Posted on Jul 24, 2015
Armed civilian misfires AR-15 while guarding a recruiting station. Thoughts on civilians guarding points of interest?
4.97K
9
16
1
1
0
http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/story/news/local/2015/07/23/armed-volunteer-fires-shot/30574117/
I read an article about one of the civilians misfiring his AR-15 while standing guard by a recruiting station. Thankfully, nobody was hurt but it does not excuse the lack of trigger discipline. Now, I'm aware that not all civilians are as careless as this, but there are a few people out there who are trying to do what they think is right, but they do not have the training required. Therefore, I feel that it can do more harm than good if the guards are not prepared.
I ask RallyPoint because I'm curious as to what other veterans think. True, a lot of the volunteers standing guard probably have trigger discipline and training with said weapon. However, I would not say that 100% of them have the bearing, which makes me believe that a few of them are doing a lot more harm than good. By no means am I saying that all armed civilians are undisciplined (hell, some of them can teach me a thing or two), but there are a few of them that could use a bit more.... attention, as said in the article.
So my question is, do you think that armed civilians standing guard next to points of interest is for the benefit of the good, or are they going overboard? Personally, I think that the recruiters themselves should be assigned a weapon to them in self defense and be trained on it. Though, this is just my opinion and would like to hear about what the community thinks.
(Sorry for the wall of text)
I read an article about one of the civilians misfiring his AR-15 while standing guard by a recruiting station. Thankfully, nobody was hurt but it does not excuse the lack of trigger discipline. Now, I'm aware that not all civilians are as careless as this, but there are a few people out there who are trying to do what they think is right, but they do not have the training required. Therefore, I feel that it can do more harm than good if the guards are not prepared.
I ask RallyPoint because I'm curious as to what other veterans think. True, a lot of the volunteers standing guard probably have trigger discipline and training with said weapon. However, I would not say that 100% of them have the bearing, which makes me believe that a few of them are doing a lot more harm than good. By no means am I saying that all armed civilians are undisciplined (hell, some of them can teach me a thing or two), but there are a few of them that could use a bit more.... attention, as said in the article.
So my question is, do you think that armed civilians standing guard next to points of interest is for the benefit of the good, or are they going overboard? Personally, I think that the recruiters themselves should be assigned a weapon to them in self defense and be trained on it. Though, this is just my opinion and would like to hear about what the community thinks.
(Sorry for the wall of text)
Civilians
ISIS
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 11
2
2
0
I think it should be our trained soldiers guarding their own areas. While I appreciate the thought, civilians lack the quality control and background checks necessary to do the job properly.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I agree wholeheartedly. It's just that there is something very wrong when civilians have to defend points of interest and even defend military members currently serving. It's all backwards.
Recruiters, and servicemen stationed at specific areas should be allowed to carry a weapon in self defense, provided that they're trained on it, of course. We should be protecting the public from attacks, not the other way around.
Recruiters, and servicemen stationed at specific areas should be allowed to carry a weapon in self defense, provided that they're trained on it, of course. We should be protecting the public from attacks, not the other way around.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SGT (Join to see), agreed. All military personnel should be trained in handling their weapons; it is especially true of those that should be armed as a regular part of their duties - which covers more now than just law enforcement personnel.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
First and foremost the weapon should have had the safety on. Second on level headed, competent people should handle a firearm so as not to jeopardize the safety of others.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
There is a positive to it. It shows that the American people are behind the military. Inside of riots and hate there is respect and community.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google