Firearms prohibition leaves The U.K. defenseless

A

andersencs

New member
Yesterday, I was watching a Military Channel documentary on the British Royal Marine Training program. I watched with a fair ammount of ammusement while the trainees failed the shooting portion of their training. One would have thought the British were smart enough to intuit that disarming the public would mean that the nation would loose experienced shooters. It should have followed for them that shooting skills are one of the primary skills of soldiering. Yet, it is apparent that the British are not that smart.

There is a reason why the U.S. military is second to none. Americans shoot recreationally and therefore have a certain martial skill set. As Americans, it is incumbent upon us to stand firm against the forces of disarmament and pacification, lest we loose a critical right and a critical skill.

The Second Amendment has precious little to do about duck hunting, and everything to do with homeland security and preparedness. To those who would disarm us, I say do so at your own peril. When the boogie man comes calling, do not ask me to chase him off.
 
But just look at how safe Britain is!!! Who will need to defend themselves when they are nice and safe? Bad things never happen to those who give up their right to defend themselves. That;s why the French did so well in WWII.
 
Just curious, how many young folks entering the military have significant firearms experience and how do they compare after basic training in their ability to use military firearms with those who don't?

Have any data on this?

How have British troops performed in combat as compared to American troops?
 
Somehow, I doubt the US military is second to none because of recreational shooting by the public. I am surprised you didn't include vast firearms experience of inner city gang members as also aiding the US military.

Heck, Somali kids own full auto AK47s and shoot whenever they want, but I would hardly classify the general Somali population as good shooters.

Did you stop to think that part of the reason the US military was second to none was because it is extremely well funded, possesses the highest level of technology of any other military right now, and has resources in theatre providing critical intel that other militaries don't have? Did you think that maybe the reason is that the US offers some of the best battlefield medical care and that soldiers know that even if shot in the middle of nowhere that they could be in surgery at a hospital in a very short amount of time and so are not as likely to die while fighting as are soldiers of other militaries.

There is also a fair amount of US troops that fail their first quals with firearms. In speaking with one of the Dallas PD firearms instructors, they get a bunch of folks that have never fired pistols or never fired more than one type of gun (pistol, rifle, shotgun) who end up needing a lot of extra training to be functional enough to pass quals.

The firearms prohibition in the UK does not leave it defenseless. At best, your argument is that they have to spend some extra time with recruits before they are up to speed on shooting. Shooting is one of the primary skills of soldiering, at least in the fighting aspect, but there are so many primary skills in soldiering like hiking with an 80 lb pack, foot health, first aid, running fast, threat identification, yaddy yaddy yaddy yaddy. As with cops, it is all important and few master all of the components.

In looking at shooting as a primary skill, if the US thought it was such a primary skill, then why aren't soldiers in the homeland or other non-fighting areas required to shoot more frequently?

Chuck Yeager recounts how in WWII, it was noticed that those folks who became good gunners in aircraft, either in bombers or in fighter aircraft were folks who grew up with shooting, particularly with shooting shotguns. So the gunnery programs instituted skeet training followed by shotgunning out of the back of moving trucks, and so on until moving into airplanes. This increased the proficiency of shooters in the the planes by a good margin. The point Yeager was making was that while there was a marked difference in skill, it was the majority of the recruits that did not possess it.

Of course there is one huge downside to being proficient with arms and having high technology. It often means that the greatest threat to the American soldier very well may be other soldiers. In the first Gulf War, 1/4 dead were by fratricide and 17% of the wounded were fratricide. Those percentages would have been a good bit higher had it not been for the last minute SCUD attack hitting barracks in Saudi.

Being a good shooting doesn't mean a whole lot if you can't properly ID the opposition.
 
"There is a reason why the U.S. military is second to none. Americans shoot recreationally and therefore have a certain martial skill set."

By that same rational I wonder if the africans/iraqis have some baaaad commandos...Cuz I see a gun in EVERYBODY'S hands over there.


doublenaut beat me to it...and inner city gangs.

"So the gunnery programs instituted skeet training followed by shotgunning out of the back of moving trucks, and so on until moving into airplanes."

That sounds like so much fun...but too easy to pull a 'cheney'
 
Poor marksmanship a good thing sometimes?

No military, but police. Being from the land of recreational shooters, you would have thought that at least one of the shooters could have hit his target.

Once again, threat ID is critical.

http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/news-17/1144164123190920.xml&coll=7&thispage=1

No one hit as cops blaze away -- at each other
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
By Lisa Medendorp
Gazette News Service

MUSKEGON -- Bullets peppered the wall, ceiling and refrigerator in a weekend incident during which two Muskegon police officers fired shots at each other inside a home.

``Thankfully, nobody was hurt,'' said Director of Public Safety Tony Kleibecker, who has launched an internal investigation and has placed both officers on paid administrative leave.

Three people, including one of the residents, 21-year-old Nicholas Johnson, were in the basement of the home when police burst through the front and rear doors.
 
Second to none

Certainly technology and training play a substantial role in the quality of our military. Nonetheless, the recruits on this particular documentary were Royal Marines, some of the most elite warriors in the U.K. The were firing that bull pup 5.56 with the optical sight. Anyone who has ever hunted or shot competitively will naturally excel at shooting. My point was, Britains do not have that opportunity. Certainly the Saudis may own AK 47s but how often do they practice marksmanship? The AK-47 is not particularly accurate and it has a pitiful excuse for a trigger. I wonder how a Saudi would do with an M-16 or G-3 if he had to hit anything in semi-auto.

The United States should look closely at the experience of the armed forces in those countries where citizens have been disarmed. Furthrmore we should think long and hard about the unintended consequences of disarmament as it relates to freash recruits to the military.
 
It may lower the average accuracy of the run of the mill Brit soldier but I doubt it will ahve a large effect. Remember how many rounds it takes to actually kill someone in a war with automatic weapons....

Where the Brits are really going to feel it is with their special ops folks and snipers. You do not get a Carlos Hathcock or Vasili Zeitsev (sp?) from an 18 year old boy who never held a rifle before. As the current generation of excellent shooters mature and leave their is going to be a void that will be hard to filll.
 
I was a Drill Sergeant 81-83, not much skill came thru, and the Army basic marksmanship program is pretty lame for all but special units/personnel.
Why go to a 3 round burst weapon if the shooters were highly trained.
 
Carlos Hathcock was an accomplished hunter. Maybe the skills picked up hunting translate better into usable military skill as opposed to just shooting.
 
Alvin York and Carlos Hathcock were both skilled marksmen before joining the military. Hathcock won many national matches at Camp Perry long before he got a confirmed kill in combat.
 
I've read in several places over the years how the military at various levels appreciated the skills of recreational shooters upon entering the services. It certainly DID make a difference, once upon a time. Hathcock would be a perfect example.

That said, I suspect that currently, massive funding and high tech have offset recreational shooting in making our military effective. Too many people today do not shoot, even though they still can. Also, too many combat scenerios hinge on too many other weapons besides the rifle today to get a good idea of how important it is.

That might be a good lead-in for another issue: In a long, drawn-out war against a similar military power how long can we support the high-tech gadgetry and how well can a modern armed force fight without their goodies. Point being, in modern warfare any conflict between similar forces will by necessity have to end quick or regress to 'nam technology levels at best. NOBODy can throw billion dollar bombers and hundred millon dollar fighters and 10 million dollar missiles at each other for too long.

Would the lack of "born marksmen" make a difference then?
 
I am certainly no expert on the subject, but I have a hard time believing high tech gadgets will offset poor marksmanship.

Notice how, in spite of decades of fighting, Middle Easterners and Africans fail to bring the butt of their rifle to their shoulder and put the sight on target. No amount of technology offsets that.

Okay, so training can eventually change that. But the faster you naturally point the gun where it should be, the faster you can begin to use your sight of any sort. I think the experienced shooter will be much faster and the new shooter, while more effective than before, will still be struggling a bit. Especially when the targets are moving. Is there a red dot sight that helps you properly lead a target and keep your rifle moving slowly?
I wonder who is more effective, an exprienced shooter with iron sights or a freshly trained shooter with a red dot? I bet, even if given more ways to compensate or pad recoil, the new shooter has more trouble with it.
 
Is there an analysis available that deals with how often combat is engaged at rifle distances by troops of opposing sides, vs "push button" combat? I suspect long range strikes and air attacks account for the bulk of combat these days, with "our boys" seeing "their boys" and shooting each other being a relatively(I emphasize that word) rare event. If so then technology certainly makes a difference by decreasing the need for the rifleman's skill.
 
I dont know if any of you folks are NRA members but you should go to the NRA website and read the history of the NRA and why it was founded.

Apparently some Union officers after the Civil was was over were appalled at the poor marksmanship of the city dwellers they had as soldiers durring the war. You see the Confederate soldier from a rural background was a much better shot. So the NRA was founded specifically to teach Urban civillians shooting skills so if they were needed for the military they would know how to shoot.
 
Only a moron is goign to choose to fight the USA in the type of war we are equipped to figth better than anyone. The last guy to do so in the past generation is currently on trial in Iraq. That will not happen again.

No, the type of fight we will inevitably get pulled into is the one where the individual sodlier has the greatest influence. That is because while the difference between a trained Ranger and Somali gunman is significant the difference between Somali armor and American AT helicopters and aircraft is even greater. Who would choose to fight us on our own terms. Allt hose gadgets are nice, and we do need them to limit the types of conflicts people choose to engage us in, but in what we are likely to face they are just support.

For this reason the individual rifleman is MORE important today than he has been all the way back to before WWI. After all, artillery is pretty damn useless in an occupied city you do not want to level.
 
The South lost the war despite the advantage of such expert shooters. The Union had its share of rural folks.

But the war wasn't decided on the basis of individual marksmanship. The premise under debate is whether the lack of sports and hunting firearms experience of today's youth leaves a country 'defenseless'.

That is an empirical question. Given the weapons set of today, can any typical soldier from a modern country be trained up to speed to be competent with that weapon. Then is that soldier one that enables his or her country to accomplish their military goals.

Otherwise, the analyses are just internet ranting.
 
Kreugers were much better shots than the British soldier, but lacked numbers and resources.

The Union had numbers and industry, the Confederacy had to keep the war short if it were to have any hope. With a lower population base, each casuality was more significant. Less industry meant not only difficulty in replacing equiptment, but less of equiptment that like artillery and cannon.

Rangers and such are nice. Most soldiers aren't Rangers. I think part of the reason we so often see different Special Forces used either constantly or on missions that don't seem to fit their profile is that the basic quality of the average soldier needs improvement.
 
remember

anybody remember the millons of guns we sent to England when they thought Hitler was going to land his troops on their beaches? Anybody remember pictures of the British Home Guard, armed with pitchforks and sticks, because they didn't have rifles?

Anybody remeber Yamamoto saying it would be impossible for Japan to invade the United States, because "there would be a rifle behind every bush"?

Does the general lack of firearms and firearms training render a country defenseless? No. Not until their military resources are fully comitted, and they still need more. Then where do they get guns? I know this seems farfetched in our world, with nuclear weapons, and smart bombs and all, but in 1938 we had "Peace in our time!", and look how that turned out.

As far as how long our high tech weapons would last if we had to fight someone at or near our own level? We don't have vast numbers of "billion dollar bombers" to throw at an enemy. In the 1970s, we figured that if we fought the Soviet bloc, we could lose a year's worth of peacetime production in tanks in a single day! We are not equipped for a protracted high intensity conflict against an enemy of similar abilities. No one believes we need to be.
I pray they are right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top