[Archie]

I can at least make some observations. (And a Federal Judge once took judicial notice of the fact I am edumacated and can count to at least six. How many of you can say that?)

Most troops working for law enforcement agencies are not shooters, let alone good shots. The men and women on this forum - the lawmen, I mean - are probably very good shots, and head and shoulders and armpits above the average. Most agencies train to a minimum level of competence to be able to say "Our people are trained to the demanding standards set by [fill in the demanding authority here]". But any more training that that is hard on the budget. It takes both budget money and troops off the line. Bad juju to the bean counters and 'administrators'. (If any 'administrator bean counters' are reading this, I'm sorry to sound so critical, but you all know damn good and well I'm telling the truth.)

On the other hand, when it comes to shooting, consider this: Shooting at paper targets that don't move and don't shoot back is a limited skill; but if one cannot connect reliably with a stationary target, one is certainly not going to do better with a hostile, moving target. Unless one is far more lucky than I, or has the magic shooting fairy in one's pocket to bonk one on the head with the magic 'now you can shoot' wand. I for one, will not make book on that bet.

I still maintain a good portion of the problem is the weaponry issued. Far too many people (lawmen and laymen alike, not excluding lawwomen and laywomen) have the I've-got-fifteen-shots-I'm-bound-to-hit-something theory of shooting in mind. Some actually admit it.

If'n I was emperor, I'd issue them all cap and ball guns. When any of them could hit reliably, I'd move the ones so meriting up to cartridge guns.