards to the military or police is, "What's to keep any member of LE or the military from going stir crazy and opening fire on civilians?" Just because they play that role that does not make them immune to mental instability, especially considering that their jobs would be considered high stress jobs to most. I don't know about you guys but quite frankly I do not feel comfortable with the LE and military being the only ones allowed to have arms. As far as I am concerned, if we have to get rid of ours then they should get rid of theirs. I mean we won't need any LE or military to carry guns after we all disarm, right? We will all be safe and violent free then so why do they need weapons? **cough cough**

KTXdm9
December 30, 2012, 08:01 PM
Those who put forth this arguement do not _care_ that it is incorrect.

It is all about disarming the lawful citizens. Not safety. Not violence. Not crime.
We have a winner. Either that or they are so utterly brain washed or lazy they don't want to have any personal accountability.

sean326
December 30, 2012, 08:13 PM
Only police should have guns ... like a former Chief in a nearby city who managed to shoot himself in the hand while cleaning his personal pistol.

Apparently I'm a more responsible gun owner, having in 58 years of continuous gun ownership (age: 68) NEVER shot myself, NEVER had an "ND/AD", NEVER wounded or killed anyone (except for my time as a Combat infantryman in 1968).

The Elitists just make me shake my head!
I live in a suburb 30 miles outside a major city, we still are fairly rural though.
The biggest news around here was about 6 months ago when a lifelong decorated cop, the training and safety officer for his department barricaded himself in his ex wife's house. He held off our whole department including a tracked APC for a day with a sniper rifle and shot a cop. A few months after that a cop from a neighboring (south) town shot himself in his body armor claiming he was attacked in a bid for attention. About a year prior in a another neighboring town (north) an active duty soldier went AWOL and hunted down and killed his wife and inlaws.

I'm pretty comfortable with civilians having guns as well... All we get our hands on.

OptimusPrime
December 31, 2012, 02:08 AM
I agree with everyone's posts here too, my time in active Army units were sprinkled with all kinds of ADs (failures of rodding off the range, clearing in the arms room, getting ready to board deployment buses for the aircraft, etc.)
But further to the OP's point, soldiers and police are human and don't have any sort of magical cloak of perfection for gun safety or rational behavior. What's the current percentage of missed shots for police discharges? 60% misses? Hell, I was in an artillery unit that had a pretty good reputation for shelling our own on-post housing units at least once a year. We're talking about people shooting their fingers with a .22? Try 155mm landing in someone's front yard; that becomes criminally negligent pretty quickly.
Soldiers and police are people too. No better, and sometimes worse. Definitely not magical.

Greggo
December 31, 2012, 02:17 AM
Diane Feinstein and the anti-gun machine have already introduced the gun ban legislation, and it will be rammed through Congress and signed by the President if we do not Stand As One and act today.

Contact you Representative today:

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

Contact your Senators:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Please all of you, they are going to come get our guns if we don't stand together and act now!

RetiredUSNChief
December 31, 2012, 03:15 AM
You do realize that this statement could be taken a completely different way by the anti-gunners? I wouldn't use it in an argument.

Anti-gunner response:
So...you're saying that EVEN our highly trained police and military make tons of mistakes that result in deaths? Then why would we want civilians playing with them? Sounds too dangerous for the common man.

Heh!

More likely, they'll push for total disarming of the police and military. After all, the ONLY reason a bad guy would have to shoot at them is because they have guns in the first place, right?

At least, that's the argument of some anti-military people...if we just lay down our arms and walk away, people will leave us alone.

Cooldill
December 31, 2012, 03:18 AM
Well hell that sounds quite a bit like Nazi Germany to me!

EnfieldEnthusiast
January 5, 2013, 12:55 PM
Police Officers cannot always be trusted to use their weapons properly either.There are members of the public whom are better trained & focused than they are.Polititions are so annoying.

Zardaia
January 5, 2013, 01:17 PM
I really don't like the term AD. Can anyone point to a single incident where a weapon went off accidentaly without human error? I.E. ND vs. AD? Not a range malfunction but an honest to god "It just went off, I never touched it." If a gun goes of without you wanting it to then 99.999% of the time it means you screwd up, barring freak mechanical failure of a well maintained weapon.

zdc1775
January 5, 2013, 02:59 PM
I watched my MG instructor have an ND while showing us how to load the M2, the round pasted maybe two feet to the left of me and I lost all hearing in my left ear for a couple days and only about 50% returned.
My SSgt while in my Unit's CQB Platoon had a 16 round ND when he was playing with his M-4 and flipped it to full-auto.
And I have a friend from High School who was killed by an ND in Iraq. His Platoon Sgt didn't check everyone's weapon when they came back into the FOB and his friend came up to talk to him while trying to unload his M-16.

1911 guy
January 5, 2013, 03:14 PM
Former military myself. I've seen both the best and the worst of weapon handling skills. Everything from walking out of the arms room shortly before a 230gr ball went bouncing around inside said arms room to the ND of an M-16 right into a carrier elevator. Into the deck, that is, thankfully not through the hangar bay.

I've also seen pros at work with handling skills under stress that make me look like a slacker.

AABEN
January 5, 2013, 04:09 PM
I thank every one that is sound of mind and has a clean record should have a gun if they want one! If never had one give them a gun handling course.

HorseSoldier
January 5, 2013, 05:44 PM
I really don't like the term AD. Can anyone point to a single incident where a weapon went off accidentaly without human error? I.E. ND vs. AD? Not a range malfunction but an honest to god "It just went off, I never touched it." If a gun goes of without you wanting it to then 99.999% of the time it means you screwd up, barring freak mechanical failure of a well maintained weapon.

AD vs ND is just semantics. In the mid-2000s when I was shooting and training a lot of combat marksmanship skills, AD was the most commonly used term from what I recall. It seems like there was a backlash as stated against the "accidental" wording, though I think some of it may have been also related to the Big Army reinventing the wheel. As a support guy in an SF unit, they were ADs and whoever popped one off was not in a happy place after it happened with their team sergeant. (And in some SOF units, 1 AD = finding a new home; a buddy of mine had his squad leader in one of the ranger batts booted to the 82nd for an AD during a training iteration with blanks.)

On return to Big Army (or National Guard facsimile thereof) from that gig, however, suddenly they're NDs instead. "Negligent" sounds much more indicting, though (at least in the last unit I went downrange with) their consequences were much less severe. (Which is, at least, fair to the troops, since in that unit the ND's started with substandard leaders failing to train their subordinates and ended with guys cranking rounds off with a frequency I found shocking. It's pretty bad when you are in a unit where you can discuss AD/ND incidents and conclude "at least only one guy got shot.")

RetiredUSNChief
January 6, 2013, 02:15 AM
The points about AD are very valid.

A true "accident", of any kind, is extremely rare when you think about it. In fact, some law enforcement agencies have changed their views and terminology in the realm of vehicular accidents to "incidents". It's a shift in paradigms in the approach.

A firearm discharge has a cause. If that cause is related to human contact/handling/mishandling, then the root cause is not likely to be an "accident" in the true meaning of the word.

"Accident" implies "not my fault".

"Not my fault" means "nothing I did while handling, storing, repairing, or maintaining the firearm contributed to the discharge".

If the fault was due to another person, then the discharge may be deemed "accidental" with respect to the person who was handling it at the time. It still had a human factor, though.

A possible example might be a gunsmith improperly servicing a single action revolver for repairs, which caused a mechanical failure which released the hammer immediately after it was cocked, without the owner touching the touching the trigger.


I like the term "ND" much better, because understanding the difference between "accidental" and "negligent" is a matter of personal responsibility. It's a paradigm which says "I understand I am fully responsible for all my actions with respect to handling anyfirearm and I do not accept excuses for poor behavior and habits."

9MMare
January 6, 2013, 02:52 AM
Only the military and police should have guns.

*sigh*

Well that's just great! :rolleyes:

I look lousy in uniforms.

xfyrfiter
January 6, 2013, 01:57 PM
I once worked for a company that did not have [accident] as a word in their safety vocabulary. The word was [incident] and the question was [avoidable? or unavoidable?] and believe me there were few unavoidable incidents. BTW this was a trucking company with millions of miles per year.

If you enjoyed reading about "Only Military and Police should have guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!