View Single Post
Old June 1, 2009, 11:32 AM   #58
bigger hammer
Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
There seems to be some contention that with the right ammo 223 is no more likely to overpeetrate than 9mm.
"There seems to be some contention …" ROFL. Quite wrong. Such ammunition exists. There's no contention about that at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
Do we really think bureaucrats are going to pay for that ammo?
They have and will. It's just another sales job. They now pay for hollow point handgun ammunition where they used to only pay for FMJ. Simply a matter of writing another grant request.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
Are we talking corbon or something similar that is 4 times as expensive.
That is but one such choice. One that you conveniently use because the factor of "expense" fits your argument. But such ammunition need not be that expensive, especially given that it will rarely be used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
I know that is would be unlikely to happen in my area. With what LEO will probably actually be issued the over penetration is a greater concern than the 9mm actually issued.
Then if I was you I'd get busy writing letters to my local officials.

BTW do you know this to be a fact? Have you researched it? If so, please show us that research. If not, it's just more speculation based on a heavy bias. An unsupported opinion should not influence any but the holder of that opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
One of the major contentions in this arguments seems to be that as long as the qualifications are met officers should be allowed to have the rifles. I am not really against this, but I know of LEO who pass their pistol qualification and just aren't very good shooters. If I were in a situation where they responded I would be every bt as afraid of their fire as the BGs. At least one organization in my area lets officers attempt to qualify as may times as they want. The standard is not impeccable. As someone stated the LEO hit rate is about 15% w/ pistols.
I think that's about right WITH HANDGUNS. And as we all know most people find it far easier to shoot rifles accurately. Several times I've asked if anyone has "hit rate figures" for police using rifles but no one has responded. It could be that such figures don't exist because of the relatively low rate of use. It could also be that those who argue this position know that if such figures exist that it will greatly weaken their argument.

Add to this part of the discussion the fact that, for the most part, rifles will be used at longer ranges where handguns are less effective.

HERE'S. an interesting article that addresses this matter. BTW you might noticed the reference to "polymer tipped ammo."

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
Many departments are not willing/able to put the funding into training they should if they are going to carry high powered rifles.
ROFLMAO. Just like an antigunners, you call the 5.56 a "high powered rifle." Giving away your true colors? The truth is that it's an intermediate power cartridge and has been known as such by intelligent, educated shooters since it was invented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
Imagine if a car dealer started giving away ARs with the purchase of a car. How many of us would think that was a good idea? That is the best analogy I can see to my problems with the current situation.
I think the analogy is weak but I think it's a GREAT idea. As long as the purchaser of the car can legally purchase the gun, the more guns in the hands of honest decent citizens, the better I like it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
The idea was to give about 10% of the officers rifles. Does someone think they did some sort of analysis to see if 10% were capable? How many think that if only 5% qualified they would let 100 rifles sit in storage? I do not.
Many departments do just that. Not only does an officer have to pass a qualification to carry the weapon but he has to actively WANT TO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
I would be surprised if 10% did not have prior military training and were shooting enthusiasts who could handle the responsibility, but I doubt any thought was given to this.
Just more speculation. Let us know when you have some facts please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
You simply have some people who have no real interest in firearms who are going to end up with rifles(some locations issue a patrol rifle standard).
Those people probably will not deploy them. Lots of officers never take their SG out of the rack because they don't like it, and know that they won't use it well. I have no doubt that these guns will be the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
Look at the west Hollywood situation.
Actually it was the NORTH Hollywood situation. Officers of the "West Hollywood" station of the LA Sheriffs Dept. would be extremely put out by your error. LOL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
None of those officers knew there were bolt guns that would deliver devastating hits even to the body?
AGAIN you speculate. But this is REALLY a silly argument. A 5.56 round fired from an AR–15/M–16 is no different than the same round fired from a bolt gun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
There were almost certainly 30-06 rifles in that gun store, probably more powerful ones. If they did not know how to operate any of the hunting/target/whatever rifles of larger caliber or did not understand the difference between a 30-06 and a 223 I do not think they knew all that much about rifles in the first place.
There's a far greater chance that AS I SAID, "It's quite possible that they chose the AR-15 because of its similarities to their military experience with the M-16."

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
LEO are not ALL firearms and ballistics experts.
Few are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
Some are, but some are just there for the job, and some are there to save the world and are almost as annoying as your average hippy. That has to be considered in this situation. The qualifications need to be more stringent that the handgun qualifications.
OK. How do you know that they aren't. On my department no officer had any trouble with the handgun qualification. Yet many were unable to qualify with the long guns that were available, either the SG or the rifle. Those officers that did not qualify did not use those weapons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
Turning an inadequately trained person loose with a full auto M16 in a foreign country is OK with me, semi-auto in a US city, not so much. Ethnocentrism for the win.
It's not OK with me. I'm not a big fan of collateral damage, even in a foreign country. I know it will happen but there's no reason to increase the rate of it.

Please notice that NO ONE in this discussion is advocating "turning an inadequately person loose with a full auto M–16 …" First these weapons ARE NOT FA! Second, everyone arguing for their use agrees that training and qualification is necessary.
bigger hammer is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02609 seconds with 8 queries