You should find this excerpt from a Reason magazine interesting: Reading Elian
The camera doesn't lie. But it will confess to just about anything.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/27764.html
" A number of weapons and security experts have taken public issue with Renos characterization of the raid imagery, and what it reveals about the handling of the gun. Among them is Stephen Hunter, a member of The Washington Post Style staff. Hunter is the author of a series of successful novels in which guns play a major role, and he is highly regarded for his technical expertise. ("Hunter must have been a gun in a former life" is a typical sample of the praise he has elicited from his gun-culture readers.) Heres what he wrote in the Post about the safety issues raised by the image.
"What struck me most about the photograph isnt the gun itself, but the way in which its held. Its very close to being out of control. These are not one-handed weapons, and except for emergency circumstances, they are not even two-handed weapons. They recoil so persuasively they must be secured at three points: They must be moored against the shoulder or the center of the chest; the firing hand grips the pistol grip and controls the trigger; and, finally, the other hand must secure the muzzle via the foregrip or a front vertical grip. The officer doesnt even have the weapon secured against his shoulder, as police are taught to do." Although the INS claims that the guns safety is on, Hunter states categorically, "It is also true from the photograph that the safety is off."
"Hunters reading of the dangers of the raid was supported by a number of security experts."
The rest of the article can be found at the above posted link.