A few years ago, I read a blog post by a former petty officer who served for 8 years (if I recall correctly) in the US Navy during the 1980s as an electronics specialist. He wrote that, with the exception of basic training, he never fired a handgun in his military career and never even held one in his hand.
Would this still be possible today? One would expect that even soldiers who serve in a support role would be required to practise on a firing range at least every 6 months or so.
It’s very possible. I have a friend in the office next to me who has been a Naval Officer for almost 30 years and hasn’t fired a gun since he left Officer Candidate School.
My brother.
A hiking accident when he was 18 caused a C-6 spinal injury that left him almost completely paralyzed from the neck down. Despite this, he enlisted in the IDF and was eventually commissioned as a naval officer, without actually going through any form of basic training. As he can’t really use his fingers (he can pick up objects by manipulating his wrists, but he can’t generate nearly enough pressure to pull a trigger), he’s never fired a weapon, although some naval commando friends of his once took him to a firing range, held a rifle to his soldier and pressed his forefinger to the trigger, just so he’d feel what it was like.
Of course, he’s an exceptional case.
I was in the navy at the same time. We went to the range every so often, since we’d be expected to wear a 45 during quarterdeck watches.
Engineering ratings stood their watches in their own spaces belowdecks, Radiomen in the, well, radio room. Electronics ratings would be in the pool to be at the quarterdeck, and therefore armed.
Also, his ship/shore rotation would probably but not necessarily have included some sea duty for him to have made chief in at least nine years minimum to become a CPO (office-workers like yeomen and personnelmen are notorious for going all the way to retirement with no sea time). But it’s possible he served all his time in a workshop on shore, and so, yes, he may never have been armed in his career.
I have no idea the answer to your question, but your first paragraph indicates that the electronics specialist was in the Navy, and therefore isn’t a “soldier” as the word is defined by many, that being reserved for army personnel, and in some cases only infantry. Also you seem to be conflating “firearm” and “handgun”.
Finally, no I wouldn’t think frequent practice would be important for support personnel. Once you have the basics, it is pretty easy to pick it up again. Precision marksmanship plays very little role in modern warfare, and the Designated marksmen and snipers that practice it DO get plenty of practice.
Military use of firearms is very different from police use. Police need to keep the guns put away until very nearly the point of shooting, so drawing the weapon and quickly getting on target are important, and that takes practice. Military are perfectly fine with walking around with gun drawn, practice “spray and pray” suppression fire, and accept collateral casualties as the cost of conducting warfare. There are rules of engagement, but nothing near what the police accept.
+1. It is totally possible for someone to go their whole career without firing a handgun. Without handling any type of weapon whatsoever? Much less likely.
By firearm I meant this:
Soldier stands for any member of the armed forces.
Was that MY blog?
Wait, I don’t have a blog. Also, I was in the Navy for eleven years, not eight.
Once, while we were driving our submarine up to the North Pole, I was called up to the sail, where they handed me a shotgun and told me to see if I could hit the ocean. Once I had successfully shot the ocean twice, I was sent back down to the mess deck, where the PN marked on my service record that I was “qualified” on the shotgun.
That pretty much covers my use of firearms.
This is all incorrect.
Electronics technicians in the Engineering Department of nuclear powered submarines spend their time belowdecks in the ER and AMR2, and do not serve on the quarterdeck.
I left the Navy in 1999. I fired weapons on exactly two occasions: I fired 30 .22 rounds from a pistol made to look and feel like a .45 in basic training, and I fired ~20 rounds of 12 gauge from a pump action to qualify for the security response team. As a nuclear trained Electronics Technician on a submarine, I did not stand any watch that required any weapons training. Not every ET was the response team, so it is very possible to go an entire career without touching a firearm of any kind.
The only practical use submarines had for firearms were:
[ul]
[li]Shooting at sharks in open sea swim calls[/li][li]Topside watches in the very rare poor security port visit (although topside was always armed).[/li][li]Pirates in the Suez canel (not based on personal experience, so take with a grain of salt).[/li][/ul]
The whole time I was in, the only time I every heard of submariner firing a sidearm while on duty was a suicide.
Except for Marines, Airmen, and Sailors.
And Guardsmen.
Members of the U.S. Marine Band are not required to go through boot camp or even get firearms training, notwithstanding the Corps’ “Every Marine a rifleman” ethos: http://www.marineband.usmc.mil/career_information/learn_more/recruit_training.htm
Chaplains, and possibly JAG attorneys, would be the most likely candidates IMHO. In fact, I believe that Chaplains are currently barred from being armed in a combat situation, but are allowed to participate in some forms of firearms training and competition for recreational purposes. However, in the past (including WWII, I believe) it was optional for Chaplains to carry weapons in combat, but I don’t think very many of them to choose to.
Note that this applies ONLY to The President’s Own…members of the other various Marine Bands do indeed go through boot camp like every other Marine.
They also enter with a rank of Staff Sergeant, if I’m not mistaken.
My mother and father were members of the Army. They used guns while in basic (my mother was actually very good at it). Neither of them ever touched a gun again while in the military.
Of course my mother played the flute and piccolo and my father played the clarinet - both members of the Army Band so that might have had something to do with it. 
“Soldier”, with a capital “S”, can refer to members of the U.S. Army. However, “soldier”, small “s”, is an English-language word to which the U.S. does not hold exclusive rights, and can refer to any organized fighting man or woman. Thus, it would be perfectly legitimate to refer to a Marine as a soldier, as well as an Air Force servicemember, a National Guardsman, a Navy SEAL or a Blackwater mercenary. If he’s wearing a uniform and trying to kill you, he’s a soldier.
Thank you.
I don’t feel that this is nitpicking, but it is not legitimate to refer to a Marine as a soldier when referring to an individual Marine or a group or unit of Marines.
If you are including a Marine or Marine unit into a collective ‘soldiers’ in a particular theater, or as a generic ‘soldier’ for an intellectual purpose, then ok.
Substitute ‘Airman’ or ‘Sailor’ at will in the preceding two sentences.