Personal firearms won us the revolutionary war so I cant be fully towards the idea.
I do think although that nationwide guardsmen and reservists ought to carry their own personal side arms and be pressured to qualify with them.
The reserves are likely to get stuff 2nd, third or 4th hand, so encouraging them to buy personal firearms would no less than imply that their weapons could be new as or newer than those in the active duty inventory.
It's hard to be proficient with the M9 when only officers get to make use of them, and even then it is only every year that my unit goes to the range. Perhaps it is because I am in a hospital reserve unit, but that has been my experience.
It's just not practical to carry a M16 or M4 in a hospital while you are trying to see patients. But my unit doesn't have enough M9s to challenge to everyone. By having the opportunity to hold a personal sidearm I could be certain that I might all the time be armed and ready in case one of many "patients" turned out to be an insurgent.
Individuals are inclined to respect things more once they personal them. If the gun is yours, there is an attachment to that gun that you simply wont have with a "lowest bidder GI weapon." If the government's rifle isn't clear, who cares, right? Another person will get stuck with it. But when it is your gun that you simply paid for, you could be somewhat more diligent in cleaning it proper? I imply, since you would be the "lucky one" to use it in fight and also you wouldnt wish to have to purchase another one because it was poorly maintained.
No offense to GI weapons, however mil spec weapon is made to be cheap. Although they're made to meet a sure minimal commonplace, they is probably not as high quality or could even lack some good features found on more expensive weapons.
Another advantage is that each soldier can be carrying a weapon that fits him or her. Folks's arms come in different sizes; it will make sense to allow for a range of firearms to be used, reasonably than the "one sizes suits some" mentality.
It's not a matter of "trying cool," or just "trying to be different." I think there are some legitimate reasons why we should look into allowing the usage of personal firearms. When companies purchase weapons, price is a large factor because they've limited budgets, however when individuals purchase guns, price is considerably less important. When you may get a gun of much better quality, reliability or accuracy for a few hundred dollars more, I think top folks would need the most bang for their buck fairly than what to do with firearms in Connecticut
's the cheapest gun they will carry. Why purchase a used 38 special police revolver for 300 bucks when you should purchase a new hi-capability Glock for not much more? After all, figuring out that frequent sense is not so frequent any more, any army organization that allowed personal weapons must arrange specific criteria and have the firearm inspected by the unit armorer to ensure that it meets these criteria. No Saturday night time specials in our beloved military!
Weapon confidence and morale would be higher as well. Everybody has a gun that they think is inferior or one that's really great. Folks tend to buy what they like greatest, so in the event that they have been carrying a personal sidearm, chances are high they would be more willing to apply with it and less prone to complain about it.