Guns don't shoot people, police shoot people.

Seven accidents out of 28 shootings is one quarter, not one half. Still the ratio of accidental shootings to operational incidents is too high. UK police obviously need to shoot more criminals to decrease the ratio.

/that or learn how to use their guns safely

Now the question becomes, who has better marksmanship, the police or the criminals? I haven't hear of allot of "Criminal shoots himself in the foot" type stories coming out of the UK.

OK Ange, I suppose one bullet will be enough for this.

That's because unlike us gun-owning Americans, they don't have any experience with guns and are more likely to make mistakes. *ducks*

You know, if there was only a law or right in the UK that went something along the lines of "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then they'd be better shots.

/people who carry fire arms should be well versed in the general operation of fire arms before they take a job requiring of it. Including, but not limited to, being able to point said fire arm at what they want to shoot, which is not themselves or a friend.

Police that carry guns are known as 'Armed Police', they're basically the SWAT teams of the UK. What is the accidental friendly fire rate among SWAT teams in the US?

nobozo:

"Nip this in the bud."

Their aim can't be all that bad. They managed to shoot that Brazillian guy in the head seven times.

Bored Horde: Police that carry guns are known as 'Armed Police', they're basically the SWAT teams of the UK. What is the accidental friendly fire rate among SWAT teams in the US?

Damn near 0. Unless you're counting innocent civilians, in which case it's typically not accidental.

Heh, gun control is really working over there

That's why when they get a suspect on the ground at a train station, they pump a brazilian rounds in his head.

Maybe they should carry swords instead.

inuchance,

"That's because unlike us gun-owning Americans, they don't have any experience with guns and are more likely to make mistakes. *ducks*"

Drat. I came in here to say that...

"Nearly half of all injuries caused by police shootings in the UK are the result of officers accidently shooting themselves or a colleague"

I'd call that a good start.

I wonder how many vice presidents have shot friends in the UK?

nashBridges: Bored Horde: What is the accidental friendly fire rate among SWAT teams in the US?

Apparently not high enough to warrant a news story. I would suspect that FF incidents are higher for any SWAT team because they run raids, but since our regular police in larger metropolitan areas also have some firearm usage, maybe not.

Regardless, most of these incidents happened during training. Maybe SWAT isn't a fair comparison, but the military is. They have training accidents all the time.

Maybe they just aren't reported on?

In Toronto, ONT, the media generally doesn't report on SWAT team action unless its something particularly noteworthy (like a hostage-taker being shot by a sniper in a train station). Since they tend to train with live ammo doing mock raids, I'd say you're probably right about the majority of the incidents being training related. Two of my friends have scars from being shot during live ammo exercises with the army.

Bored Horde: Police that carry guns are known as 'Armed Police', they're basically the SWAT teams of the UK. What is the accidental friendly fire rate among SWAT teams in the US?

I found less than a dozen incidents in the past five years, and in every single case, a civilian was the one shot.

To be honest, I've only heard of ONE case where a law enforcement officer shot another officer, and that was back in the early 90s.

But don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your "freedoms are for pussies" rant.

Nearly half of all injuries caused by police shootings...

Come to Canada. Where the RCMP kills at least 3 people every two months..Whether they need to or not.

Every person in the UK should have several assault rifles each. That would fix the problem.

the ha ha guy: Bored Horde: Police that carry guns are known as 'Armed Police', they're basically the SWAT teams of the UK. What is the accidental friendly fire rate among SWAT teams in the US?

I found less than a dozen incidents in the past five years, and in every single case, a civilian was the one shot.

To be honest, I've only heard of ONE case where a law enforcement officer shot another officer, and that was back in the early 90s.

But don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your "freedoms are for pussies" rant.

I love free pussy, but I don't see how your snark has any relevance to my post.

I stated that usually the only police with guns in the UK are their swat teams. Then I asked the question about similar rates of friendly fire or training accidents among US swat teams, and thus far no convincing numbers have been presented.

With the raw number of swat team officers, I really can't believe that there hasn't been a case of friendly fire since the 1990s. I'd assume that the combination of 9mm rounds and heavy body armour makes for nonlethal and usually non-injurious incidents of friendly fire.

I'd like to post something relevant, about how states with lenient gun laws
allow for gun saftey to be freely explained and practiced, while states
with ultra strict gun laws iconize the weapon, and only harbor a curiosity
whereas people uneducated about the firearm could possibly
harm themselves or others, but I know fark, so I wont.

/run on.
//whatev.

Bored Horde: Maybe they just aren't reported on?

In Toronto, ONT, the media generally doesn't report on SWAT team action unless its something particularly noteworthy (like a hostage-taker being shot by a sniper in a train station). Since they tend to train with live ammo doing mock raids, I'd say you're probably right about the majority of the incidents being training related. Two of my friends have scars from being shot during live ammo exercises with the army.

Entirely possible. I did a weak bit of Googling and came across an article discussing how 43% of all shootings of LAPD officers were friendly fire incidents. It mentioned an anecdote of a SWAT officer accidentally discharging his shotgun after a raid while unloading, and ricocheting pellets lodging themselves in his partner's leg. Another article from a trade mag listed two other incidents that occurred during the course of 2007, but in both cases it appears that another agency was operating at the same time as SWAT.

Still, the problem stateside isn't with poor control of weapons; the number of incidences -vs- the number of LEOs seems to support this. The problem is that they kill innocent civilians left and right, and are very rarely taken to task for it.

Friendly fire has the right of way.

The US military has too many friendly fire incidents too.

Bored Horde: I'd assume that the combination of 9mm rounds and heavy body armour makes for nonlethal and usually non-injurious incidents of friendly fire.

There's also the fact that in some parts of the US, proper gun training starts at 10, and lasts your entire life. Whereas in the UK, gun training lasts only a few weeks before the officers are sent out on the field, and ends at the end of their shift.

If I'm going to trust my life to someone holding a gun, I'd pick the person with 30 years of training over the person with a few weeks of training.

Only one Barny Fife photo so far?

I wonder how much training the soldiers whom shot Pat Tillman had?

• A diplomatic protection officer in Central London shot himself in the leg getting into a car in September 2007.

• A firearms officer from West Mercia Police shot himself in the leg and foot in January 2006 after his gun became caught in his clothing.


It seems to me that the two-week training course that officers must undergo isn't long enough, because apparently they don't even know what a safety is.

See if they had life long training and usage like we do in the states then maybe these things wouldn't happen.

the ha ha guy: Bored Horde: I'd assume that the combination of 9mm rounds and heavy body armour makes for nonlethal and usually non-injurious incidents of friendly fire.

There's also the fact that in some parts of the US, proper gun training starts at 10, and lasts your entire life. Whereas in the UK, gun training lasts only a few weeks before the officers are sent out on the field, and ends at the end of their shift.

If I'm going to trust my life to someone holding a gun, I'd pick the person with 30 years of training over the person with a few weeks of training.

Could you at least try to be funny? Come on, you're saying that the brits stick their SWAT personnel into the field after 2 weeks of training.

Bored Horde: Could you at least try to be funny? Come on, you're saying that the brits stick their SWAT personnel into the field after 2 weeks of training.

Fact still stands, if you shoot yourself by mishandling your gun, either you need more training or you're one of the special little snowflakes who has no business being anywhere near a firearm. Either way, more training is the simplest way to solve the first and give you more chances to weed out the second.

Two weeks, two decades, it doesn't matter. Whatever training program they have now, it's obviously not doing what it's designed to do.

Come on! 7 incidents out of 6700 since 2003? Big friggin' deal.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the fact that their lack of handguns probably contributes to this. Less guys with guns = fewer times they have to actually use firearms in the field. As such, it'd be fair to say that more of their firearms use is in training and demos, as stated in TFA. I think the only way to be fair about this is compare per capita accidents across various countries.

I wonder if any of them aimed their gun up in the air, shot it multiple times in rapid succession, and went "ARRRRRGGGHGHHHHHHH!!!!" ?

the ha ha guy: Bored Horde: I'd assume that the combination of 9mm rounds and heavy body armour makes for nonlethal and usually non-injurious incidents of friendly fire.

There's also the fact that in some parts of the US, proper gun training starts at 10, and lasts your entire life. Whereas in the UK, gun training lasts only a few weeks before the officers are sent out on the field, and ends at the end of their shift.

If I'm going to trust my life to someone holding a gun, I'd pick the person with 30 years of training over the person with a few weeks of training.

From my understanding most of the guys in SWAT units are ex-military and generally ex-special forces. Apparently it's fairly competitive to be placed on a SWAT unit so the guys who do get in are very well trained... if not by the police department... then by the military.

On a side note... there are some people with many years of experience who still do stupid crap with guns. Take, for example, my brother. Everyone knows gun rule #1 is never point a gun at anyone... ever. My brother (he's 30) was screwing around with his loaded gun in the holster (he had taken it off his belt) and when I told him to put it down or at least not point it anywhere near me he got pissed off. Actually, he ended taking out the mag and clearing the chamber. Fine with me. I didn't want to get shot.

Either way... just goes to show gun stupidity is everywhere.

nashBridges: Not enough. In all fairness, though, a war zone is a lot more confusing than a training ground of your local SWAT team.

I've never been in the military (and unless a draft comes along or I join the Wolverines I don't plan on it) but I would have to agree with you.

Bored Horde: Could you at least try to be funny?

What's funny about people being shot by incompetent officers? I'm just saying that more experience = fewer accidents.

I do understand that officers in the UK get more than 2 weeks of firearm training, but that's no contest against those in the US who were given their own gun at ten years old.

A large percentage of officers in the US were proficient in firearm safety years before they applied to the force. Unfortunately, due to the differing laws in the UK, not one of the police involved in this study can say the same thing. And the two weeks of training before they're thrown out on the street can't possibly help in that regard.

Most policemen who are shot in the USA are shot with a policeman's gun. This includes accidental shootings, suicides and being shot with a gun that a criminal took from an arresting officer.

A few years ago I had a job where I worked pretty closely with the police (testing radio equipment- very boring). Suffice to say, I met a lot of cops, and only one of them had been shot. Accidentally, by his own sergeant, on the shooting range.

My point is: shiat happens. The worst offenders in my experience are the redneck wonders whom've been trained since childhood in gun safety. Complacancy and chronic underachevement can collide with potentially lethal results.

momule: I wonder how many vice presidents have shot friends in the UK?

The UK doesn't have vice presidents, dumbass.

Special_Ed9289: It seems to me that the two-week training course that officers must undergo isn't long enough, because apparently they don't even know what a safety is.

I don't know what they're issued, but to be fair, many semi-auto pistols don't have a safety device. Glocks and Smith and Wesson M&P models don't have any safety besides not pulling the trigger. Most revolvers are sans-safeties also.

/safety devices are not required to safely handle a weapon

No one even mentioned this yet. Subby accidentally misspelled accidentally.

Scrophulous Barking Duck: Seven accidents out of 28 shootings is one quarter, not one half. Still the ratio of accidental shootings to operational incidents is too high. UK police obviously need to shoot more alleged criminals to decrease the ratio.

FTFY.

I wonder what the ratio is in the U.S.

After unjustified police attacks are stricken from the record, that is. Better they shoot themselves or each other than innocent citizens.

burrgrinder: Special_Ed9289: It seems to me that the two-week training course that officers must undergo isn't long enough, because apparently they don't even know what a safety is.

I don't know what they're issued, but to be fair, many semi-auto pistols don't have a safety device. Glocks and Smith and Wesson M&P models don't have any safety besides not pulling the trigger. Most revolvers are sans-safeties also.

/safety devices are not required to safely handle a weapon

Neither does the Browning M2 .50 caliber machinegun. A buddy of mine was a gunner on a Humvee and his driver sucked. He was constantly getting thrown against the weapon because his driver loved to floor it down shiatty roads. He was surprised he never hit the butterfly triggers and accidentally fired off a few rounds.

That's part of why I like my H&K USP. I like having a physical safety switch.

Bob Down: Every person in the UK should have several assault rifles each. That would fix the problem.

indenture: Guns don't shoot people, people shoot peoplepolice shoot peoplepolice .

FTFY

Cool- a police line up is now a shooting range.
...I won a stuffed piggy!

Well, this should be a fine bit of data for those who think only "trained professionals" should carry guns. A tiny percentage of the population responsible for half of all accidents... and the "trained professional" percentage to boot!


For the record, I have carried on all but about 15 days in the last 2+ years and have had loaded guns sleeping next to me for over 5. I'm not a trained professional, but my guns have never gone off "accidentally". Wait... maybe that's WHY they've never gone off, because I know I'll be held responsible if they do.

Approve.

/shenanigans