So the police need automatic weapons?? Why
scream
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.
As anyone who handles guns will tell you, they do not need automatics, they
need more training in gun handling.
What a ridiculous solution - supply all these police with poor gun handling
training with more bullets to spray around. Perhaps next move sub machine
guns? Ak67's or as first mentioned gatling guns on the police cars.
Absolute rubbish. If they are not well enough trained to handle what they
have, more bullets and easier loading will not be the answer.
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.
The Raven
news:lubXj.1511$IK1...@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 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!
> 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.
scream
"The Raven" <swils...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:482d4761$0$30463$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "scream" <scr...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:lubXj.1511$IK1...@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.
Although trying to work out you seem to be agreeing that training is better
but joining in the only solution is automatics group.
But as you say later some police are quite proficient with their firearms
through time put in.
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.?
>
>> 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?
Besides the guns are only meant as a deterrent, not OK corrall in Collins
street.
The Raven
>
> "The Raven" <swils...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:482d4761$0$30463$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> "scream" <scr...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:lubXj.1511$IK1...@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.
Phil Allison
"screaming great fuckwit TROLL "
> They could mount gatling guns on the top of police cars and still miss.
> 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.
** Yawn ..............
> As anyone who handles guns will tell you,
** Total fallacy.
Gun freaks are not experts on what the Police are required to do.
Nor are you - mr. anonymous shit- head
> they do not need automatics, they need more training in gun handling.
** Bollocks.
The violent confrontation problems Police officers sometimes face have very
little to do with " gun handling" skills.
Dirty Harry is a movie fantasy.
YOU are a clearly total WANKER .......
...... Phil
Ray Murphy
RM: I always say - Find out from the people who know, and that
doesn't mean asking Union officials or academics, but the people
on the ground who are doing the job.
Ray
Charles L
Phil Allison <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:6956ftF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "screaming great fuckwit TROLL "
>
> > They could mount gatling guns on the top of police cars and still miss.
> > 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.
>
>
> ** Yawn ..............
>
>
> > As anyone who handles guns will tell you,
>
>
> ** Total fallacy.
>
> Gun freaks are not experts on what the Police are required to do.
>
And the Police, no matter how much they like to think they are,
are not experts on what the "gun freaks" are required to do either.
Charles L
Phil Allison
"Charles Lobotomy " "
> "screaming great fuckwit TROLL "
>> > As anyone who handles guns will tell you,
>>
>>
>> ** Total fallacy.
>>
>> Gun freaks are not experts on what the Police are required to do.
>>
>
> And the Police, no matter how much they like to think they are,
> are not experts on what the "gun freaks" are required to do either.
>
** What a crass, asinine remark !
Totally stupid & irrelevant to the whole topic.
...... Phil.
Spartan613
"scream" <scr...@home.com> wrote in message
news:lubXj.1511$IK1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...