NationStates Jolt Archive

Just follow the lads in the UK around when they're on exercise. In fact, hanging out at Sainsbury's when they drop in for snacks and a visit to the loo is just the thing.

Pay attention to the valuable kit they leave behind.

Free fully automatic weapons!

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_objectid=16266917&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=army-assault-rifle--lost--in-pembrokeshire-name_page.html

Big whoop, some idiot lost a rifle. What's your point?

Yeah, here in Australia when I was a kid we used to play with these really old rusty machine guns we found in a paddock. No idea where they came from. Perhaps something similar.

Two things
1 -- I was in Israel recently and I found out that the reservists aren't allowed to take weapons home anymore. Too many of their weapons were turning up in terrorist hands. You'd expect better from a senior enlisted man, though.

2 -- This kind of incident illustrates why gun control will never be practical. There's always a source of weapons for those that want to use them illegally.

Big whoop, some idiot lost a rifle. What's your point?

I think he's trying to entertain us. Which is a noble goal.

Big whoop, some idiot lost a rifle. What's your point?

In a country that prides itself on "gun control", and prides itself on the idea that "police and military are trained professionals who know how to handle weapons responsibly", this situation is laughable.

It's especially bad to hear that a sergeant major (the most senior NCO) loses his weapon. Very, very, very unprofessional.

Just follow the lads in the UK around when they're on exercise. In fact, hanging out at Sainsbury's when they drop in for snacks and a visit to the loo is just the thing.

Pay attention to the valuable kit they leave behind.

Free fully automatic weapons!

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_objectid=16266917&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=army-assault-rifle--lost--in-pembrokeshire-name_page.html


That was back in 2005 and it's the only two incidents recorded as happening.

You're telling me it doesn't happen to other armies?

That was back in 2005 and it's the only two incidents recorded as happening.

You're telling me it doesn't happen to other armies?

Not with sergeant majors. Lower ranking enlisted and junior officers generally.

Then again, the US isn't claiming to be gun control central, and "only military and professionals know how to handle guns".


Reminds me of the DEA agent who, in front of schoolchildren, first said, "I'm the only one here professional enough to handle a gun, " and then shot himself in the leg.

no one should be allowed to have guns, only I.

Need a military version of an assault rifle?


Umm. Assault rifle = select-fire, military weapon.

That was back in 2005 and it's the only two incidents recorded as happening.

You're telling me it doesn't happen to other armies?
The year is not material. The fact that similar incidents occured in the same exercise makes one wonder how often this happens to the British army in general.

Not with sergeant majors. Lower ranking enlisted and junior officers generally.

Then again, the US isn't claiming to be gun control central, and "only military and professionals know how to handle guns".

Reminds me of the DEA agent who, in front of schoolchildren, first said, "I'm the only one here professional enough to handle a gun, " and then shot himself in the leg.

Saw the video of that, followed by 'I'm ok, here, hand me the MP5."

As for "only military and professionals know how to handle guns", well mistakes happen. To think otherwise is a little naieve don't you think?

Besides, our gun control is ok, not perfect by any means though. Still, in the previous case, a member of the public who found the pistol that had been lost handed it in. Shows you can still have faith in the public sometimes :)

My father broke his gun so he and his mates teamed up to steal one from stores. A good team building exercise. Nowadays they'd probably be called terrorists. How times change.

The year is not material. The fact that similar incidents occured in the same exercise makes one wonder how often this happens to the British army in general.

If the sergeant major is irresponsible with his weapon, every enlisted man below him is free to be irresponsible as well. It's a bad sign.

If the sergeant major is irresponsible with his weapon, every enlisted man below him is free to be irresponsible as well. It's a bad sign.
Damn 'New' Army.

The year is not material. The fact that similar incidents occured in the same exercise makes one wonder how often this happens to the British army in general.

2 incidents. If you can show me more then go ahead.

Quite honestly I think the insinuation that you can just 'pick up an assault rifle' is a little over the top. Two guns have been lost, one of which was returned. It's not like there's an easy supply line of them from the army.

Damn 'New' Army.
I wonder if anyone got relieved over this.

Usually, in the US Army, if you lose a weapon in peacetime, the most closely associated junior officer over that NCO or enlisted person gets smoked like a cheap cigar.

I remember one incident where a junior enlisted hated his LT. The enlisted man threw his rifle out of the helicopter over Kentucky Lake where it was permanently lost, and the LT was fried over it - even though the LT was in another helicopter. Never got promoted after that.

The simplest of errors in the US military are career ending.

If the sergeant major is irresponsible with his weapon, every enlisted man below him is free to be irresponsible as well. It's a bad sign.

Don't be stupid. You can't label the entire British Army as irresponsible with it's weapons from the actions of one incident by one irresponsible Sergeant-Major.

Don't be stupid. You can't label the entire British Army as irresponsible with it's weapons from the actions of one incident by one irresponsible Sergeant-Major.
I'm labelling the unit as irresponsible.

Seen that sort of rot before. That means a battalion or regimental sized unit, if it's a sergeant major.

Don't be stupid. You can't label the entire British Army as irresponsible with it's weapons from the actions of one incident by one irresponsible Sergeant-Major.

Or to be more precisely, the Sergeant-Majors under study as the article says,

He apparently handed it to one of his juniors at a temporary command post before going to do some administrative work, and could not find the weapon when he returned.

If we're going to say the whole British army is irresponsible, why not lets tar every US trooper with the same brush and say they frequently hit their own allies and just shoot without aiming.

Yes it's facetious, but it's exactly what the others are doing currently.

I wonder if anyone got relieved over this.

Usually, in the US Army, if you lose a weapon in peacetime, the most closely associated junior officer over that NCO or enlisted person gets smoked like a cheap cigar.

I remember one incident where a junior enlisted hated his LT. The enlisted man threw his rifle out of the helicopter over Kentucky Lake where it was permanently lost, and the LT was fried over it - even though the LT was in another helicopter. Never got promoted after that.

The simplest of errors in the US military are career ending.
The air wing had less exposure to that kind of problem that the grunts. We touched a weapon, other than a bomb or rocket, once a year for two weeks. We went from the armory to the range and back to the armory. We still managed to screw things up from time to time, though.

After one of the first days on the range, I got a call from the armory. Turns out one of our rifles checked out to a fellow officer couldn't be found during the inventory. He was a next door neighbor, so I walked over and asked if he remembered turning in his rifle at the end of the day. He paled a little and said he thought it might be in the trunk of his car. I told him to get his butt down to the armory and turn the thing in. That was the end of that episode.

I'll guarantee that if he had lost it at Sambo's or McDonalds on the way home, the story would have ended quite a bit differently.

I'm labelling the unit as irresponsible.

Seen that sort of rot before. That means a battalion or regimental sized unit, if it's a sergeant major.

In that case, it's stupid to label the entire unit as irresponsible. I maintain, ONE gun, ONE incident, ONE Sergeant-Major.

If we're going to say the whole British army is irresponsible, why not lets tar every US trooper with the same brush and say they frequently hit their own allies and just shoot without aiming.

Yes it's facetious, but it's exactly what the others are doing currently.

Indeed... all USAF personnel shoot down British Chinooks.

The air wing had less exposure to that kind of problem that the grunts. We touched a weapon, other than a bomb or rocket, once a year for two weeks. We went from the armory to the range and back to the armory. We still managed to screw things up from time to time, though.

After one of the first days on the range, I got a call from the armory. Turns out one of our rifles checked out to a fellow officer couldn't be found during the inventory. He was a next door neighbor, so I walked over and asked if he remembered turning in his rifle at the end of the day. He paled a little and said he thought it might be in the trunk of his car. I told him to get his butt down to the armory and turn the thing in. That was the end of that episode.

I'll guarantee that if he had lost it at Sambo's or McDonalds on the way home, the story would have ended quite a bit differently.

You did the right thing.

I'm agreeing with you that the Sergeant-Major responsible and the man he left it with should be in trouble and punished accordingly.

Indeed... all USAF personnel shoot down British Chinooks.

And, of course, all USAF pilots bomb British units in British areas of responsibility, in airspace they shouldn't have even been in.

Hey, this is fun! Let's spread more slander and exaggerations!

In that case, it's stupid to label the entire unit as irresponsible. I maintain, ONE gun, ONE incident, ONE Sergeant-Major.
Actually, that exercise produced two incidents. But the Sgt Major is the man responsible for the character of the troops. If he's sloppy, they are too. If he shows up in a good looking uniform, is good at PT, and follows regulations, so will his men.

It's a bad sign for a unit to have a careless Sgt Major.

Actually, that exercise produced two incidents. But the Sgt Major is the man responsible for the character of the troops. If he's sloppy, they are too. If he shows up in a good looking uniform, is good at PT, and follows regulations, so will his men.

It's a bad sign for a unit to have a careless Sgt Major.

To be fair, it was a Signals Unit. Not exactly the cream of the crop as regards to the British military. Whilst I take your point that the man was an idiot, one can hardly tar the entire regiment with the same brush through the actions of a single absent-minded fool.

To be fair, it was a Signals Unit. Not exactly the cream of the crop as regards to the British military. Whilst I take your point that the man was an idiot, one can hardly tar the entire regiment with the same brush through the actions of a single absent-minded fool.

Well, to be fair, one of his careless juniors, who was handed the weapon then lost it.

You did the right thing.

I'm agreeing with you that the Sergeant-Major responsible and the man he left it with should be in trouble and punished accordingly.
I didn't read quite that far into the story, but it'd be a cold day in hell before I turned over my weapon to another Marine for safe-keeping. Not that I didn't trust the guys, but if I check out a weapon for my use, asking someone to watch it for a moment isn't really maintaining control over it.

Yet another sloppy performance by the Sgt Major. But his career is over. How many more slipshod senior enlisted men are lurking in the wings to perform an encore?

I love the smell of sweeping generalizations in the morning. :cool:

I love the smell of sweeping generalizations in the morning. :cool:

Nice smell, isn't it? Almost like bullshit, but with a hint of arrogance...

Nice smell, isn't it? Almost like bullshit, but with a hint of arrogance...

And it's got the sweet taste of 'one-upping' another nation, or so it would seem... *sighs*.

Nice smell, isn't it? Almost like bullshit, but with a hint of arrogance...
Indeed. And it seems to be more prevalent on General lately... But perhaps it's just that my sense of smell has improved recently?

Indeed. And it seems to be more prevalent on General lately... But perhaps it's just that my sense of smell has improved recently?

It's both.

I love the smell of sweeping generalizations in the morning. :cool:
I didn't know they made brushes so wide. The tar is just going everywhere!

2 -- This kind of incident illustrates why gun control will never be practical. There's always a source of weapons for those that want to use them illegally.
So let me get this straight - because some idiot lost his gun, therefore we should have no gun control. How does that work? Are you basing this on the assumption that if everyone had a gun, then when another army idiot leaves their gun in a loo, no-one will steal it, since they're already armed.
Is that it?

hmm..be careful when you make such great leaps in logic. You might fall down and hurt yourself.

It never ceases to amaze me the ability of people to turn anything into a pro gun argument. I thought I'd seen it all when people were arguing that Hurricane Katrina, where you had armed gangs roaming the streets shooting at rescuers, was an example of why people needed guns.
For a start the fact that the article doesn't mention it suggests that the rifle was unloaded so you're going to need to find bullets for the thing before you can materially expose the folly of Britain's gun control.
Secondly, it is only one incident and even the tightest of gun control regime allows for the fact that you can't 100% stop guns from entering the country.
Thridly I object to the contention that everyone with a gun in Britain is sensible. It was always the case that in Britain before gun control, where most sensible people wanted nothing to do with guns, a higher proprotion of those with guns were loonies. With gun control it hasn't changed it's just we keep them at bay and let them out now and then to shoot Brazilians and people carrying table legs.

I think it's safe to say that DP's attempt to create an argument ('No-Gun Control in the UK/America's lack thereof of Gun Control is a better policy') using idiotic sweeping generalisations based on a one-off incident regarding one idiotic Sergeant-Major (of whom, yes should be punished) has failed miserably.

My God, it's so mind-bogglingly stupid. I seriously feel my IQ dropping as I re-read DP's bullshit, my brain gets all tingly as I read this tripe. This is the single dumbest claim I've seen you make DP. Really, this takes the whole cake.

Edit: Yes, I realise my post has been copied multiple times for some reason, lemme delete 'em.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article2315.html

O MI GAWD, An American police officer lost his gun!??!!?!!??!!?!?!?!?!

Whatever happened to American perfection!?!!?!?!?!

I think the worlds about to explode!!

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article2315.html

O MI GAWD, An American police officer lost his gun!??!!?!!??!!?!?!?!?!

Whatever happened to American perfection!?!!?!?!?!

I think the worlds about to explode!!

OMG!

That's definately a bad sign for the US police force! The entire police force in that area must be sloppy and badly-run. Truly, this shows that the American police force are badly run...

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article2315.html

O MI GAWD, An American police officer lost his gun!??!!?!!??!!?!?!?!?!

Whatever happened to American perfection!?!!?!?!?!

I think the worlds about to explode!!

Well, obviously the entire American populace are incompetent when it comes to taking care of their firearms, we should disarm them immediatly as soon as we all find out where we left our guns. Where could they be?

Well, obviously the entire American populace are incompetent when it comes to taking care of their firearms, we should disarm them immediatly as soon as we all find out where we left our guns. Where could they be?

Dang nabbit! I gone and left it in Sainsbury's!

OMG!

That's definately a bad sign for the US police force! The entire police force in that area must be sloppy and badly-run. Truly, this shows that the American police force are badly run...
I think this definitely shows that they need tighter gun control in the US. Clearly no Americans can be trusted with guns.:)
Edit: Oops Neo Mechanus beat me to it.

Dang nabbit! I gone and left it in Sainsbury's!

Bloody hell, if only we Brits weren't so careless. Oh woe is me for being a completely clueless, inferior foreigner.

Edit: S'allright Yossarian Lives. I'm off for now, good luck beating off the dullards.

So let me get this straight - because some idiot lost his gun, therefore we should have no gun control. How does that work? Are you basing this on the assumption that if everyone had a gun, then when another army idiot leaves their gun in a loo, no-one will steal it, since they're already armed.
Is that it?

hmm..be careful when you make such great leaps in logic. You might fall down and hurt yourself.
We should have no gun control because it deprives a law-abiding citizenry of its rights to self defense. The fact that guns are always available, as illustrated by this example, only means that there is no practical method to prevent all criminals from possessing guns. You might want to take some baby steps, yourself.

We should have no gun control because it deprives a law-abiding citizenry of its rights to self defense. The fact that guns are always available, as illustrated by this example, only means that there is no practical method to prevent all criminals from possessing guns. You might want to take some baby steps, yourself.
For a given value of 'law-abiding citizenry' and guns being 'always available'
I've seen these arguments espoused before, the idea of a wonderful egalitarian Utopia where everyone alike is able to defend themselves with readily available guns. But it doesn't work like that.

Generally the people who can use guns are those with the wherewithal to avoid trouble in the first place. While those who were most at risk anyway, the chronically befuddled, the mentally incompetent, children and most important (at least in Britain) drunks aren't allowed guns anyway. You saw this in Hurricane Katrina when the state's protection was removed by the threat of armed gangs; everyone wit the nous to do so looked after themselves, they either stayed put or got themselves out of the danger area, while those who were reliant on the state's portection, old people in nursing homes and children in hospitals, suffered.

And as for guns being always available in a society with gun control, that's not how gun control works. Gun control works by making it unprofitable for criminals to use guns both due to the difficullty in obtaining them (assuming they can't wait around in service stations all day waiting for compliant tommies to leave their guns behind for them to use) and due to the penalties for carrying or using one.

These things happen. It's called human error. Just because the British Army is the best trained in the world, you can't expect it not to make mistakes every so often, even if they are *really* daft.

You want to see unproffesionalism in the armed forces? Try this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,926237,00.html).

We should have no gun control because it deprives a law-abiding citizenry of its rights to self defense. The fact that guns are always available, as illustrated by this example, only means that there is no practical method to prevent all criminals from possessing guns. You might want to take some baby steps, yourself.

This is an absurd argument. Look at the statistics. The US has the biggest gun crime problem in the world relative to its population. Why is gun crime so low in Europe? Beause it is so hard to get a gun. Yes it IS possible, but extremely hard.

It sounds like deterence gone crazy. Its like if we give every country a nuke then there will be no nuclear war. Well why not just take away all the nukes (yes I do realise the inpracticallities of this, its just an allegory)? Why not take away all the guns?

One justificiation we always here is that the principle of gun ownership is that if the governement were ever to be corupt or whatever the people would be able to ovethrow it. Well firstly the US government is corrupt and secondy, if the people were to try an uprising would they really be able to defeat the armed forces? Of course not. The real reason for the US wanting gun ownership is because it is a massive industry, it brings them in a lot of money.

o

These things happen. It's called human error. Just because the British Army is the best trained in the world, you can't expect it not to make mistakes every so often, even if they are *really* daft.

You want to see unproffesionalism in the armed forces? Try this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,926237,00.html).

My God! What was that stupid Yank thinking? I hope that traitor is tried and put away for a long time.

We should have no gun control because it deprives a law-abiding citizenry of its rights to self defense. The fact that guns are always available, as illustrated by this example, only means that there is no practical method to prevent all criminals from possessing guns. You might want to take some baby steps, yourself.
Ok, let's get this right.
Because some idiot lost their gun that might be found by someone who might later form some criminal intent and then might act on those intents and might take this gun along when committing said crime and might use said gun in the course of committing said crime and might injure or kill a person with said gun (assuming the police don't stop them first of course) we should therefore let everyone have unlimited access to guns. Which of course means every criminal as well.
Still stumbling and falling with your leaps of logic there I see.


btw, how is one gun being lost = guns always being available to criminals?
Oops. silly me. It's those darn leaps of logic again innit?

My God! What was that stupid Yank thinking? I hope that traitor is tried and put away for a long time.
'God bless the idiot proof Air Force'

Indeed... all USAF personnel shoot down British Chinooks.
Not to mention that the USAF wiped out the entire Canadian army in Afghanistan.

The year is not material. The fact that similar incidents occured in the same exercise makes one wonder how often this happens to the British army in general.
Is you point that the average gun-owing civilian is more professional with their gun than the average soldier?

Is you point that the average gun-owing civilian is more professional with their gun than the average soldier?

No.

Myrmidonisia and I have a common point of view - we're both ex-military.

Usually you see what they call "weapon accountability" problems in units that have major discipline problems - usually from the officer or NCO level on down.

This is something that is drilled into you in basic training here - you never let go of your weapon. Whether or not your assigned unit keeps you on that track is largely the responsibility of the non-commissioned officers - if they are slackers, your unit will lose a couple of weapons on every exercise.

So we're saying that particular unit has major problems.

No.

Myrmidonisia and I have a common point of view - we're both ex-military.

Usually you see what they call "weapon accountability" problems in units that have major discipline problems - usually from the officer or NCO level on down.

This is something that is drilled into you in basic training here - you never let go of your weapon. Whether or not your assigned unit keeps you on that track is largely the responsibility of the non-commissioned officers - if they are slackers, your unit will lose a couple of weapons on every exercise.

So we're saying that particular unit has major problems.
That would make sense if not for the fact that this is one weapon. If this was one of many weapons lost by this group then claiming they have major problems would be understandable. But after one known weapon loss it's a considerable overstatement.

That would make sense if not for the fact that this is one weapon. If this was one of many weapons lost by this group then claiming they have major problems would be understandable. But after one known weapon loss it's a considerable overstatement.

They had two losses on the same exercise.

They had two losses on the same exercise.
You're just reading whatever you feel like into the article. The article says nothing about the two soldiers being from the same regiment or on the same exercise, they didn't even lose them in the same country (well wales and england anyway). The only link is the coincidence that both incidents happened in the same week, which despite dark allusions to it being symptomatic of a wider issue, you haven't actually shown isn't just a cooincidence.

Ok, let's get this right.
Because some idiot lost their gun that might be found by someone who might later form some criminal intent and then might act on those intents and might take this gun along when committing said crime and might use said gun in the course of committing said crime and might injure or kill a person with said gun (assuming the police don't stop them first of course) we should therefore let everyone have unlimited access to guns. Which of course means every criminal as well.
Still stumbling and falling with your leaps of logic there I see.


btw, how is one gun being lost = guns always being available to criminals?
Oops. silly me. It's those darn leaps of logic again innit?
You can be complacent or you can be realistic. Take your choice. Firearms provide a level of self-defense that is unmatched by any other method. The lack of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens leaves them with something less than the best. In Britain, even self-defense is frowned upon. That's truly sad.

All this example does is provide an abstract example of how guns can and will always be available, despite the best efforts of everyone involved to keep them out of the hands of predators. You understand abstract, don't you?

In Britain, even self-defense is frowned upon. That's truly sad.


Lie.

The use of "excessive force" against instruders to your home is illegal. it may seem alien to you, but there are forms of self-defence that don't involve fire-arms. trust me, really, I'm not making it up.

You can be complacent or you can be realistic. Take your choice. Firearms provide a level of self-defense that is unmatched by any other method. The lack of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens leaves them with something less than the best. In Britain, even self-defense is frowned upon. That's truly sad.

All this example does is provide an abstract example of how guns can and will always be available, despite the best efforts of everyone involved to keep them out of the hands of predators. You understand abstract, don't you?
You talk about realism, yet you're arguing with a bizarre mix of assumptions and allusions and hypotheticals.
Look at your examples to describe how guns can get into the hands of criminals. Even assuming as you do that they're part of a wider problem (although I've not been able to find a news report of another similar incident) neither of the examples involved a loaded working gun entering society. So it's quite a leap from there to arming the whole of the UK to cope with the menace.
And if you want a concrete example of how lack of gun control does work in Britain look at Hungerford as a microcosm of British society. People could have owned guns and could have used them to stop Michael Ryan, but they didn't want them. The only person who wanted guns in that scenario was the nut case who went on a rampage. I mean you could see scope for arming all the police, which has been mooted on more than one occasion, but to suggest arming the whole UK is just Cloud Cuckooland.

They had two losses on the same exercise.
Well then clearly they're the worst unit in the history of the world. :rolleyes:

They had two losses on the same exercise.
Yes, if by "the same exercise" you mean one in Pembrokeshire (the far west of Wales) one week, and one in Hertfordshire (east England) the next week.

There's absolutely nothing in that article to suggest that it was the same regiment, or the same exercise. All that is the same is that they are both British Army.

You're talking bollocks.

But that shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.