3 ms·

They still have magazines on them, so they can respond to a threat in a few seconds. And no amount of discipline can completely prevent accidental discharge.

jessaustin 10y ago
The way to prevent accidental discharge is to keep the rifle slung over one's shoulder, with an empty chamber, rather than nervously gripping it with one's finger on the trigger guard as pictured in TFA. That posture serves no purpose other than the intimidation of the ignorant. And it's clear from this picture the magazines, if they exist, aren't secured in one place on a sensible leather belt, but rather are rolling around in the bottom of one or more of those giant pouches he's got hanging around.
- ihsw 10y ago
  He's showing proper trigger discipline, he looks fine. If it's any consolation then it stands to reason that he's posing for the camera, too.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- kiiski 10y ago
  It's very unlikely that he is there to actually guard anything. In most countries, outside a state of emergency or war, soldiers do not have any right to shoot citizens in the streets. Even if someone specifically attacks the soldier, the correct response is to back away and call the police to handle it. He's just standing there either for ceremonial reasons or for training (possibly both). In any case, his only task is to stand there and call the police if there's trouble.
  - johnnyhillbilly 10y ago
    No, he's literally guarding the place. The correct response to an attack may involve inserting the clip, chamber a round and issue a loud warning before possibly firing. An attack on the guard himself is likely to lead to a resolute counterattack. Soldiers guarding typically have limited police jurisdiction of the area they guard in most countries. This should be common knowledge.
    - napoleond 10y ago
      Both you and your parent commenter are sometimes correct, depending on the situation (believe it or not, laws vary from country to country, there are many different types of military groups in each, etc). Your point of view is not always correct, so it should definitely not be common knowledge.
      - gknoy 10y ago
        The historical nature of soldiers of armed guards with the authority to kill you lends credence to his suggestion that it's not an unreasonable expectation to believe that they _could_ shoot you. Local mileage and laws may vary, but erring on the side of caution when you see a soldier means that it's prudent to act as if he can legally fire upon you -- even if that assumption is not actually true at that specific time or place.

jessaustin 10y ago

The way to prevent accidental discharge is to keep the rifle slung over one's shoulder, with an empty chamber, rather than nervously gripping it with one's finger on the trigger guard as pictured in TFA. That posture serves no purpose other than the intimidation of the ignorant. And it's clear from this picture the magazines, if they exist, aren't secured in one place on a sensible leather belt, but rather are rolling around in the bottom of one or more of those giant pouches he's got hanging around.

ihsw 10y ago
He's showing proper trigger discipline, he looks fine. If it's any consolation then it stands to reason that he's posing for the camera, too.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
kiiski 10y ago
It's very unlikely that he is there to actually guard anything. In most countries, outside a state of emergency or war, soldiers do not have any right to shoot citizens in the streets. Even if someone specifically attacks the soldier, the correct response is to back away and call the police to handle it. He's just standing there either for ceremonial reasons or for training (possibly both). In any case, his only task is to stand there and call the police if there's trouble.
- johnnyhillbilly 10y ago
  No, he's literally guarding the place. The correct response to an attack may involve inserting the clip, chamber a round and issue a loud warning before possibly firing. An attack on the guard himself is likely to lead to a resolute counterattack. Soldiers guarding typically have limited police jurisdiction of the area they guard in most countries. This should be common knowledge.
  - napoleond 10y ago
    Both you and your parent commenter are sometimes correct, depending on the situation (believe it or not, laws vary from country to country, there are many different types of military groups in each, etc). Your point of view is not always correct, so it should definitely not be common knowledge.
    - gknoy 10y ago
      The historical nature of soldiers of armed guards with the authority to kill you lends credence to his suggestion that it's not an unreasonable expectation to believe that they _could_ shoot you. Local mileage and laws may vary, but erring on the side of caution when you see a soldier means that it's prudent to act as if he can legally fire upon you -- even if that assumption is not actually true at that specific time or place.