The state has a clear duty of care to ensure that its armed servants are as well equipped as possible to face the dangers of combat and prevail over their adversaries. On the whole, the ADF goes to considerable lengths to fulfil that duty of care, from equipping frontline troops with quality armoured personnel carriers, to ensuring top-notch medical treatment for those injured in the line of duty. But there’s a blind spot when it comes to handguns. Outside of the special forces community, very few members of the ADF are issued with pistols, and most of them are in support rather than direct combat roles. Contrast this with the British Army’s commitment to rushing its newly-acquired Glock pistols to its frontline units deployed in Afghanistan, where pistols have been credited with saving the lives of several soldiers...
...The current ADF handgun belongs to an era when bolt-action rifles were king of the battlefield. We wouldn’t send our troops into harm’s way with a .303 Lee Enfield rifle today, so why do we send them out with vintage handguns—or none at all?
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/why-the-adf-handgun-is-an-ethics-issue/
...The current ADF handgun belongs to an era when bolt-action rifles were king of the battlefield. We wouldn’t send our troops into harm’s way with a .303 Lee Enfield rifle today, so why do we send them out with vintage handguns—or none at all?
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/why-the-adf-handgun-is-an-ethics-issue/