Can You Really Prevent Unintentional Discharges?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
111
Location
Norman Oklahoma
This article was in this week's Police One e-letter. Seems like it would be a good topic for discussion and review.

Can you really prevent unintentional discharges?

You're trained that the surest way to prevent an unintentional discharge is to keep your finger outside the trigger guard until you've made the decision to shoot.


But under stress, will you -- can you -- reliably do that?

Maybe not, according to a study of police performance under realistic conditions. Indeed, a significant percentage of officers not only unintentionally place their finger directly on the trigger in a stress situation, even though they've been drilled not to do so, but they're completely unaware that they've made that risky movement. They're so unconscious of it, they deny it afterward.

Researcher Christopher Heim concludes: "It seems as if the finger does not in all cases obey the brain."

Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center (FSRC) at Minnesota State University-Mankato, describes Heim's study as "pioneering" and says it raises important new questions about the dynamics of unintended discharges and the training required to prevent them.

With the help of a colleague and police instructors, Heim, a PhD candidate at the Institute of Sports Science at the University of Frankfurt (Germany), ran two critical experiments at the request of the Association of German Police Trainers. The Association was concerned about "an increasing number of people [being] injured, sometimes fatally, as a result of police weapons being discharged unintentionally," Heim says.

That concern is shared in the U.S. Just last week the Washington (DC) Times reported a startling review by the federal government of 267 shootings by agents from the FBI, ATF, DEA and the U.S. Marshals Service during fiscal 2000 through fiscal 2003. More than 5% of the total (14) were determined to be "unintentional discharges during enforcement operations," and nearly one-third (88) were "unintentional discharges during nonenforcement activities, such as training and weapons cleaning." [See "Justice Mulls Shooting Standard," by Jerry Seper, Washington Times, Oct. 8, 2004.]

Theoretically, researcher Heim points out, "unintentional discharge should be impossible" because police in Germany, America and most other modern countries are trained and under strict orders to keep the index finger on the trigger guard or on the frame until "a decision to fire has been made. If regulations were strictly followed, there would logically be no incidents" of shooting without intent.

Obviously that ideal is yet to be achieved. Heim's work brings new insights to the problem.

In his first study, 33 male and 13 female officers of different ranks and years of service, were sent into a room to arrest a "suspect" and to "act in a way they thought appropriate" while doing so. The officers were armed with a SIG-Sauer P226 that was rigged with force sensors on the trigger and grip. All the officers were instructed that if they drew the gun during the exercise, they were to keep their finger off the trigger unless they had made the decision to shoot, per their training and department regs.

As the role-play evolved, 34 of the 46 officers drew the gun and one officer actually fired, intentionally. Of the 33 others who drew, all insisted that they had followed instructions to keep their finger outside the trigger guard, because they'd not made a decision to shoot.


The sensors told a different tale.

Seven of the 33 -- more than 20 percent -- had, in fact, touched the trigger hard enough to activate the sensor. Even the officer who eventually fired his weapon "not only touched the trigger twice before actually firing and once again afterwards, but also had his finger on it long before actually firing," Heim notes. Yet he too maintained he'd kept his finger well clear of the trigger until the very split-second before he fired.

In a second series of experiments Heim explored how various body movements might affect an officer who has his or her finger on the trigger but does not have an immediate intention to shoot. Specifically, would certain movements cause an officer to involuntarily increase pressure on the trigger enough to unintentionally discharge a round?

Heim ran 25 participants (13 female and 12 male, average age 25, all armed with the sensor-equipped SIG) through repetitions of 13 vigorous movements common to police work while their index finger was on the trigger.

In about 6 per cent of cases, enough trigger pressure was registered to have fired the pistol had it been uncocked (that is, mechanically set for an initial double-action trigger pull). In about 20 per cent of cases, the pressure was sufficient to have fired the gun had it been cocked (as with secondary rounds). The gun used had a 12-pound double-action trigger pull and a 5-pound pull, single-action.

The motions that caused the greatest contraction of the trigger finger--and thus the greatest force exerted on the trigger--were all jumping motions, whether with both legs or a single leg on either side of the body. The next greatest contracting force was caused by an abrupt loss of balance. Next were single-leg kicks (especially using the gun-side leg).

The lowest amount of pressure on the trigger was caused using the non-gun hand to push or pull a solid bar and to push a pulley apparatus.

No emotional stress was involved in this experiment. "If stress were added, we might expect that the percentages of those officers pulling the trigger would go up," says the FSRC's Lewinski.

Heim's research confirms the "contralateral contraction" theory originally credited to Dr. Roger Enoka, who runs the Center for Neuroscience at the University of Colorado at Boulder. This theory holds that the hand gripping a gun is affected by "sympathetic" reflexive reactions to the movement of other limbs, causing uncontrollable contraction of the gunhand fingers. "A large number of different groups of muscles in different parts of the body work together," Heim explains, and such "involuntary muscle actions" can play a role in unintentional discharges by affecting the grip and trigger finger.

Besides a sudden loss of balance and the use of other limbs (during a rapid tactical building entry or a struggle with a suspect, as examples), Heim believes that a "startle reaction" can also stimulate a dangerous involuntary muscle reaction, although this has never been tested in a laboratory setting.

Lewinski suggests several of other possible causes of involuntary trigger squeeze as well:

1. In studies of his own involving subjects drawing a handgun and extending it out to a shooting position, Lewinski has found that roughly 1 in 5 individuals unintentionally fires the weapon as it is brought up to eye level and pushed forward. "There appears to be something about the way the gun is moved and manipulated that puts contractile pressure on the wrist and trigger finger," prompting an involuntary shooting by some subjects, Lewinski explains.

Lewinski's study, which employed a gun with a 12-pound trigger pull, is the first to suggest that even the mere biomechanical manipulation of a firearm may cause a discharge if the shooter's finger is on the trigger.

His tests involved "naïve" subjects without firearms training, but the results would likely hold with officers too, he speculates.

2. The Mayo Clinic has identified and studied a phenomenon found among some golfers called "yips." This is an "uncontrollable, forceful spasmodic jerk" that is associated with an abnormally high heart rate and involves unusually intense muscle activity in the forearm and wrist, resulting in a putter being gripped with increased force.

"Some people seem more susceptible to this than others," Lewinski says, "but we don't know precisely why. There seem to be problems in the neuromuscular system, but for the most part it's an undiagnosable and largely unexplained condition."

He points out, however, that police activities involving drawn guns obviously tend to increase heart rate, one of the associated factors. In Heim's first experiment, for example, the heart rates of participants were significantly elevated (by 50 per cent on average) just by the role-playing exercise.

3. Another phenomenon that may be involved is "hand confusion," which is different from contralateral sympathetic contraction. "Hand confusion involves the inability of the brain to control what each hand is doing in a situation," Lewinski explains. "It is evident most often under stress and in multi-tasking situations."

For example, if you infrequently search a building with a flashlight in one hand and a gun in the other, your brain may become confused and send contraction signals to the wrong hand in a moment of stress, resulting in an unintentional discharge if your finger is on the trigger. Or, disastrously for you, you may push on your flashlight instead of your trigger when your life is suddenly threatened.

In analyzing Heim's first study, which suggests that even if you want to keep your finger safely outside the trigger guard it may still end up inside, Lewinski offers some possible explanations of what may be to blame for this occurring:

1. One possibility is that distraction is involved. "Your intention may be to keep your finger in a safe place and initially you may consciously remind yourself of that," he explains. "But then you get distracted from that focus by a more urgent emergency" and your finger unconsciously slips to the trigger.

As comparable illustration, "If you're very conscious of not banging your knee when you get into your patrol car, it's easy to avoid. But if something distracts you as you're getting in and you switch your attention to that, you may very well bang your knee even though you intended not to."

2. Your body may instinctively seek what's most natural. Keeping your finger extended along the trigger guard or the frame "is not a 'normal' grip position," Lewinski suggests, "and because it's abnormal there may be an unconscious tendency to assume another less desirable but more natural position."

3. Putting your finger on the trigger may reflect a psychological need for reassurance. One of the Force Science Research Center's national advisory board members, firearms expert Tom Aveni, calls this tendency "trigger affirmation." Aveni has pointed out that it's his experience as a trainer that officers more often unconsciously put their finger inside the trigger guard when they are under potential threat conditions in dark surroundings. Lewinski says they may subconsciously be seeking "psychological reassurance that they are able to quickly defend themselves against a feared, anticipated threat." Their fearful fantasies heighten their stress level and, ironically, make a potentially dangerous unintended discharge more likely.

Building on Heim's intriguing findings, unintentional discharges are a problem the FSRC plans to study intently. Lewinski foresees a 3-part research approach: 1) refining the testing technology to assure that the nature of the problem is fully and accurately defined; 2) more deeply investigating the psychology and neurology involved in inappropriate finger placement and unintended trigger squeeze, as well as the little-researched hand-confusion phenomenon and 3) exploring important training issues, including whether different or longer training can affect the incidence of unintentional discharges. "We really don't know the amount or nature of training that might be best," Lewinski says. "But Heim's studies suggest that current training is not providing wholly satisfactory solutions to the problem."

Until better approaches can be documented, Lewinski proposes that more attention be given in recruit and in-service training to emphasizing and practicing under stress the importance of keeping the finger away from the trigger until there's a definite decision to shoot. While present training may need improvement, he points out that most officers in Heim's experiments did obey instructions and training in regards to trigger engagement. "Perhaps more emphasis and practice in training could improve that percentage," Lewinski says. "Certainly we would not expect more training to worsen the situation."

In addition, he proposes that officers devote more practice to mastering rapid reholstering. At least in some situations this will allow you to safely secure your gun when circumstances change and you no longer need it in hand. With your sidearm holstered, you're then free to use both hands to control a nonlethal encounter without concern about an unintended firing. However, Lewinski emphasizes, this is another area where more research is needed to identify the best training methods.

As sobering reminders of the importance of all this, Lewinski cites numerous cases on record in which officers have shot each other, as well as civilians, in stressful situations because of unintentional discharges. He points to the case of a Texas officer he's currently helping to defend as an expert witness.

During a struggle with a belligerent and uncooperative 14-year-old suspect, that officer's gun discharged and killed the kid. The officer insists the shooting was not intentional.

He is now scheduled for trial for murder.
http://policeone.com/writers/columnists/ForceScience/articles/94371/
 
They don't spend enough time handling guns. Give them a few years hauling a shotgun or rifle around in the woods from sunup to sundown and they'll learn just fine how to keep their fingers off the trigger and point the gun in a safe direction at all times.
 
If you have muzzle awareness, and muzzle control at all times with a magazine anywhere near the gun, it won't be a problem.

I was on the pistol team for my ship while I was in the Navy. Shot up train cars loads of .45 & .22 ammo, I've only had one unintentional firing of a firearm and that was with my new H&K .45. Since I was getting used to the .45 H&K, I was putting it through it's paces, loading & unloading the magizine, chambering rounds, dropping the clip and ramming home a new one and when I went to "thumb" the slide release it fired, finger no where near the trigger. :what: Needless to say I was surprised, stunned, and thanking my stars that I had been trained by the best Marine pistol range instructors at Camp Pendalton. Those guys don't take sloppy gun handling lightly, and neather should you, at any time, for any reason, ever. I can still remember the stare & scolding and for sloppy gun handling of the 1911. (and for enlisting in the Navy and not the Marines;) )

Just my $.02 worth.
 
Thank you for posting this fascinating and disturbing article.

It presents challenges to us all, whether on the range, hunting or during an attack, and raises some questions, at least for me, when drawing and firing imediately appears to be a necessity. I am addressing both NDs and Premature Discharges (PDs presumably are a sub-category of NDs).

"In studies of his own involving subjects drawing a handgun and extending it out to a shooting position, Lewinski has found that roughly 1 in 5 individuals unintentionally fires the weapon as it is brought up to eye level and pushed forward." Did the finger enter the trigger guard prematurely?

But first, how long does it take from making the decision to shoot to getting a finger on the trigger? (Lets assume point-blank range where aiming is not an issue; of course the answer is going to be a range among individuals, not a fixed amount of time. Is it long enough to potentially alter the outcome of a lethal threat? I think so, but have no data.

In the following discussion, I'm assuming time is of the essence, i.e. a BG is in the act of drawing on you, or is rushing you with a contact weapon. (Of couse, if your draw is more deliberate, there is no question where the trigger finger should be.)

If you draw with the intention to shoot ASAP, is it acceptable to place the finger on the trigger as the final step of the draw as the weapon approaches approximate alignment with the target, followed immediately by an intended discharge as the target is fully acquired? (I'm assuming in this case that the target is about 20 ft. away and one has determined during the draw that there is no innocent close to the line of fire.)

I have sometimes caught myself doing exactly this when practicing a rapid draw with intent to fire immediately (9" plate, 21 ft.), except my finger places itself against the side of, rather than on) the trigger until I (instantaneously) reaffirm my decision to fire (I'm not saying this is OK; rather, asking). Since one should be able to draw and place the sights directly on a target of that size, perhaps placing the finger in the guard is part of the continuum from rapid draw to shot.

If you have to use the sights at longer range to ensure a hit, and have the finger out of the trigger guard, you will probably disturb the sight picture and have to make a correction when you place the finger on the trigger, which could be a fatal hesitation. The alternative is to place the finger in the guard as you are acquiring a sight picture; this, however, would appear to be a violation of Rule Three (Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target).

How does target aquisition apply to point shooting, usually associated with the need to fire immediately? You have no direct confirmation of target acqusition. What does "target acquisition" mean in this case, and when should the finger reach the trigger?

If one is exchanging shots with a BG, with some movement, I cannot imagine removing the finger from within the trigger guard, even though the target is only intermittently acquired (e.g. when peeking arund cover), unless there is a pause in the exchange or one makes a major move, to another location, for instance.

What think you?

C
 
Sure! After the gun goes off, just say in a loud voice "I meant to do that!". You'll have to pull desk duty for a while, until the formal investigation concludes that the person you shot potentially could have caused you great harm had it been his intention, after which any charges against you are dropped.

Note: It is very important you have some sort of governmental authority before you attempt this!
 
"Lewinski foresees a 3-part research approach:..."

It amazes me how an agency is always so willing to use an outside source to come up with solutions to problems they can find "in house."

I bet there are professional LEO's in every agency out there that can identify and improve training and personnel issues that would directly reduce unintentional discharges. I am also willing to bet that there are professional LEO's out there that have TRIED to improve training and personnel standards, and have been shot down by administrative officials etc...

UD's are both a personnel issue, and a training issue. If you don't have good people, they will screw up regardless of how much you train them. Likewise, if you don't provided CONSISTANT realistic training to high standards, skills will never be formed, or sustained in the good people you DO have. It doesn't take a "scientist" or a "3 part research approach" to figure that out.
 
It's called ND [negligent discharge] not unintentional. It can be minimized by TRAINING. Many PDs are more interested in political correctness ,saving money etc. The lawsuits following an ND cost more than proper training !!
 
Had one in 39 years of shooting. Thank God I DID remember to have the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. I shoot twice a week so it may happen again.
 
ND or AD = UD.

It may well be that there is a physiological factor in such cases. Exploring that issue could well lead to techniques for reducing such UDs. Rather than claim it is just sloppy gun handling or lack of practice, why not give some credance to what appears to be a well thought out study? If what is being suggested is true, no amount of training or practice of the current variety is likely to help.

My initial thought, of course, is lack of training, improper training, or lack of proper practice. But as I read through the article, I came to appreciate that maybe there is something to it. Or maybe not. It is certainly worth studying. Just knowing about the problem could reduce such UDs.
 
All this talk about whether it should be correctly labelled "AD, ND, or UD" is PC. A tomato under any other name is still a tomato. A firearm that is discharged accidentally is just that: "Accidental Discharge". Real police officers should know better than just willingly conform to any such PC.
 
Thats a really interesting study, I found it fascinating.

I tend to agree that accidental discharges can be minimized with sufficient training, and I happen to believe that police training, especially with firearms, is drastically insufficient in most places.

I would actually be very interested to see a study where naive subjects were first tested, then trained intensively, then tested again to see if there was a significant drop in ADs.

I also think cops should train force-on-force and train for shootings with simulated scenarios and simunitions, and they should do it a lot, because training while under stress and just training are very different things.

I like simunitions for the job because they can be used in the actual firearm, and more importantly, they hurt. If you screw up, you know all about it right away. Pain is still one of the world's greatest training tools.
 
The problem is that many small agencies do not give sufficient training (I have noticed this moreso in TX than CA). Combine that with many officers not taking the initiative to go and practice weapon and weaponless combatives on their own and you have a recipe for failure.

Larger agencies will have a larger training budget.

However, in many departments several training methodologies are only used strictly for special operations units that could or should be used for patrol (IE sims, airsoft, FATS, etc etc). The only way to elevate your skills is push your limits. Too many guys are happy just to qualify....barely....whether it takes 'em 50 or 500 rounds. That is disturbing to those of us who treat the inherent hazards in the job with the proper respect and ensure that are combative skills are on top of their game.

But: in short to answer the question at the beginning of this thread: YES.
 
Maybe they should focus on how the other 80% managed to do the right thing instead of going all weak in the knees about the 20% that didn't follow the rules and claiming that they can't help it.
 
Apparently the aim of this study is to address an issue that should concern both police officers and private citizens: humans who were shot by police officers when the police officer had no intention of shooting said human being.

I'm not interested in the semantic of the issue. I lean to the negligence crowd. To me an accidental shooting means the firearm discharged without pressure of any type being applied to the trigger.

But when we're talking shooting a human being instead of simply a discharge, the unintentional shooting has a clear place, in my opinion.

To me, as a private citizen, this is why I have no intention of holding an intruder or other miscreant at gunpoint. Many might disagree with the manner in which I train but one thing is sure-I won't be involved in an unintentional shooting of a human being.

I will not point a firearm at another human being without legal justification to shoot that person. When I acquire that initial sight picture, I will press the trigger. If the situation is such that I am just on the cusp of the decision, and the possibility still exists that shooting is not absolutely required, then I will point by the subject where I can quickly acquire a sight picture but where a ND due to whatever factor-nerves, stress, urinating down my leg startles me, lack of training, lack of character, whatever-results in a loud bang and the other person and me needing to change our underwear. Much better result than me standing over some guy bleeding out while crying for his mama when it was not absolutely, positively necessary. I've had problems in the past in dealing with regrets. None of them were even anywhere close to being in the same league as unnecessarily being responsible for an avoidable death or permanent disabling injuries to another person. I don't want to have to deal with such regrets. Legal problems aside...I'd have a problem with my mirror that I positively will do anything possible to avoid.
 
Several questions arise.
Were the officers involved in this study selected at random?
That would explain the results. Many LEOs and other personel who carry a firearm in the course of their jobs do just that. Carry a firearm. Pull it from the holster to requalify and that is it. They are not as extensively trained as they would like you to bellieve.
Do the same study with people who train on a very regular basis, or regular yearround hunters, and you get a very different result.
 
" Combine that with many officers not taking the initiative to go and practice weapon and weaponless combatives on their own and you have a recipe for failure."

Exactly. Alot of people will do what they "should" do, most people will do what they "have" to do.

It all comes down to training and standards. Good training, standards, and the enforcement of those standards may not eliminate UD's, but they can sure reduce them.


"Larger agencies will have a larger training budget."

And more people to train, which can often lead to "mass production" check the block training events not conducted to high standards.

"However, in many departments several training methodologies are only used strictly for special operations units that could or should be used for patrol (IE sims, airsoft, FATS, etc etc). That is disturbing to those of us who treat the inherent hazards in the job with the proper respect and ensure that are combative skills are on top of their game."

You are exactly the kind of person I was referring to when I wrote...

" I bet there are professional LEO's in every agency out there that can identify and improve training and personnel issues that would directly reduce unintentional discharges."

I'm willing to bet money you aren't the only one that has noticed, and I'm also willing to bet that their has always been an excuse made by higher why that kind of trianing isn't offered to all concerned.
 
They don't spend enough time handling guns. Give them a few years hauling a shotgun or rifle around in the woods from sunup to sundown and they'll learn just fine how to keep their fingers off the trigger and point the gun in a safe direction at all times.
Considering that most of the hunting rifles I've handled were bolt actions with extremely light triggers that had very little travel, that should do the trick.

Its ironic that 20% of the officers touched the trigger when they shouldnt have. I think its ironic because thats the number of officers that appeared to know what they were doing with a pistol the day the indoor range I frequently visit was literally flooded with sherriff deputies to practice before they qualified.

After watching COPS on TV, and considering the number of cops I see come through the range (excluding regulars that I'm on a first name basis with) I'm honestly suprised that its not higher. I'm guessing its not because the officers knew what was going on, and consciously kept their booger hooks of their bang switches.

This isnt the first time this has been posted here. Last time it was posted I mentioned it to a buddy at the range, a city cop, and his respose was "20%? Sounds low..." He said he shot faster than everyone else, not to show off, but to take a few steps back and watch everyone else.
 
The results of this study don't suprise me at the least. You can say training will correct this, but I doubt it will. Think about how many people, who have been driving for decades, say they hit the gas instead of the brake when in a stressful situation.

It's like sneezing with your eyes open, you can't do it. Your brain is doing something you really aren't aware of and can't override. We only use 10% of our brains, what the other 90% is capable of we really never know.
 
MrZ;

Yes, larger agencies with larger budgets can lend themselves to poor training and roll-out of weaponed and weaponless combatives. LASD is currently this way. This is a shame because at one point they had a pretty good combatives program.

It is all about the people running the range and the shooting and fighting programs. Our range was run by a old-time SWAT guy forever, and the shooting courses were combat-oriented and high stress. Patrol and Dicks were encouraged to shoot as often as they would like to in addition to the standardized qualifications.

They did not shoot as much as we did on SWAT training days, but most guys did shoot pretty frequently. Granted, there were some that were the types of guys/women that really unnerved those of us who take it seriously knowing that they would be firing weapons with us if we needed them to.

Strangely enough (not so much), these were also the folks that were out of shape, never worked on weaponless defense tactics, and did not make safety and skill a priority.
 
They don't spend enough time handling guns. Give them a few years hauling a shotgun or rifle around in the woods from sunup to sundown and they'll learn just fine how to keep their fingers off the trigger and point the gun in a safe direction at all times.

I got to tell you, hunters scare me more than any other shooters. My experience around them is they forget where the muzzle is. I don't know how many pictures of hunting parties I have seen where a muzzle is pointed at someones feet, or over their shoulder in a direction they cannot see, so cannot possibly know it is a safe direction to point the muzzle.
 
I'm not sure what the author is trying to say. Of course it's possible to train enough to prevent NDs. The question is if we have the desire to expend the resources to conduct training to that level. For the great majority of military and police organizations that answer is a resounding no. But even the very basic training we (as the taxpayers who fund it all) are willing to provide the armed professionals who work for us is several orders of magnitude greater then we require or even encourage civilians who carry or use firearms to have.

Many states have no training requirements before they license a civilian to carry a firearm, and none of the states that I'm aware of has a requirement that is anywhere close to the minimum POST standard for a police officer.

If we should have training requirements for civilians gets into legal and political issues that would be off topic in this forum.

My answer is that it is possible to train enough so that you could stop most NDs. I don't think it's practical or in the case of civilians even desireable to train everyone who handles firearms to that level of proficency.

Jeff
 
Can You Really Prevent Unintentional Discharges?


You might as well ask if you can prevent unintentionial car wrecks or unintentionial falls. As long as human beings are involved, there will be mistakes, no matter how hard anyone tries to stop them.

Reduce the number, sure. Stop them from happening at all, not possible.
 
Jeff White said: The question is if we have the desire to expend the resources to conduct training to that level. For the great majority of military and police organizations that answer is a resounding no.

After the first couple weeks of Boot Camp, when the beatings and punishment for having a finger on a trigger, or a muzzle pointed in the wrong direction, were regular . . . we learned. It was pretty cheap training, too. Then, we began policing each other . . . and it became ingrained. The Marines are still the only branch of the US armed forces I know of that instill the concepts we call Universal Gunhandling Skills.

It shows. Watch video feeds from Iraq. Marines, if you can recognize them, know how to handle a rifle safely. My own candid conversations with gun school instructors, and personal observations over the past 6 years with my involvement in running shooting events, tends to reinforce that belief. Marines, and former Marines, generally handle guns (I still feel like I should push for using that term) safely. Any gun. Other forces, generally less so . . . Police Officers . . . still generally speaking - complete and utter contempt for universal gun handling rules.

I've been trained this way. I'm the professional.
There is generally a reluctance by those who carry a gun in the performance of their job to re-evaluate if the habits they practice and the manner they use it is safe.


It doesn't take money to instill it. It just takes people willing to be jerks about it, hated for it, ridiculed for it . . . teased over it in the name of safety . . . . before a culture plagued by poor gun handlers at every level will change. Take a culture like a boot camp, we find better implementation because the culture demands conformance.
 
Jeff White said: My answer is that it is possible to train enough so that you could stop most NDs.


I don't think it's practical or in the case of civilians even desireable to train everyone who handles firearms to that level of proficency.


I'm curious about that statement . . . . meaning . . . ?

Require it?
Permit it?
Allow it?
Encourage it?


I'm not sure how to take that statement.
 
BullfrogKen said;
The Marines are still the only branch of the US armed forces I know of that instill the concepts we call Universal Gunhandling Skills.

The Army has been issuing recruits weapons in Basic Training and carrying them everywhere for a couple of years now. There was a lot of pushing from the bottom to get that done, I know because I was pushing it before I retired. It took a high ND rate in Afghanistan and Iraq and a new chief of staff, but the Army is up there with the Marines now. The fact remains that we will have a problem until all of the old school thinkers have been brought on board. When a CSM can start an investigation over an alleged slamfire in his issued M4 to cover up his own ND something is wrong. You can't make me believe that he had a slamfire, that was a very rare occurance before it was fixed around 1966....

don't think it's practical or in the case of civilians even desireable to train everyone who handles firearms to that level of proficency.



I'm curious about that statement . . . . meaning . . . ?

Require it?
Permit it?
Allow it?
Encourage it?

As a professional trainer I'd like to see everyone properly trained. However we're getting into some constitutional issues when we start mandating it for civilians. Some bureaucrat would certainly make the training requirement so extensive and cost prohibitive that it would be another nail in the coffin of the 2d Amendment. But like I said, that's a subject for the legal and political forum.

Jeff
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top