3 ms·

I once read an article which reported a real police officer's take on Miami Vice. In the TV show, the drug cop fires his gun at least once each episode. That

I once read an article which reported a real police officer's take on Miami Vice. In the TV show, the drug cop fires his gun at least once each episode. That would lead the show's fans to expect that most law enforcement officers use their service pistols at least once per week, if not every single day. In reality, most cops fire their guns at most once during their entire lives. That is, fire them at a suspect and not at a practice target. I expect they draw their guns a fair amount, but those who understand gun safety know very well that one never points a gun at another human being unless one fully intends to kill them. Once, one of my father's enlisted men damn near shot his own foot off when he was verifying that his pistol really was unloaded. He followed the US Navy's documented procedure for unloading his gun, the very last step being to pull the trigger. Oopsy-doodle!

kenbellows 12y ago
> those who understand gun safety know very well that one never points a gun at another human being unless one fully intends to kill them. This was one of the biggest criticisms I heard[1][2] (and raised) regarding the protests in Ferguson. The police officers had their weapons constantly trained on the protesters, including sniper rifles and other unnecessarily large weapons. It really sent a bad message, that they were seemingly ready to kill anyone who stepped one foot over the line they laid down. Whether or not this was actually true, it certainly seemed that way. [1] http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/14/ferguson-and-the-shocking-nature-of-us-police-militarization http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/14/ferguson-and-... [2] https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/499691017533403137 https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/499691017533403137
- hga 12y ago
  See my first comment in this thread; that signaled very clearly they were willing to kill them, although nothing about intending (and indeed they didn't). See also a lot of the bad behavior after the Boston Marathon bombing in the futile Watertown search, lots of contemporary pictures, plus there's a recent report that's well discussed here that tells us just how badly managed it all was: http://weaponsman.com/?p=21830 http://weaponsman.com/?p=21830
hga 12y ago
but those who understand gun safety know very well that one never points a gun at another human being unless one fully intends to kill them Nope, Rule 2 is "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy." (Emphasis added.) Big difference between "fully intends" and willing. Roughly when did the Navy incident happen? As of late, like the last couple or so decades, I've read that the firearm training has really been shortchanged. It was very different when my father started at Great Lakes before being tapped for OCS.
- MichaelCrawford 12y ago
  I think it was in 1973 or 1974. My father had a rotating duty to help guard the main gate at Concord Naval Weapons Station in the east San Francisco Bay. That is every couple weeks he would supervise the men in the guardhouse.

kenbellows 12y ago

> those who understand gun safety know very well that one never points a gun at another human being unless one fully intends to kill them. This was one of the biggest criticisms I heard[1][2] (and raised) regarding the protests in Ferguson. The police officers had their weapons constantly trained on the protesters, including sniper rifles and other unnecessarily large weapons. It really sent a bad message, that they were seemingly ready to kill anyone who stepped one foot over the line they laid down. Whether or not this was actually true, it certainly seemed that way. [1] http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/14/ferguson-and-the-shocking-nature-of-us-police-militarization http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/14/ferguson-and-... [2] https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/499691017533403137 https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/499691017533403137

hga 12y ago
See my first comment in this thread; that signaled very clearly they were willing to kill them, although nothing about intending (and indeed they didn't). See also a lot of the bad behavior after the Boston Marathon bombing in the futile Watertown search, lots of contemporary pictures, plus there's a recent report that's well discussed here that tells us just how badly managed it all was: http://weaponsman.com/?p=21830 http://weaponsman.com/?p=21830

hga 12y ago

but those who understand gun safety know very well that one never points a gun at another human being unless one fully intends to kill them Nope, Rule 2 is "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy." (Emphasis added.) Big difference between "fully intends" and willing. Roughly when did the Navy incident happen? As of late, like the last couple or so decades, I've read that the firearm training has really been shortchanged. It was very different when my father started at Great Lakes before being tapped for OCS.

MichaelCrawford 12y ago
I think it was in 1973 or 1974. My father had a rotating duty to help guard the main gate at Concord Naval Weapons Station in the east San Francisco Bay. That is every couple weeks he would supervise the men in the guardhouse.