Despite the headlines calling this an accidental discharge, this was no accident. It's amazing how reporters and law enforcement like to avoid that reality. I heard one report that stated the agent "somehow accidentally fired the gun." This was pure negligence, there's just no dancing around that. (Heh)
UPDATE, June 7: The guy: Chase Bishop: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
UPDATE, June 7: The guy: Chase Bishop: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
SOOOOoooo Stupid...
ReplyDeleteAs they say, Famous But Incompetent. Let's hope he's looking for employment.
DeleteThe additional reality is that people and the press who consistently feel that those who have concealed licenses, for which the holder trained to do exactly one thing, are somehow disqualified as dangerous and unqualified, while those who carry as part of their work and are trained to do a lot of stuff, for which firearms are only one incidental part of their jobs, are uniquely qualified to carry, may well be a bit off the mark.
ReplyDeleteI.e., the evidence isn't all that great that all police are really super qualified in regards to their sidearms. Some no doubt are. But assuming they all are, or drawing conclusions about the results of their use and carrying of firearms and trying to apply them to everyone, may not be very well founded.
I maintain that the average LEO is wholly unqualified to carry a gun. Most shoot but once a year, just to pass their qualification. And frankly, most of those qual courses are a joke. One of my biggest fears as a concealed carrier is that some cop will want to take possession of my firearm and I'l get shot by an ND in the process.
DeleteI don't know if they're unqualified, but I feel that the frequent citations to police as examples in regards to sidearm use are fairly useless.
DeleteA carry permit means that the permittee went to the trouble to get a permit to do one thing, carry a sidearm. That's very singular in nature and shows a focus. Likewise, a person who carriers basically does that with one thing in mind, using it defensively.
Police, on the other hand, carry a sidearm as part of the equipment they carry, which includes a lot of other stuff. And they have to worry about all sorts of stuff, of which actually using their firearm is a remote contingency.
Additionally, the training that is required to be proficient with a sidearm simply isn't there for a lot of policemen. It is for some, and for some of them its because they obtained it on their own. The least likely, in my view, policeman to be proficient is a big city policemen, which may explain the plethora of shots they use any time something actually happens. Private owners, on the other hand, strike me as people who are much more likely to know their away around whatever they are carrying.
What the deal is with the FBI I don't know, but this sure doesn't provide a comforting example.
Perhaps "untrained" or "unprepared" are better terms. We see way too many spray and pray shootings by cops, where they miss from distances measured in feet rather than yards. I am a firm believer that if you are a civilian who carries a gun for self defense, you better have a practice regimen with measured results at least monthly. Many departments only have their officers shoot yearly, and that's just to pass a simple qual course. If you are paid to carry a gun, for the defense of others, you better be proficient with it.
DeleteOne of many good articles on the subject:
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/are-cops-good-shooters
As far as the FBI goes, I've heard that most new agents have never fired a gun before the Academy, and in fact, that is the preferred status of the recruits, who are more often than not accounting majors. The lack of a "gun culture" among the subject generation is a problem as well I think.
The FBI probably needs to spend more time on the range and less time trying to run a coup against the elected leadership of the country.