Police Officers And Gun Training

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1347050339' post='2479979']

How would they know that anyone carrying a gun isn't about to start shooting people?
[/quote]

Presumably by the fact that they have not just finished shooting anybody.

That is kind of a giveaway.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[stevil]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1347050593' post='2479984']
Presumably by the fact that they have not just finished shooting anybody.

That is kind of a giveaway.
[/quote]
Only if they are stupid, which is what they were in this case and 9 bystanders got shot by them because of their stupidity.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1347052406' post='2480021']

Only if they are stupid, which is what they were in this case and 9 bystanders got shot by them because of their stupidity.
[/quote]
I honestly do not understand what you are saying.

[Slappo]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1347050339' post='2479979']
How would they know that anyone carrying a gun isn't about to start shooting people?
[/quote]

How would they know that the person walking downtown New York with a sharp pencil in his hand isn't planning on using it to stab someone?
If someone used a sharp pencil to stab someone it would be an indicator that he may stab other people. Otherwise I'd presume he is innocently walking around with a pencil in his hand.

Carrying a gun does not mean someone is about to start shooting people. Shooting someone is an indicator that the shooter may very well start shooting everyone else. The action of shooting the first individual is what triggers the thought that he may continue to shoot.

[havok579257]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1347050339' post='2479979']
How would they know that anyone carrying a gun isn't about to start shooting people?


If the police didn't have guns they would have made sure they didn't engage in confrontatation, They would have kept at distance and called for backup, they would have watched from very far away, not giving the shooter any incentive to engage in a shoot out.
Even if they police had guns, they should have taken the same approach given there were so many bystanders around. This ought to be standard police procedure, they are there to protect the public not to endanger them.
[/quote]

if the police didn't have guns then the guy could have shot numerous more people also. that's ok right? just as long as cops don;'t use guns to stop criminals? your logic really makes no sense. the gunman shot someone. why on earth would someone assume, since he shot someone it must absolutly mean he is not going to shott anyone else? it makes no sesne.

[Groo the Wanderer]

its new yawk. everyone on the street is a thug and is just waitin to gank someone and steal their watch

[stevil]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1347061941' post='2480085']
if the police didn't have guns then the guy could have shot numerous more people also. that's ok right? just as long as cops don;'t use guns to stop criminals? your logic really makes no sense. the gunman shot someone. why on earth would someone assume, since he shot someone it must absolutly mean he is not going to shott anyone else? it makes no sesne.
[/quote]I am not advocating that police in NY shouldn't have guns. It seems very dangerous over there, everyon else can have guns, so the police need them too.

It is very dangerous to have a western or block buster movie shoot-out in the middle of a busy city (especially with real guns, real bullets).
Bystanders could get hurt, police need to be worried about bystanders. Most murderers aren't mass murderers, you can't assume just because one person has been killed that a person is going on a killing spree. If the person has put his gun away and is walking away, then police ought to use caution in approaching him, they ought to work out the best way to approach him and if to approach him at all (especially in a populated area). This is common sense stuff. Public safety is paramount. If police action is going to endanger the public then they need to decide if it is best to back off.

[havok579257]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1347073912' post='2480151']
I am not advocating that police in NY shouldn't have guns. It seems very dangerous over there, everyon else can have guns, so the police need them too.

It is very dangerous to have a western or block buster movie shoot-out in the middle of a busy city (especially with real guns, real bullets).
Bystanders could get hurt, police need to be worried about bystanders. Most murderers aren't mass murderers, you can't assume just because one person has been killed that a person is going on a killing spree. If the person has put his gun away and is walking away, then police ought to use caution in approaching him, they ought to work out the best way to approach him and if to approach him at all (especially in a populated area). This is common sense stuff. Public safety is paramount. If police action is going to endanger the public then they need to decide if it is best to back off.
[/quote]

so if someone shoots someone in public police should assume he only wanted to kill that one person and not do anything because most mmurders aren't mass murders? how are the cops to know he isn't a mass murder? not every single murder is not a mass murder. so should the cops just not do anything because the majority of the time the guy won't shoot anyone else?

your entire logic is based on hindsight. well he didn't kill anyone else so the cops are in the wrong. the problem is the cops aren;t able to read minds or see into the future. they don't know what this guy was planning. all they know is he shot someone, had a gun and ponted it at the cops. should the cops just let the guy point and shoot at them? i don't understand how the gunman can point at the cops and you expect them to do nothing.

also what would you be saying if the cops did what you say they should have done and it ended up getting 5 more people kill? what the cops be justified because they took no action to stop the murder?

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1346995529' post='2479713']
the shooting was terribly executed, but it was totally necessary for the cops to shoot. they approached the guy(who had already been told to them he had murdered a guy and had a gun) and he turned around and drew his gun aiming at the police. they were absolutely in the right to shoot him, its just how effectve they were at it that is in question.



firstly, Ed that is entirely wrong about guns. They do not become more accurate with longer barrels. A barrel a few inches long is long enough(if using a proper twist rate) for the rifling to engage the bullet and spin it adequately. a gun with a 3 inch barrel and the same with a 6 inch barrel should be able to get similar sized groupings of shots.

the difference being that a longer barrel gives the bullet more time to accelerate, thus shooting faster, thus a flatter ballistic path. this means the bullet wont drop as much over a longer distance, but if properly trained for, compensated in techniques is not a hindrance to accurate shooting within the rounds capabilities. If the gun is aimed correctly to compensate for drop(necessary in any gun), the bullets should land in a similar sized pattern.

More importantly, the longer barrels can give a greater distance between the front and back sights, which can allow for more precise shooting.

regardless, training should absolutely include ranges out to 50 ft. As it is, their requirements are pathetic.



there is a difference, yes. but the only thing that you have left in a stressful scenario is the muscle memory and ingrained training from repeated practice. This doesnt happen from going to the range once a year and shooting 50 shots, which dont even have to be marked on accuracy. they are passed if the miss the paper less than 12 times. that is the equivalent of letting people drive semi trucks after showing they can start the truck in a parking lot and drive in a circle.
[/quote]

Wow, you are so wrong its almost comical ! I have owned and shot guns and been a member of the NRA for many years, been shooting pistols and rifles since a child. To say acciracy is not affected by the length of the barrel is insane. I could point you to many sources, but the NRA website could point you to many and its in one easy place to find at www,nra.org > They have links to articles by Skeeter Skelton among many others who are not only well recognized in shooting competitions but are well versed in rifling and trajectory. Before you rush to make such a wrong statement presenting it as knowledge your really should get your facts straight. Now keep in mind we are talking about pistols here, which normally have around a 4-5 inch barrel, conceal carry pistols with 2 1/2 barrels are far less accurate, one of the contributing factors besides being barrel length is the recoil as with a shorter barrel you get more of a kick which repositions the aim as the gun barrel jerks up and back from the force of the recoil. Even with the low powered .22 caliber a target pistol such as the Ruger Mk 22 always have a longer barrel for competition accuracy.
Catalog
Number Model Finish Sight Length Approx.
Weight Suggested
Retail Price [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluing_%28steel%29"]Blued[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stainless_steel"]Stainless[/url] Rear Front Barrel Overall Standard MKIII4 Standard * Fixed Fixed 4¾" 9" 35 oz $362.00 MKIII6 Standard * Fixed Fixed 6" 10¾" 37 oz $362.00 Target MKIII512 Bull Bbl. * Adjustable Fixed 5½" 9¾" 42 oz $430.00 KMKIII512 Bull Bbl. * Adjustable Fixed 5½" 9¾" 42 oz $543.00 KMKIII678GC Competition * Adjustable Fixed 6â…ž" 11â…›" 45 oz $625.00 KMKIII678H Hunter * Adjustable HiViz Fiber Optic 6â…ž" 11â…›" 41 oz $638.00 KMKIII45H Hunter * Adjustable HiViz Fiber Optic 4½" 8¾" 38 oz $638.00

In the above chart you can clearly see the models denoted as " Competition " and " Hunter " have 6 7/8 inch barrels, not a coincedence rather its for the accuracy needed when shooting in a competition or when hunting. This is a well known fact and you could easily verify it at the National Rifle Association site I posted the address to above.

Edit, the chart did not cut and paste as laid out the format went like this Model name price sightb type and the inches was the barrel length then overall gun length.

ed

Edited September 8, 2012 by Ed Normile

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1347078046' post='2480174']
Wow, you are so wrong its almost comical ! I have owned and shot guns and been a member of the NRA for many years, been shooting pistols and rifles since a child. To say acciracy is not affected by the length of the barrel is insane. I could point you to many sources, but the NRA website could point you to many and its in one easy place to find at www,nra.org > They have links to articles by Skeeter Skelton among many others who are not only well recognized in shooting competitions but are well versed in rifling and trajectory. Before you rush to make such a wrong statement presenting it as knowledge your really should get your facts straight. Now keep in mind we are talking about pistols here, which normally have around a 4-5 inch barrel, conceal carry pistols with 2 1/2 barrels are far less accurate, one of the contributing factors besides being barrel length is the recoil as with a shorter barrel you get more of a kick which repositions the aim as the gun barrel jerks up and back from the force of the recoil. Even with the low powered .22 caliber a target pistol such as the Ruger Mk 22 always have a longer barrel for competition accuracy.
Catalog
Number Model Finish Sight Length Approx.
Weight Suggested
Retail Price [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluing_%28steel%29"]Blued[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stainless_steel"]Stainless[/url] Rear Front Barrel Overall Standard MKIII4 Standard * Fixed Fixed 4¾" 9" 35 oz $362.00 MKIII6 Standard * Fixed Fixed 6" 10¾" 37 oz $362.00 Target MKIII512 Bull Bbl. * Adjustable Fixed 5½" 9¾" 42 oz $430.00 KMKIII512 Bull Bbl. * Adjustable Fixed 5½" 9¾" 42 oz $543.00 KMKIII678GC Competition * Adjustable Fixed 6â…ž" 11â…›" 45 oz $625.00 KMKIII678H Hunter * Adjustable HiViz Fiber Optic 6â…ž" 11â…›" 41 oz $638.00 KMKIII45H Hunter * Adjustable HiViz Fiber Optic 4½" 8¾" 38 oz $638.00

In the above chart you can clearly see the models denoted as " Competition " and " Hunter " have 6 7/8 inch barrels, not a coincedence rather its for the accuracy needed when shooting in a competition or when hunting. This is a well known fact and you could easily verify it at the National Rifle Association site I posted the address to above.

Edit, the chart did not cut and paste as laid out the format went like this Model name price sightb type and the inches was the barrel length then overall gun length.

ed
[/quote]

you are talking practical accuracy, not mechanical accuracy. if both guns one long and one short barrel are clamped aiming at a target, both should produce similar sized grouping. Stuff like sight radius, increased recoil do make shooting accurately more difficult, but do not make the gun itself less precise.

Considering you were talking about shooting at ranges of 15 feet, it is all fairly academic, it isnt going to make a huge difference. besides, police rarely carry the super short barrel, subcompact handguns you are referring to, they use full sized handguns, and should be expected to be able to accurately place shots(not just hit the paper) at longer distances. Many police departments train like this, th NYPD does not.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1347079016' post='2480176']
you are talking practical accuracy, not mechanical accuracy. if both guns one long and one short barrel are clamped aiming at a target, both should produce similar sized grouping. Stuff like sight radius, increased recoil do make shooting accurately more difficult, but do not make the gun itself less precise.

Considering you were talking about shooting at ranges of 15 feet, it is all fairly academic, it isnt going to make a huge difference. besides, police rarely carry the super short barrel, subcompact handguns you are referring to, they use full sized handguns, and should be expected to be able to accurately place shots(not just hit the paper) at longer distances. Many police departments train like this, th NYPD does not.
[/quote]

How often do gun fights occur with guns " clamped aiming at a target " get real. Also a longer barrel means a longer sight radius which translates to better accuracy. Man I am not making this stuff up, there is plenty of data out there to back me up and as I already pointed you to one with tons of data and articles that can help you with this I have done all I can to help you.

By the way I can hit the bullseye on a paper silhouette target at 50 feet with my snub nose .38 revolver repeatedly as I have been shooting for 42 years, but its far easier with my Ruger Blackhawk 8 inch barrel, and even easier with a laser sight, but we were talking about a police gun fight with standard carry weapons, weren't we ?

ed

[Groo the Wanderer]

katniss everdeen can do it from 300 yards

[stevil]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1347076478' post='2480163']
so if someone shoots someone in public police should assume he only wanted to kill that one person and not do anything because most mmurders aren't mass murders? how are the cops to know he isn't a mass murder? not every single murder is not a mass murder. so should the cops just not do anything because the majority of the time the guy won't shoot anyone else?
[/quote]
Mass murderers tend to be more obvious, lots of guns, automatic or semi automatic and they tend to keep firing rather than put gun in pocket and walk away.
In such a case, a cop with a pistol ought to call it in and call for backup before engaging. If he doesn't call it in and gets killed then the other cops might not know about the shooting for a while. Of course it is a judgement call, if he is confident he can stop the shooter straight away...

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1347076478' post='2480163']
your entire logic is based on hindsight. well he didn't kill anyone else so the cops are in the wrong. the problem is the cops aren;t able to read minds or see into the future. they don't know what this guy was planning. all they know is he shot someone, had a gun and ponted it at the cops. should the cops just let the guy point and shoot at them? i don't understand how the gunman can point at the cops and you expect them to do nothing.[/quote]
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I am saying the cops shouldn't have approached him. If they didn't then he wouldn't have pointed his gun at them. They should have called it in, got backup, helicopters and SWAT, they could then either follow him back to his house, or clear the public from the area before engaging.

The alternative is to just go in there with guns blazing, not worry about public safety and potentially have the cops shoot the public bystanders. Is this what you would prefer?

Edited September 8, 2012 by stevil

[havok579257]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1347135319' post='2480346']
Mass murderers tend to be more obvious, lots of guns, automatic or semi automatic and they tend to keep firing rather than put gun in pocket and walk away.
In such a case, a cop with a pistol ought to call it in and call for backup before engaging. If he doesn't call it in and gets killed then the other cops might not know about the shooting for a while. Of course it is a judgement call, if he is confident he can stop the shooter straight away...


Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I am saying the cops shouldn't have approached him. If they didn't then he wouldn't have pointed his gun at them. They should have called it in, got backup, helicopters and SWAT, they could then either follow him back to his house, or clear the public from the area before engaging.

The alternative is to just go in there with guns blazing, not worry about public safety and potentially have the cops shoot the public bystanders. Is this what you would prefer?
[/quote]

your saying what mass murders tend to not. although that is not the case in every single act, is it? so should the cops play the odds. well since he doesn't present as a typical mass murder we we let him shoot people and just play the odds and do nothing.

the thing is you have no idea what the shooter would have done if the cops did not engage him. who's to say he wouldn't have shot someone else. in your mind how many people need to die before a police officer shouild be required to do something as opposed to just follow and take not action? obviously it needs to be more than one. how about 5? should a murder be allowed to kill 5 people before the policr act?

i would prefer that if a gunman has shot someone and its possible he will continue to shoot people that the cops don't just stand back and let bystanders be killed and wait for back up before acting all the while numerous people are being killed. i prefer the police to act not do nothing to stop more deaths.

[stevil]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1347151267' post='2480397']
your saying what mass murders tend to not. although that is not the case in every single act, is it? so should the cops play the odds. well since he doesn't present as a typical mass murder we we let him shoot people and just play the odds and do nothing.
[/quote]
Yes, police need to play the odds.
It is their job to keep the public safe.
If it is safer for them not to engage in a shoot out then they shouldn't engage.
There is a reason why police generally don't shoot at a person when they are hidding behind a hostage. Bullets travel a good distance so it is also imporant to not shoot at someone if people are standing behind them.

So a judgement needs to be made, what action will be safest for the public.
In this instance the police got it horribly wrong.