.... and how many of those shot by the police were bad people. That's really not that many over 10 years; only 250 a year. There are over ~14,000 non suicide gun related deaths EACH year in the US. Add to that the ~17,000 suicides by gun and you get some sense of scale. You're 56x's more likely to be shot by a citizen than by an officer. I know who I'll be watching.
All nine Empire State injured shot by New York police
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
We just don't know enough about what happened in this situation to know whether the officers behaved reasonably. On the surface, it sounds like they did--a guy pointed a gun at them, and they shot him. Unfortunately there were people behind him, but what was their alternative? To stand there and get shot themselves first? That doesn't help anybody. That said--this is all just speculative. We just don't know.
On the other hand, the point that the police sometimes use force where non-violent alternatives were available is a good, strong, solid point--even if this case isn't an example of it.
On the other hand, the point that the police sometimes use force where non-violent alternatives were available is a good, strong, solid point--even if this case isn't an example of it.
When you issue a less effective (lethal) weapon do you actually expect that the number of rounds fired will actually go down? Handguns are hardly ever actually used in war; the day you have to rely on your handgun in theatre is a bad day, it's a secondary or even tertiary weapons system, so I have no idea where this "war-maker" malapropism came from.I'll use an emoticon next time, so you won't have to suspect. Of course it wasn't meant as a comparison. Fewer bullets flying about, not more per second is what I see as safer. Frankly I don't care if they patrol in Leopard tanksif it gets that result, but I'd imagine that just as this guy went ahead when he knew armed police would respond, having cops with bigger guns wouldn't increase the deterrent. I'd suspect the reverse in fact, that anyone with a plan would arm themselves to meet the SMG carrying cops.
Just promise me your MP5 guys will hit only the bad guys and do it fast, because I'm sure the better armed bad-guys won't be better shots than they are now.
Pure speculation about the air marshals but I'd bet they discovered the danger to the airplane wasn't appreciably lessened (and airframe experience and designs have improved sinece earlier explosive decompression days), and concluded the officer's effectiveness would be improved without adding to the overall danger. Part of what I see as problematic about such incidents is that police have few alternatives, and that the handgun is really a war-maker's weapon, not a violence-stopper's tool. All sorts of clever devices from bean-bag guns to tasers have been invented to be that tool but none has yet moved the pistol aside. When they had to, authorities did look at making pistols safer and still effective on planes. You could sell an awful lot of 2012 Model Peacemakers if you could get such a police-oriented redesigned pistol right. But I've not heard of anyone trying anything but larger calibres, tighter groupings and centre of body mass stopping power.
It's no knock on the NYPD officers involved that what we just saw came from that approach. I can't believe we can't do better.
The reason why the police do not make more use of SMG's and rifles is the bulk. SMG's are more accurate because they are heavier (so less recoil) and because they are shoulder fired (so more stable) but those features also make them impractical for ordinary patrol use. Certainly the police should have access to these sorts of weapons--and do--for situations where they know in advance they're going to be facing an armed adversary. No-one wants to walk a beat every single day carrying a 3 kilograms steel weight on their shoulder. For every day walking around when there is no particular reason to think they'll be getting into a firefight, they carry pistols which weigh only 1/3rd to 1/4 as much, and can be stowed away in a holster.
SMGs have gradually been phased out in favour of SBRs in most North American police departments anyways because for similar weight, the performance of a rifle round > the performance of a pistol round, not to mention the modular capabilities of the AR-15 platform.
When did I disagree with that? What I'm disagreeing with is this bullshit about pistols being "war-makers" whatever the fuck that means. I'll be sure to add that to the plethora of misinformed malapropisms that Antis like to use for sensationalism, like "assault rifle" or "bulletproof vest".
Actually, they aren't, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd realize that. Neither an "assault rifle" nor "bulletproof vest" were present in any of the recent shootings, Aurora included.
A run-of-the-mill, semi-automatic AR-15 is no assault rifle let alone anymore evil than any iter semi-automatic .223. Nor is a magazine carrier a "bulletproof vest", you can find that shit on eBay, very popular with the airsoft crowd.
I wasn't saying the bullet proof vest was involved, nor was I talking about the 'run of the mill' (what ever that is) AR-15 was/wasn't an assault rifle, but most wouldn't know the difference; a medium range, high capacity, selectable rate of fire weapon pretty well describes the beast to me. Describing an ammo vest as a bullet proof is an error, one I wouldn't make, just like some refer to LAVs/APCs as tanks, but it's done all the time by reporters.
Selectable rate of fire weapon indeed, guess what an AR-15 can't do? What's the point of your post, that you condone ignorance and we should accept "facts" from mainstream media at face value? Here's a cookie.
If cops aren't trained enough to use guns then the general public sure as hell isn't.
Best argument for gun control.
So the 'run of the mill' AR-15 doesn't have that, big deal, as they can be converted and from a distance you can't tell. That's not my point. I simply don't get all bent out of same with mistakes like that. I got bigger things to worry about.
I don't take cookies from strange men, no thanks.
What I was trying to get at is that the standard-issue handgun has the sort of unspecific, general-purpose lethal power you'd need and expect in a war-fighting weapon; it doesn't need to do anything but reliably kill the other guy. It's rugged, mechanically robust and efficient and the more ammo, of greater lethality it carries and delivers the better, precise accuracy being secondary. To get an idea of the range of design and purpose possibilities in handguns, one might compare competitive pistols, which are designed for steady grip, repeatable accuracy after careful aiming, lightest loads, and so on. Different jobs need different tools.
The police are peace officers not war-fighting soldiers. The average police officer may occasionally face a war-type situation, but more commonly does not, yet still must rely on that sort of weapon when a more specialized gun would be adequate, and perhaps less harmful. Not all situations require applying lethal force. It's the 'when the only tool you have is a hammer' effect. That was my point about weapon design; I hope it's clearer now.
As to the number of rounds fired: It only takes one to kill, and you don't need it to be through and through. In fact better if it isn't. Spraying lotsa bullets is only one way to ensure your weapon is effective. If you are a peace officer in the concrete jungle of a city like New York, or Toronto, the weapon that is your only option is clearly dangerous to many more people than your assailant. I don't for a minute imagine that it would be easy matter to retain the sure stopping power that might save your life and couple it with improved safety, but neither can I imagine that that brilliant, inventive gunsmiths like those who gave us these weapons no longer exist. If you think of that 'only tool is a hammer' reference, in fact there are scores of different specialized hammers, that each suit a special purpose best, but still do the basic action just fine.
NOTE: War-maker: You picked up the phrase that I tried to describe a pistol's purpose with—a war-maker's weapon—and misquoted it as if I'd called handguns war-makers, and 'educated' me as if I'd meant anyone fought wars using pistols. 'A warfighter's weapon' would have done me just as well, it simply didn't come to mind. I'm sorry that I mislead you that way, but I'm fully aware using a pistol in a war is a last, desperate resort or a photo op. Unless maybe you're an MP, or staring down a mutiny, or commanding the lifeboat, in which case your pistol is serving much the same purpose as a cop's sidearm does 99.99% of the time.
OldJones, if it were possible to make a "more accurate handgun" you can bet the police would do that, but they are also not Olympic target shoots--they need a weapon that is short, maneuverable, and can be deployed quickly in a tense situation. They do in fact use slightly different kit than the military does. The military generally uses ball ammunition, for example, while the police generally use hollow point. Hollow point ammunition expands and "mushrooms" on impact, doing maximum damage to the target. The police prefer that for two reasons, one, it has a greater chance of stopping the bad guy and putting him down rapidly, and two, it has less of a chance of exiting out his back and hitting an innocent bystander behind him. The military also prefers ball ammunition because it's more likely to penetrate cover and hit a guy behind a wall, and so it works better when suppressing unseen enemies, whereas the police want to minimize the chances of a round travelling through a wall and killing someone they didn't know was there.
In the military, oddly, hollow point is considered inhumane. If ball ammunition exits one soldier and hits another, that's an advantage, and the additional wounding caused by hollow point is considered unjustified cruelty--it doesn't matter if the guy staggers on another few yards, he's usually already out of the fight, and the additional damage is just seen as cruelty.
So in fact there are differences between the weaponry used by the police and soldiers.
In the military, oddly, hollow point is considered inhumane. If ball ammunition exits one soldier and hits another, that's an advantage, and the additional wounding caused by hollow point is considered unjustified cruelty--it doesn't matter if the guy staggers on another few yards, he's usually already out of the fight, and the additional damage is just seen as cruelty.
So in fact there are differences between the weaponry used by the police and soldiers.
Properly slung you could carry around most SMGs or a sbr, or something like an M4 all day long without significant fatigue.
Take this from someone who used to hump his FAL all day long...
Personally I think they don't issue police these kinds of weapons in the US is politics/public appearance.
Up here gun crimes are so rare that it would be hard to justify.
For sure fuji, I'd be very surprised if there weren't differences in military and police versions of the 'same' weaponry. I certainly expect and want both to consider carefully and provide for the dangers they face and how best to do their different jobs. It may be that they've already achieved the best specialized design, but I'm a firm believer that the words 'best design' really mean best we could imagine for now. We can always make it better. The extensive collateral damage, and using many rounds taking down one guy who shot one guy is an obvious incentive.
As I see it, the problem peace officers face is that most of the time—for some officers, that's their entire careers—their sidearm does its job right in the holster. Even if it's drawn, the purpose is to show authority and enforce command, not to shoot or kill. It's that last small fraction of the use that is where the sad side effects arise as in this story, and sometimes the sad are also the direct effects, as when the police are mistaken in their ID, or their assessment of the real nature of the danger.
A weapon that was more purposely and less accidentally lethal might better serve all those purposes, but the overriding concern for the .01% of the time will always be, "Will it save my life or my partner's?". And that's why we haven't yet, got the best police sidearm, because the battlefield will give you that lifesaving stopping power (and nothing much else) cheaply and with many models to choose. That best police gun might suit only police (leaving the whole issue of civilian carry/police substitutes aside) and so never find enough sales to justify production so it could replace the 'made for the many/military adapted for police' models they now use, but that's no reason not to try.
thank god he was white. that's one thing.
the other is that the police need to be able to hit what they shoot at more reliably. i know nothing about side-arms so i'm not saying. i'm 100% positive tho, that somebody does and could come up with the right weapon for the job and the required amount of training/testing. i believe every marine is "gun certified" or something like that. police should be too. those that can't do it should get behind the desk at the station.
but, realistically, this just doesn't happen much. from what i can see, the police shoot too few people. not too many. so maybe this'll just blow over in a couple of weeks.
the other is that the police need to be able to hit what they shoot at more reliably. i know nothing about side-arms so i'm not saying. i'm 100% positive tho, that somebody does and could come up with the right weapon for the job and the required amount of training/testing. i believe every marine is "gun certified" or something like that. police should be too. those that can't do it should get behind the desk at the station.
but, realistically, this just doesn't happen much. from what i can see, the police shoot too few people. not too many. so maybe this'll just blow over in a couple of weeks.
