Firearms on Ground team

[Panache]

The average person, with the bare minimum concealed carry training, is as likely to shoot himself, an innocent bystander, or the sky as the "bad person".

Cite, please.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation
"In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. And in other recent (but less lethal) rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, those civilians not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed."

Mother Jones?  Really?  A famously anti-Second Amendment publication?

And the NRA publishes, daily, reprints from newspapers around the country where people use their firearm to protect themselves from violent crime.  Again, this isn't the NRA writing these stories, they're simply re-printing them.

[Eclipse]

Agreed, if MJ leaned any further left they'ed do somersaults, and Thisainthell has their regular "feel good stories", but those are anecdotes, not studies.

We could do this all day, there's plenty of video on Youtube showing trained LEOs emptying
clips and hitting nothing or bystanders, and those are trained officers, but again anecdotes, notes studies.

Facts don't have a bias, even if the publisher does.

[LSThiker]

I am going to regret this but:

A study in 1998 found that for every 1 legally justifiable shooting/self-defense, there were four unintentional shootings.  This was found using a meta-analysis of police, medical examiner, EMS, and hospital records in 3 US cities (Memphis, Seattle, and Galveston).

Kellermann, A., G. Somes, F. Rivara, R. Lee, and J. Banton.  1998.  Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.  Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection and Critical Care, 45: 263-267.

Another study found that children were safer in states with strict firearm laws.  This was conducted by examining 60,224 pediatric patients in 44 states with trauma-related injuries (268 or 0.5% had firearm injuries).  31 were self-inflicted.  The authors noted that firearm injury rates per 1,000 were higher in states with non-strict firearm laws [SFL] (2.2 SFL vs 5.9 non-SFL).

Safavi, A., P. Rhee, V. Pandit, N. Kulvatunyou, A. Tang, et al.  2014.  Children are safer in states with strict firearm laws:  a National Inpatient Sample Study.  J Trauma Acute Car Surg, 76: 146-150. 

A study examining 16 states from 2003-2006 showed that of the 363 unintentional firearm fatalities,  39% were playing with the gun, 29% were hunting, 11% were cleaning, 5% were from "carrying", 4% were showing, 3% were target shooting, 2% were self-defense, 8% other, 7% unknown.  46% of shooters were 15-24 years old and 14% were 25-54 years.  Of the victims, 41% were 15-24 and 23% were 25-54 years.  58% of unintentional fatalities occurred away from home.  In shootings, 47% of victims were family, 43% were friends, and less than 2% were strangers. 

Hemenway, D., C. Barber, and M. Miller.  2010.  Unintentional firearm deaths:  a comparison of other-inflicted and self-inflicted shootings.  Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42: 1184-1188.

Another study in 2011 demonstrated that of the 194 firearm injuries, unintentional shootings accounted for 100 injuries.  Innocent bystander shootings were 39.  9.3% of children died.

Senger, C., R. Keijzer, G. Smith, and O. J. Muensterer.  2011.  Pediatric firearm injuries:  a 10-year single-center experience of 194 patients.  Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 46: 927-932.

[stillamarine]

Comparing the US to Afghanistan or even Iraq (where I was), is like comparing a tree to a weed. Sure they are both plants, but that is about as close as you can get

You've never been to Birmingham. I've had nights on the job I wished I was back in Afghanistan.

[abdsp51]

We can tout statics and surveys all day long.  There are numerous documented incidents where carrying has prevented mass tragedy.  For me personally, I live an half hour to an hour away from the border and I would prefer to have my sidearm on me in the event I did need it than to need it and not have it.  And yes I practice ORM, but sorry ORM will not and does not negate risks and hazards 100% of the time. 

[LSThiker]

Comparing the US to Afghanistan or even Iraq (where I was), is like comparing a tree to a weed. Sure they are both plants, but that is about as close as you can get

You've never been to Birmingham. I've had nights on the job I wished I was back in Afghanistan.

As long as we are talking about the one in Alabama, then yes I have.  I have also been to New Orleans, El Paso, New York City, and blah blah blah and trees and weeds both have green leaves.  Yes there are dangerous areas in the US as much as there are safe areas in Afghanistan.  However, using Afghanistan to justify carrying in the US is still an inappropriate comparison. 

[LSThiker]

We can tout statics and surveys all day long.  There are numerous documented incidents where carrying has prevented mass tragedy.  For me personally, I live an half hour to an hour away from the border and I would prefer to have my sidearm on me in the event I did need it than to need it and not have it.  And yes I practice ORM, but sorry ORM will not and does not negate risks and hazards 100% of the time.

Yup and no one is disputing that guns have been useful in certain circumstances.  The most recent is the purse snatchers this week as reported on major news networks.  And no one is saying that people should not carry a firearm (of course, no one is saying that we all should carry firearms either).  However, that does not justify the need to carry for a ground team or to a CAP activity.  If you are not willing to go to an area without a firearm, then perhaps taking a 14 year old cadet (even if you are carrying a firearm) is inappropriate and dangerous.  Besides, there are plenty of places that do not allow firearms and CAP is no different.  In fact, where I work, there are no firearms, knives (of any length), pepper spray, tasers, or any other weapons allowed in our buildings.

[Private Investigator]

We could do this all day, there's plenty of video on Youtube showing trained LEOs emptying
clips and hitting nothing or bystanders, and those are trained officers, but again anecdotes, notes studies.

I have to agree with Eclipse especially after my experience with the Dorner case. But people are certainly free to do whatever their little hearts desire, as long as they are not in my Area of Operations. 

[Private Investigator]

Comparing the US to Afghanistan or even Iraq (where I was), is like comparing a tree to a weed. Sure they are both plants, but that is about as close as you can get

You've never been to Birmingham. I've had nights on the job I wished I was back in Afghanistan.

You really need to take the Calibre Press, Street Survival Seminar, then. Anything else I say will be harsh   

[blackrain]

Just a little clarification.

I wasn't comparing Afghanistan and the US on a level of threat basis. My point is I am qualified to carry firearms (as are many) in a admittedly dangerous environment yet I am viewed as unqualified to do so in the states. I agree that a known high threat area should be avoided if possible especially with cadets but threats can and do materialize in unexpected places no matter what the ORM says. In the woods you never what you'll come across. I'm also not suggesting carrying a crew-served weapon stateside but a sidearm does give a means of self defense in a pinch.

As far as facilities (like military bases) or any other facility banning firearms is plain dumb. No matter how secure the base itself is, what happens when someone leaves the "safety" of the base? If I'm a bad guy I know it's highly likely that anyone coming or going is unarmed. Even policies allowing weapons to be locked in the vehicle is flawed from the standpoint that it could be stolen and now it ends up in the hands of the very bad guy's who are a threat. I do know without a doubt that it is secure if I always carry it on my person. My .02

[Eclipse]

It's even more secure if you don't own it to start with.

[Panache]

It's even more secure if you don't own it to start with.

Right up to the point when you really wish you had one.

[LSThiker]

Just a little clarification.

I wasn't comparing Afghanistan and the US on a level of threat basis. My point is I am qualified to carry firearms (as are many) in a admittedly dangerous environment yet I am viewed as unqualified to do so in the states.

Actually you are not qualified to carry, you were allowed to carry a weapon due to the operational mission.  This is opposed to other places such as Germany, Japan, Kuwait, Cutter, etc where you are not allowed to carry a weapon due to the operational mission (barring specific jobs).  Also, just because I was trained in the military, does not mean I understand the state's specific gun laws.  Thus again, the military does not qualify you to carry in the US because that is the job of the state as "directed" by the US Constitution.  Even if I have a CHL in one state does not mean another state recognizes it.

Even MPs have extremely limited powers outside of a military post despite being certified peace officers.

In the woods you never what you'll come across. I'm also not suggesting carrying a crew-served weapon stateside but a sidearm does give a means of self defense in a pinch.

Well having walked thousands of miles in the woods as I am an avid backpacker, I do have a fairly good idea of what I will come across.  Never once did I ever sit there and say, gee, I wish I had a gun.  I may have said that in the ghetto of Chicago or in East Saint Louis, but that is a different story.  I would have never taken a 14 year old into that situation.

Also, studies have shown that people become over confident when they have a firearm.  This overconfidence gets them into positions that they would have otherwise avoided.  My citations include some of those already given above plus I can come up with others published in peer-reviewed journals.  But then again, I am not arguing that guns cannot be useful in specific circumstance.  I have a CHL.  That is a different question, one in which I will agree with you on specific points. 

However, that is not the question, which is carrying firearms on ground teams or at CAP activities necessary.  The answer is simply no because of ORM, cost-benefit, liability, and real and perceived need.

As far as facilities (like military bases) or any other facility banning firearms is plain dumb.

Again, that is a completely different question.  I would agree with you on some and others I would disagree.  I agree that a church, even though I am an atheist, is justified in banning them.  I would also agree with military bases.  After all, how many stupid things have we seen with an 18-25 year old testosterone filled 11B PVT?  Of course, I am not saying all 11B, all PVTs, all 18-25 y/o, any other MOSs , etc etc etc.  Furthermore, I believe private business owners should have the right to say whether or not firearms are allowed on their land as much as private home owners.


Also, in the facility that I work in, we have enough microscopic dangers inside that we do not need people walking around with weapons.  The facility already draws conspiracy theorists to believe we are going to create the next zombie outbreak that we do not need people walking around with weapons to fuel to their "beliefs".  FYI, we do not have "Rage".

No matter how secure the base itself is, what happens when someone leaves the "safety" of the base?

Depending on the base's rules, you can always stop by the provost and ask for your weapon prior to leaving base (unless Army policy has changed as it has been sometime).

Even policies allowing weapons to be locked in the vehicle is flawed from the standpoint that it could be stolen and now it ends up in the hands of the very bad guy's who are a threat. I do know without a doubt that it is secure if I always carry it on my person.

And you have just made the case as to why firearms should be banned from CAP events.  Since current laws allow specific places to ban weapons, leaving it locked up in a CAP vehicle would be a bad idea.

So the reasons for prohibiting them include:  liability, possible show of force when in a military style uniform (remember knives on a ground team need to be stowed when performing site security), safety and security of the weapon, member lack of judgement, lack of justifiable need, and so forth.

Presented reasons for firearms:
-4-legged natural hazards.  This can be overcome by appropriate following proper attraction techniques, other means such as bear spray, and distraction techniques.  A question that I like to ask, if a bear attacks, should you play dead?

-2-legged humans:  Really depends on the situation, but the appropriate question is, would you take a 12-year cadet into the situation and then tell their parents?  Either way, no one has presented a verifiable situation in which a ground team should have had a firearm.

[sarmed1]

...member lack of judgement

I am a pro-gun, pro carry, but this is the number 1 reason I can see to avoid the firearms by GT personnel.
(please see my earlier post)

mk

[Johnny Yuma]

CAP, Inc. allowing you to carry firearms for defense? HA! It wasn't that long ago they didn't even want you reporting cadet abuse to anyone but your Wing Commander, even if your real job required it! What ever made you think they'd allow you to use your own tools to protect yourself and/or others while on CAP's clock?

Be glad they don't just ban their members from owning them outright, after all their organization, their rules as so many on here have said in the past...

[/sarcasm]

I've got a different take on this subject: NHq, Inc. is out to protect NHQ, Inc and its corporate officers only. Even if they allowed it in the 900-3 I wouldn't trust NHQ, Inc to toss a member under the bus if they had to use a firearm while on a mission, be it legal or not.

Besides, I'm doing everything i can to reduce the amount of weight (read crap) I'm packing on my 24 and 72 hour gear as it is. Adding a long gun, mags and ammo kinda defeats the purpose. Even your military CSAR operators working stateside missions aren't loaded out, so one's a little hard-pressed to justify it for most any of our missions.

That doesn't mean i don't have a 'special' bag or two that might get tossed in the car trunk along with my GT gear, it just doesn't go along with me on CAP sorties.

As far as CCW goes, let your conscience be your guide there. FWIW I'd rather get a 2b and go ride my horse more than get a SMOV at my funeral. I'm sure one day NHQ, Inc will get around to providing a policy involving violence against its members, probably have to report it to NHQ,Inc. for their investigation and reporting to Law Enforcement...

[Panache]

Did this thread loose about five days worth of replies?

EDIT:  Nevermind.  I see that somehow it branched out into another thread ( http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18826.0 ).