With all the talk over the years of police not having enough "stopping power"

D

Doug.38PR

Moderator
With all the talk of police not having enough "stopping power": Swat Teams, High Cap autos, 9mm, .40 S&W, AR-15s, etc.
All the arguments for these things seemed to be geared towards the police not having enough physical power to stop things. Think there will ever come a day when the the average patrolman is carrying hand grenades on his belt? What better stopping power can you get than that? This is not something I'm advocating just a question.

"When you are pulled over by a policeman, don't reach for anything suddenly or you might find a 9mm screwed in your ear"

"When you are pulled over by a policeman, don't reach for anything suddenly or you might find a pineapple in your lap"
 
No. There is a large difference between a weapon that must be manually directed at another (gun) and a weapon that injures/kills all within a given radius (grenade).
 
Not enough power is a very convenient excuse for poor marksmen and the expectation that people are supposed to die instantly when shot.
 
Strangely enough, the most common crime weapon used by hoodlums is still the .38/.357 revolver and the .380 Auto, according to the FBI.
 
This is silly and stupid.

First, the media are a bunch of two-faced, ignorant and alarmist whores when it comes to police use of firearms. On one had, they run stories about the police "being outgunned by gangs" or some such; then they'll turn right around and do an "undercover report" or expose' about the police using bullets so deadly they're banned in warefare!. :barf:

First it was the use of the "deadly Magnum" revolver, then hollow points. When cops switched to pistols, the media complained they fired too many shots (to stop a subject). When the PD's used JHP it they were once again using bullets too lethal for warfare!.

Shooting is a small part of a police officer's duty. Unfortunately, too many of today's cops have no prior experience with guns and they don't practice much. And often times when officers do practice, it's in strict accordance with specific methods -- they don't learn how to draw, move (laterally) and still his their target. They don't learn to hit a laterally moving target.

We could end this debate and return to a standards requirement of actually being able to hit the target better than 79% of the time.
 
BillCA, let's tone it down a little with the swears, I (like most here) check this forum at work. :)

And to the topic at hand...I do not think that your average LEO will carry explosives other than maybe flash bangs, and those may be just in the car not on the belt.

What I do see is more local police forces trading in the tie/slacks for camos.
 
As to the police not having enough stopping power, the first requirement is hitting what one is shooting at. A very close second is shot placement. How effective, at either of the above mentined, is the average police officer? In to many instances, the answer seems to be, not very, which considering what is involved is troubling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top