"scream" wrote in message
news:SVbXj.1522$IK1.865@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "The Raven" wrote in message
> news:482d4761$0$30463$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> "scream" wrote in message
>> news:lubXj.1511$IK1.982@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> They could mount gatling guns on the top of police cars and still miss.
>>
>> More because the crims have more powerful, higher round count, faster
>> firing weapons than they do.
>>
>>> They have managed to hit and kill a few unarmed people like a little
>>> lady with an axe in the country, a man surrounded by 5 or 6 of them on a
>>> beach.
>>
>> Simplification to the extreme.
>
> As is the idea of issuing badly trained officers with automatics to give
> them a few extra shots.
You're starting from the premise that all officers are poorly trained and,
none have done any self-motivated training. Visit a pistol range and you
might be surprised at how often officers visit to improve their skills.
> Although trying to work out you seem to be agreeing that training is
> better but joining in the only solution is automatics group.
I'm not in a position to assess police handgun training but you can never
have 'too much training' regardless of the firearm.
As for semi-automatics, how many times do they run up against people better
armed than themselves? In most situations the armed crims has a more capable
firearm (even if they are less effective due to a lack of training).
The cost of a handgun isn't really an issue, semi's aren't significantly
more expensive. At worst they require more careful maintenance.
> But as you say later some police are quite proficient with their firearms
> through time put in.
That's to counter your statements implying they are all poorly trained in
firearms handling.
> With the automatics move we seem to be moving from reward for performance
> to try to make the non triers and non performers more proficient by
> allowing them a few more bullets to spray around.?
Can you repeat that in English?
From my perspective, police need to be better equipped to deal with the
threats they face. The differences in both capability and effectiveness
(assuming adequate training) between revolvers and semi-automatic pistols is
rather obvious.
Training costs are not an issue. Training someone to properly handle, use,
and maintain a semi-automatic will take no longer than that required for a
revolver. If it does, the training has not been properly developed.
>>
>>> As anyone who handles guns will tell you, they do not need automatics,
>>> they need more training in gun handling.
>>
>> Ahh, but that's where Christine is taking the argument. Training to a
>> real competency would cost. Many police officers have their own
>> semi-automatics (private use) and visit the range regularly.
>>
>>> What a ridiculous solution - supply all these police with poor gun
>>> handling training with more bullets to spray around.
>>
>> Gee, wonder if there is a solution to that........ How about training?
>>
>>> Perhaps next move sub machine guns? Ak67's or as first mentioned
>>> gatling guns on the police cars.
>>
>> You mean AK-47's, or perhaps the later incarnations the AK-74's.
>>
>>> Absolute rubbish. If they are not well enough trained to handle what
>>> they have, more bullets and easier loading will not be the answer.
>>
>> Think about it in light of the recent situation? Sure the cop reportedly
>> managed to reload before he was shot BUT if he hadn't needed to reload in
>> the first place......he wouldn't have got hit!
>
> He has 2 more bullets with an automatic, you think that wuld make the
> difference?
Semi-automatic is the debate here, not fully automatic. No-one has suggested
fully automatic pistols.
As for round count, it's not necessarily two more rounds. You can get a
variety of round counts in semi-automatic pistols depending on what you
want. BTW some revolvers also exceed the normal 6 round count but, they are
rather specialised/uncommon.
> Besides the guns are only meant as a deterrent, not OK corrall in Collins
> street.
Wrong, they aren't meant as a deterrent they are intended to defend. If an
officer draws a weapon it's because he is facing a threat that he fully
expects to have to use it on. Cops don't just pull out their revolvers and
wave them at people for fun.
You never point a firearm at anyone unless the you intend to use it!
As for OK Corral, the officer isn't the one that will start a shoot out.
However, once the shooting starts it would be nice to be adequately equipped
against the predominantly semi-automatic totting bad guys.
I understand your concern but you are clearly inexperienced with firearms
and/or the training involved in their usage.
>
>>
>>> And despite our billions surplus, lets not waste it on unecessary items,
>>> put to better use in schools and hospitals and training facilities for
>>> the police.
>>
>> By all means, if existing training is sub-standard then it needs
>> improving. Doesn't matter what type of handgun it is.
>>
>
>
|