[Gunnair]

uwish uwish:

Lemmy Lemmy:

uwish uwish:

i doubt it, they are statistically fare better marksmen than the average police beat cop.

Bullshit. Marksmanship means nothing. You'd be shitting your pants with fear and adrenaline and would likely blow your own foot off while pulling your gun out.

Oh would I? I am so happy your opinion of my behavior in a fictitious incident makes you feel better, the fact is the cops shot innocent people. You don't know one dam thing about how I or anyone would react in a tense situation, so stop trying to dodge the fact that the NYPD caused more damage than the armed assailant!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/n ... ?hpt=hp_t1

Nor do you but it didn't cause a pause 2 3 before you postulated that joe lunch box is a better shot than a beat cop.

[EyeBrock]

Xort Xort:

It's funny how terrible overall many police forces are at pistol shooting.

You a good shot with a pistol?

[EyeBrock]

uwish uwish:

i doubt it, they are statistically fare better marksmen than the average police beat cop.

You got those statistics at hand?

[EyeBrock]

Xort Xort:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

And you know this because they can shoot paper targets with better accuracy?
Big difference between shooting a nice, friendly paper target and shooting someone that's sending lead in your direction.

But part of the training for the military is to create a muscle memory of proper shooting methods, so that in times of stress a shooter has a higher chance of doing stuff right.

Many police forces fail shooting paper targets correctly, yet some people think only the police should be armed because they are 'trained'. As if calling the group of people police somehow magicly makes them better at shooting.

If you don't practice you can't get better. Even if the practice isn't 100% real for the situation you are going to shoot in, the motions of proper marksmenship carry over.

Basic point, if a civilian shooter, shot like many of the police do the person would be facing criminal charges and have their weapons seized. I think if more than 10% of rounds fired by the police miss the body of the person they are trying to hit the officers should face criminal charges.

If you can't hit 90% of the time, then stop being a police officer.

On and if the police hit a bystander the officer should be charged just like I would be if I was shooting wildly and struck another person.

At most the police should be shooting double taps. If they are in a situation of kill the other person like a hostage or terrorist action, then I can agree to a double tap to the chest and one to the head.

Police shouldn't be shooting covering fire, they shouldn't be using a full mag on a single person, they shouldn't be filling a suspect full of more holes than the person naturaly has.

~

As a technical improvement, maybe police forces may want to move to a larger weapons platform that will give the officers better control over their weapons. Many options in the range of PDWs and SMGs are around, and those would help a poorly trained officer get rounds on target.

The pass rate for the annual requal in Ontario is 94%. You don't pass they take your pistol off you.

Sorry that facts get in the way of another stellar POV from you.

[SprCForr]

Does blue up here do combat shooting as part of the annual qualification? If not, would something like be accepted by those in the trenches?

Is there someone with enough horsepower to kick a program into gear?

[raydan]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Xort Xort:

It's funny how terrible overall many police forces are at pistol shooting.

You a good shot with a pistol?

Seems to be a lot of expert marksmen out there shooting at tin cans... thing is, the tin cans don't shoot back.

[EyeBrock]

The shoot requal/qual for Ontario specifies combat shooting (15 feet), then 45 feet kneeling, barricade etc etc. The intial shoot training involves dynamic training, shooting from vehicles/using vehicles for cover/concealment etc. The OPC training is pretty good. Over the years I have done quite a few different scenarios on requal. Most Ont services requal twice a year and many get the opportunity to shoot a lot more.

Obviously the police are not going to as adept at shooting as infantry on a combat tour as shooting people isn't the prime mission of the cops. Anybody who has had to shoot a pistol operationally (as in at a moving person) knows it's not quite as easy as they show on TV. I suppose the police could train all day and not do calls but 99% of our calls are not shots fired.

[SprCForr]

Thanks, this was an area that I knew absolutely zip about.

[ShepherdsDog]

A scene in the movie Glory drove home the point about the difference between being a marksman and being a marksman under fire. Broderick's character was firing his sidearm while the one soldier tried to reload and struggled to hit the same targets he had hit with ease before Broderick's character started firing. Had there been a crowd of people with CCW, most likely the death toll would have been significantly higher

[Gunnair]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

A scene in the movie Glory drove home the point about the difference between being a marksman and being a marksman under fire. Broderick's character was firing his sidearm while the one soldier tried to reload and struggled to hit the same targets he had hit with ease before Broderick's character started firing. Had there been a crowd of people with CCW, most likely the death toll would have been significantly higher

A great scene amongst many great scenes.

[ShepherdsDog]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Xort Xort:

It's funny how terrible overall many police forces are at pistol shooting.

You a good shot with a pistol?

He...... is a jedi....... Master.

[EyeBrock]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

A scene in the movie Glory drove home the point about the difference between being a marksman and being a marksman under fire. Broderick's character was firing his sidearm while the one soldier tried to reload and struggled to hit the same targets he had hit with ease before Broderick's character started firing. Had there been a crowd of people with CCW, most likely the death toll would have been significantly higher

Great movie.

That aside Shep, who the fuck told you to bring a modicum of practical common sense mixed with experience?

That goes against the grain of the highly trained gun-toting posters who are experts in all matters gun and police related. I'll have Bart's input. He know's what he is talking about. I don't always agree with him but he puts forward his cases with decent founded stats and his own experiences. The others, not so much on the credible opinion sides.

The 9 people shot, well it's far from an ideal situation. Without hollow-points I'm sure some of those injured would be dead and there would be many more casualties.

Having to shoot in a crowd of people at an armed gunman. A terrible decision to make. I hope I never have to do the same. I feel for those injured and those cops who were trying to save lives and are now being judged by the lynch-mob from their keyboards.

[ShepherdsDog]

I thought hollow points would have made the situation worse if paper target marksmen had them? Wouldn't there be shrapnel everywhere, if their rounds hit metal and concrete, rather than the perps body, resulting in more collateral damage, and ann even higher casualty rate?

[SprCForr]

I would have, but I was green.

That's why I could never be blue.

[Xort]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

You a good shot with a pistol?

Never used a pistol in a firefight before.

$1:

The pass rate for the annual requal in Ontario is 94%. You don't pass they take your pistol off you.
Sorry that facts get in the way of another stellar POV from you.

94% on a range, and they likely give retests and are not doing a tactical pistol shoot.
How far out do they shoot for their pistol qualification, and are they required to shoot double taps, or are the shots on your own time?

How many hours each month are dedicated to pistol ranges?

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I thought hollow points would have made the situation worse if paper target marksmen had them? Wouldn't there be shrapnel everywhere, if their rounds hit metal and concrete, rather than the perps body, resulting in more collateral damage, and ann even higher casualty rate?

I don't see any reason while a hollow point round is more likely to ricochet than a normal round. If anything it should have a lower rate due to it's deformation on impact with a hard target. If you are talking about chipping material free and having it strike people, I'd rather take a chunk from a wall than a bullet that had a shallow ricochet and is still moving at a sizeable portion of it's impact velocity.

Also your implication is that all casualties are equal, clearly someone that is in critical condition should count way more than someone with a scrap on the arm or leg. So I'd trade more casualties for lower injuries.

The Colorado shooter had a high casualty count because he was shooting bird shot from his shotgun, so a large number of people had a bunch of minor injuries. If he was shooting slug you would have fewer casualties and more killed.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Having to shoot in a crowd of people at an armed gunman. A terrible decision to make. I hope I never have to do the same. I feel for those injured and those cops who were trying to save lives and are now being judged by the lynch-mob from their keyboards.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think what I read said the shooter killed the one person he had the issue with, then the police started shooting at him, so he shot back at the police. The police were the ones that were shooting the bystander(s?), not the criminal. So the number of people shot was the shooter, the two police, the murdered guy and the people the police shot trying to shoot the shooter.