Cops should be forced to return to revolvers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aspen1964,

Your assumption that 2 .357 Mag to the COM should be enough to stop anyone. There have already been several examples of this not being true. I'm sure you will find quite a few incidents with a quick search. The only "instant off switch" is a shot to the medulla oblongata part of the brain (according to FBI SWAT) and is basically a 2 inch high band that lies between the width of your eyes. It is a tough shot. If you are talking about high powered rifles or shotguns, those are another story. Even then, I'm sure there have been a few incidents where non-critical hits enabled the person to return fire. I feel the police should be allowed to carry what they can qualify with so they can get their job done and go home safely!
 
Clearly you are what you described my post as because you couldn't tell me in the slightest where I was wrong. I'm obviously not incorrect about police carrying revolvers looooong before Gaston came along, and anyone here who reads the news knows that I was dead smack on concerning police behavior. No wonder your post was so short
Click to expand...
dont know why anyone is responding to mr idisableallsafetiesonmygunsbecausetheygetinthewayofmyconcentration.
 
As long as I can carry my S&W 8-shot, 5", PC627 .357 Magnum I am happy to serve in your department, but a little 7-shot and in a fragile Taurus model to boot, no way! :) Dennis
 
Since the obvious just isn't enough for some people, I'll put it this way: the standard of deadly force for government employees needs to be changed so that there has to be an ACTUAL threat present, as opposed to the officer's subjecive "feelings" that change from minute to minute and from officer to officer, and are getting a lot of innocent civillians (but who cares about them right?) killed for holding cell phones and hairbrushes.
Click to expand...

Does the cop faced with a gun has to call a time out and walk up to make sure it isn't a pellet gun, toy, starter pistol, or unloaded? If it is real, does he have to make sure it's pointed at him before the talkes action? After all you can't prove it's an "ACTUAL" threat until there's a bullet headed your way.

Where do you draw the line, if reasonable threat doesn't cut it for you? :)

BTW, cocking a revolver in a fight is rarely a good idea. :)
 
The biggest problem with the police is that the fleeing felon law was abolished.
A lot of problems could be dealt with before they get out of hand.
 
"Does the cop faced with a gun has to call a time out and walk up to make sure it isn't a pellet gun, toy, starter pistol, or unloaded? If it is real, does he have to make sure it's pointed at him before the talkes action? After all you can't prove it's an "ACTUAL" threat until there's a bullet headed your way."

I think that was part of the spirit of the original post....It sometimes seems that as the self-defense training of LEO's has improved, to some extent the mission has been lost sight of, To Serve And Protect. That goal refers to the public, first...and I believe most citizens would expect that LEO's would assume some amount of risk in performance of their duties, in order to better satisfy job-one, protect the public.
The example was given of a child's life lost in a mall because the officer ID'd himself before shooting, demonstrating that in this kind of situation there is simply no easy solution.
The original poster's idea of limiting the capacity of LEOs weapons is for
sure wrong, since every time the SHTF it is officers who are called to deal
with it. But his seeming motivation, to cut down on either a premature or
over reaction with dangerous (to the innocent) amounts of firepower being
employed, is reasonable. LEOs want to return to their families safely at the
end of the shift...and we all want that to happen. We also want the general
citizenry to be safe and secure. Every officer has to do the best he can to
balance his own safety with The Mission--to serve and Protect the public.
Not solely from BGs, but also from accidental friendly fire!

( Yes, I have hit the streets, with shield and .38 spl revolver, back in the day...what a dinosaur, huh? In the words of R.King, "can't we all just get
along"? ) ;)
 
I'm fairly certain that the majority of LEOs out there still go through their entire career without ever firing a shot in the line-of-duty. Then there are those who's jobs put them in much greater jeopardy, such as Warrant Service Teams, SWAT, Narcotics, etc. They will probably use their weapons more in a week than some officers qualify in five years. Which ones should be reduced in their available firepower?

The .357 Magnum pistol isn't as easy to shoot accurately as many of the 9mm and .40 S&W semi-autos on the market. With the training budgets they operate under, the chances of mastering the .357 are actually smaller than with the other calibers. Now, I don't know about you, but I'd be hesitant to unleash a more powerful cartridge, with less competent shooters, on the world at large.

If you could get a Police Force to endanger it's employees, you could try giving them 10 round mags for their semis. A reduction of 33% in firepower, according to the initial poster, should result in a better hit-ratio, and less downrange free rounds.

I find it interesting that more restrictive ROEs are called for, "to protect the innocent". In times past, the police were much more free to open fire. Even worse, many of were taught the hip point method of firing. A lot of rounds went astray back then, but people seemed to regard that as the cost of doing business.

In all of the instances pointed out in the initial post, how many innocents were injured, or killed? We'd be better off concentrating on improving the driving skills of the average patrol officer than worrying about the weapopns they carry. It's a daily occurrence in this country where patrol officers are involved in motor vehicle accidents, with the attendant loss of life and injury of those involved. Then again, I'm sure that the same mentality would insist that the police be given speed-governed vehicles, while the individual would be able to own Corvettes.

I'm also a bit curious at how we should punish criminals who possess, and use, high-capacity weapons? Perhaps we could get the ACLU to propose a Criminal Code of Conduct? A violation of such to be a felony? Oh, that's right, criminals are called such because they DON'T obey the law!! :barf: :barf:
 
"Cops should be forced to return to revolvers"

And why should police be trusted with cars that go so fast? They should be forced to return to riding mules, horses, bicycles, or walking. Those high-powered flashlights they blind and sometimes hit people with--maybe they should go back to those candle lanterns. And those plastic flex cuffs they use when there's not enough steel handcuffs to go around--baling or barbed wire works just dandy.

And why can't we just get along so they can find other professions?
 
JR47
I'm also a bit curious at how we should punish criminals who possess, and use, high-capacity weapons? Perhaps we could get the ACLU to propose a Criminal Code of Conduct? A violation of such to be a felony? Oh, that's right, criminals are called such because they DON'T obey the law!!
Click to expand...

Bullseye!:D
 
What a load of crap. A thread created for the sole purpose of annoying people.
Click to expand...
Probably true. Ok, the guy might have been been serious about that harebrained idea, I really can't discount that possibility. But that is unlikely. Most likely we have been trolled.

On a lark, I went and visited his site. Definite signs of screwballness there, so I really can't discount his being serious about this. Sincere troll, perhaps.
 
These guys cruise sites like this just to stir the pot. I used to be on the marlin board and along came a bunch of these troll's and marlin shut down the board. Don't get drawed into there traps and they will go away. Just remember what my grandaddy used to say (A empty wagon makes alot more noise then a full one.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top