Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, CMJeepster said:

 

3 hours ago, CMJeepster said:

Chinatown Shop Owner Who Saved Woman from Robbery By Firing Gun is Arrested, Bailed Out (yahoo.com)

“Our message really is that we don’t want to see our business owners or others begin to arm themselves,” the police chief told reporters."

All the chief's concerns are valid.

BUT NO ONE ELSE WAS HURT!!!

Most people don't like to see someone else harmed.

Remember Koreatown during the Rodney King riots.  They took care of themselves.  Dead bodies were found in the street and no clue who killed them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong.  I'm sure those Korean shop owners called the police but the police had no one available to respond. I'm not an advocate of taking the law into your own hands.

They did what they had to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

All the chief's concerns are valid.

Only if you subscribe to the notion that police officers have some kind of special shooting power and never miss.

NYC went on record with something like 18% hits in on duty shooting events. Where did the other 82% of the shots go? Maybe it was "into the community" (a stupid phrase to use here IMO)

Perhaps he's one of the "disarm police" advocates.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.Stu said:

NYC went on record with something like 18% hits in on duty shooting events. Where did the other 82% of the shots go? Maybe it was "into the community" (a stupid phrase to use here IMO)

Hence Glock's 'invention' of the 'NY 2 Trigger', a ridiculous spring combination that resulted in about a 12# pull weight. Just so all those 'accomplished' NYC police would be really, really, really sure they wanted to pull the trigger.

I remember one specific incident that went down exactly as described. 15 or 20 shots fired with only one hit on the suspect. Or was it none? I'll have to see if I can dig that out.

And to be fair it's not just NYC. I had one rather highly placed NJ state trooper tell me in person categorically that if he was on the qualification range and certain other troopers that he knew came on the range to shoot... he would leave. They were that unsafe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

Only if you subscribe to the notion that police officers have some kind of special shooting power and never miss.

NYC went on record with something like 18% hits in on duty shooting events. Where did the other 82% of the shots go? Maybe it was "into the community" (a stupid phrase to use here IMO)

Perhaps he's one of the "disarm police" advocates.

I never said police have some kind of special ability.  How good they are depends on how much their agency has ongoing training.

When I was on a police department you qualified twice a year.  Service gun only.  You got to fire 120 rds a year at the department's expense.

Working for the Federal government we had a mandatory minumum 4 hours of firearms and tactics training a quarter.  It usually wound up to be 6-8 a quarter. So we're talking 16-32 hours a year. Even if you carried only one gun you shot about 1000 rds a year with quals and mandatory exercises.

We had great shooters that only shot in training.  Very few problem children.

You also have to consider that 95% of gunfighting is in your head.  Only 5% is the mechanical ability to shoot the gun and hit the target.  I got that from Jeff Cooper and I agree with it.

I personally know people that shot expert on the range and did horrible in a gunfight.  I also know people that just made a qual score and did remarkable in a gunfight.

Do you remember the shooting outside the Empire State Building a few years ago.  I could Monday morning quarterback some of the tactics used but I won't.  Everyone paid attention to the fact that several bystanders were hit by police bullets.  Few were aware that after the forensics guys got done all the bullets that hit bystanders had already gone through the bad guy.

Gunfighting is light years different than shooting paper.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying proficiency in shooting is not important.  It's a small factor in gunfighting though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, 45Doll said:

Hence Glock's 'invention' of the 'NY 2 Trigger', a ridiculous spring combination that resulted in about a 12# pull weight. Just so all those 'accomplished' NYC police would be really, really, really sure they wanted to pull the trigger.

I remember one specific incident that went down exactly as described. 15 or 20 shots fired with only one hit on the suspect. Or was it none? I'll have to see if I can dig that out.

And to be fair it's not just NYC. I had one rather highly placed NJ state trooper tell me in person categorically that if he was on the qualification range and certain other troopers that he knew came on the range to shoot... he would leave. They were that unsafe.

I will agree that a heavy trigger makes it harder to hit something.  However if you're good you can shoot well with a 5, 8 (NY1), or 12 pound trigger.

Just about every precinct in NYC used to have a range in the basement.  Then came the OSHA lead exposure standards.  Last count there were only two places for NYPD to shoot.  Rodman's Neck and a precinct in Brooklyn.  AFAIK NYPD still gives you 50 rds a month for practice and qualify twice a year.  A place to shoot is another issue.

BTW, the Federal agency I worked for would you 100 rds a month.  In practice, because there were many who didn't take it, you got just about all you wanted for practice.

It's not how many rounds you shoot.  It's what you do with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Oakland article where liquor store owner intervened in attempted robbery of woman on the street:

Chan continues to appeal for more police patrols in Oakland Chinatown as armed security guards, funded by donations from the community, patrol the streets. However, he fears that without more cops, business owners might have to resort to arming themselves and take matters into their own hands. “I am so worried because I heard the news that many people are trying to find ways to protect themselves,” Chan said. “And we do not believe that violence against violence is the way to go.”

So the last sentence this idiot say "And we do not believe that violence against violence is the way to go".  So....why are you hiring armed security guards?  Why not hire unarmed security guards?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, GRIZ said:

I never said police have some kind of special ability.  How good they are depends on how much their agency has ongoing training.

When I was on a police department you qualified twice a year.  Service gun only.  You got to fire 120 rds a year at the department's expense.

Working for the Federal government we had a mandatory minumum 4 hours of firearms and tactics training a quarter.  It usually wound up to be 6-8 a quarter. So we're talking 16-32 hours a year. Even if you carried only one gun you shot about 1000 rds a year with quals and mandatory exercises.

We had great shooters that only shot in training.  Very few problem children.

You also have to consider that 95% of gunfighting is in your head.  Only 5% is the mechanical ability to shoot the gun and hit the target.  I got that from Jeff Cooper and I agree with it.

I personally know people that shot expert on the range and did horrible in a gunfight.  I also know people that just made a qual score and did remarkable in a gunfight.

Do you remember the shooting outside the Empire State Building a few years ago.  I could Monday morning quarterback some of the tactics used but I won't.  Everyone paid attention to the fact that several bystanders were hit by police bullets.  Few were aware that after the forensics guys got done all the bullets that hit bystanders had already gone through the bad guy.

Gunfighting is light years different than shooting paper.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying proficiency in shooting is not important.  It's a small factor in gunfighting though.

 

@GRIZI never said that you said anything about super abilities. I said that. I quoted you because my opinion differs from yours in that I do not agree with all the points the Chief made.

15 hours ago, GRIZ said:

All the chief's concerns are valid.

but for what he said to be true, it seems that he must believe in those super abilities.

He said, "Particularly, we don’t want people to fire weapons into our community. When weapons are fired in our community, there could be unintended victims; people who are hit by gunfire. And we want to avoid that as much as we can.” 

He may be suggesting that when his officers eventually show up and fire their weapons there are only intended victims - hence super ability compared to regular people.

Now I've thought about it some more, perhaps he doesn't mean that. He also said, "Our message really is that we don’t want to see our business owners or others begin to arm themselves. We would really prefer them to be good witnesses and give us the observations that they have; share that information, call law enforcement immediately and let OPD respond and follow up. What we really don’t want to do is bring any additional issues that threaten safety into the equation.”

As most people acknowledge, bad guys generally abandon their intent to commit crime if they see a cop nearby so there is most often a delay between the offense beginning and a cop showing up which gives the offender a chance to complete their criminal act. This appears to be what the Chief wants - for the criminal to be able to carry on unchallenged. For some reason he thinks it is important that it will be safer for the criminal. It is certainly not safer for the victims. Fighting back does carry risks, but that should be determined by the people there at the time. Not fighting back, not even having the tools to make that an option makes it a certainty that harm will be done to the victim, not just a risk. The level of harm and the appropriate resistance is what we have self defense laws for, but to remove the option of self defense for any situation should not be something anybody advocates for.

I shoot in competition regularly, I know several police officers, (local, county and federal) and have shot with even more. I respect and I am grateful to nearly all of them (every walk of life has its a-holes) and some I regard as good friends. I have also done sims training with 40+ serving officers as their volunteer bullet sponge. I have seen cops who are great with their guns and I have seen officers who really shouldn't be allowed to carry one around all day due to horrific safe handling. The vast majority are somewhere in between. I have also done sims training with competitive shooters and when the stress level went up with the possibility of being shot at, some of their normally impeccable safe handling went down the chute. I also know and have tried to help several officers who dread the quals every 6 months because they struggle to meet the standard on the low stress flat range. BTW that standard even allows for up to 20% misses depending on the department. That 20% go somewhere - maybe "into the community".

My point is that any regular person should be able to have the tools to defend themselves, not just the police who are usually not there the moment a criminal decides to act. The victim is always there. There is no affordable way to pre-determine who will perform the best under the stress of a violent attack so it is unreasonable to decide ahead of the event that the police are the only ones that should be able to bring force to bear. The Chief explicitly says he does not agree and he prefers the victims to be disarmed.

The article also says, "Armstrong also pointed out the problem authorities may face when they cannot determine who the assailant is when armed citizens intervene." This is fearmongering to try to support his point. There are millions of people who carry every day across the US and a significant number of them have had to deploy their sidearm in defense of themselves or others. It is incredibly rare for the police to show up while the shooting is still ongoing and even more rare for them to engage and shoot the good guy by mistake.

Sorry for going AVG on this one. I feel very strongly about it and my disagreement is with the Chief, not you Griz. I am usually right with you on what you post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, GRIZ said:

Do you remember the shooting outside the Empire State Building a few years ago.  I could Monday morning quarterback some of the tactics used but I won't.  Everyone paid attention to the fact that several bystanders were hit by police bullets.  Few were aware that after the forensics guys got done all the bullets that hit bystanders had already gone through the bad guy.

Yes I do. That's the incident I was referring to in my previous post. Thanks for pointing to it.

I think most of us on this board shoot way more than 120 rounds per year (when we could get reasonably priced ammo) to stay proficient and accurate. I have often wondered how many LE officers of any type are actually 'gun people'. That is to say firearms are something they like and would stay proficient with on their own accord, regardless of what their job provides. Frankly, someone who thought 120 rounds and two sessions a year would keep them sharp (enough for a job with increased odds of a shooting) would be suspect. In my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, gleninjersey said:

So the last sentence this idiot say "And we do not believe that violence against violence is the way to go".  So....why are you hiring armed security guards?  Why not hire unarmed security guards?  

Store Owner Shot 4 Times, May Never Walk Again After Violent Robbery in Vallejo (yahoo.com)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 8:49 AM, Mr.Stu said:

@GRIZI never said that you said anything about super abilities. I said that. I quoted you because my opinion differs from yours in that I do not agree with all the points the Chief made.

but for what he said to be true, it seems that he must believe in those super abilities.

He said, "Particularly, we don’t want people to fire weapons into our community. When weapons are fired in our community, there could be unintended victims; people who are hit by gunfire. And we want to avoid that as much as we can.” 

He may be suggesting that when his officers eventually show up and fire their weapons there are only intended victims - hence super ability compared to regular people.

Now I've thought about it some more, perhaps he doesn't mean that. He also said, "Our message really is that we don’t want to see our business owners or others begin to arm themselves. We would really prefer them to be good witnesses and give us the observations that they have; share that information, call law enforcement immediately and let OPD respond and follow up. What we really don’t want to do is bring any additional issues that threaten safety into the equation.”

As most people acknowledge, bad guys generally abandon their intent to commit crime if they see a cop nearby so there is most often a delay between the offense beginning and a cop showing up which gives the offender a chance to complete their criminal act. This appears to be what the Chief wants - for the criminal to be able to carry on unchallenged. For some reason he thinks it is important that it will be safer for the criminal. It is certainly not safer for the victims. Fighting back does carry risks, but that should be determined by the people there at the time. Not fighting back, not even having the tools to make that an option makes it a certainty that harm will be done to the victim, not just a risk. The level of harm and the appropriate resistance is what we have self defense laws for, but to remove the option of self defense for any situation should not be something anybody advocates for.

I shoot in competition regularly, I know several police officers, (local, county and federal) and have shot with even more. I respect and I am grateful to nearly all of them (every walk of life has its a-holes) and some I regard as good friends. I have also done sims training with 40+ serving officers as their volunteer bullet sponge. I have seen cops who are great with their guns and I have seen officers who really shouldn't be allowed to carry one around all day due to horrific safe handling. The vast majority are somewhere in between. I have also done sims training with competitive shooters and when the stress level went up with the possibility of being shot at, some of their normally impeccable safe handling went down the chute. I also know and have tried to help several officers who dread the quals every 6 months because they struggle to meet the standard on the low stress flat range. BTW that standard even allows for up to 20% misses depending on the department. That 20% go somewhere - maybe "into the community".

My point is that any regular person should be able to have the tools to defend themselves, not just the police who are usually not there the moment a criminal decides to act. The victim is always there. There is no affordable way to pre-determine who will perform the best under the stress of a violent attack so it is unreasonable to decide ahead of the event that the police are the only ones that should be able to bring force to bear. The Chief explicitly says he does not agree and he prefers the victims to be disarmed.

The article also says, "Armstrong also pointed out the problem authorities may face when they cannot determine who the assailant is when armed citizens intervene." This is fearmongering to try to support his point. There are millions of people who carry every day across the US and a significant number of them have had to deploy their sidearm in defense of themselves or others. It is incredibly rare for the police to show up while the shooting is still ongoing and even more rare for them to engage and shoot the good guy by mistake.

Sorry for going AVG on this one. I feel very strongly about it and my disagreement is with the Chief, not you Griz. I am usually right with you on what you post.

I am all for people having the means to defend themselves.  The problem is many who buy a gun for defense never pursue learning how to use it.  I've known many people who've bought guns for SD and never even fired it.  I'm not for mandatory training though.  Although most of gunfighting is mental I agree most people need to practice.

Keep in mind if a bad guy is holding up a store they already have their gun out and most likely pointed in the direction of the victim.  99.99% of us are not going to beat him to the draw.  He's already has his gun out.

NYPD, who keeps copious records, discovered long ago there was no correlation between how well someone did in a gunfight and how well they did in qualification.

Your assertion regarding the qual course that NJ LEOs use is misleading.  You say that depending on the department up to 20% misses are allowed.  You ponder that that 20% go somewhere into the community.

Unless everything changed in the past few days, NJ requires all State, County, and local agencies to use the same qual course with the FBI Q target and score a minimum of 80%.  That's 80% in the kill zone outlined inside the silhouette.  The kill is a little bit larger than than the A, B, and C zones on a USPSA target.  A miss doesn't necessarily go somewhere in the community. It may be a hit in the arm, hip,  etc.

Higher standards might be required for SWAT folks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 9:14 AM, 45Doll said:

Yes I do. That's the incident I was referring to in my previous post. Thanks for pointing to it.

I think most of us on this board shoot way more than 120 rounds per year (when we could get reasonably priced ammo) to stay proficient and accurate. I have often wondered how many LE officers of any type are actually 'gun people'. That is to say firearms are something they like and would stay proficient with on their own accord, regardless of what their job provides. Frankly, someone who thought 120 rounds and two sessions a year would keep them sharp (enough for a job with increased odds of a shooting) would be suspect. In my view.

There's concern about missed shots by police going off into the community.  A good SD round will make an entrance and an exit wound with 12-14" penetration in ballistics gel.  Rounds with more penetration are more likely to go off into the community.

Ideally the bullet would fall to the ground after making an entrance and exit wound.  This is an impossible thing to design.  It did happen in NY almost two years ago.  The right combination of target size and bullet.  BTW, the same round is the one that passed clear through the Empire State Building shooter and hit bystanders.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2016/05/19/nypd-checking-ammo-after-knifemans-jacket-stops-cops-bullets/amp/

Subsequent investigation showed the bullets found stuck in the guy's jacket had already gone through him and lodged in his jacket. This was discussed on this forum.

To answer your question as to how many LEOs are "gun people" I'd say about 10%. They'd be shooting if they sold shoes for a living. They shoot well all the time. Next comes the 20% that really only shoot at quarterly quals and training.  They may only drop a few points from maximum score.  These people could probably become outstanding shooters if they wanted to.

The bulk, 60%, of LEOs probably fall into the "they shoot okay" category.  Their qual scores fall between max and barely qualifying scores.

Then there's the 10% that barely qualify and some need to shoot the course more than once.

These numbers come from my observations while employed by a Federal agency.  They were willing to spend money not only for qualification but for training.  However, we had task force officers from state, county, and local agencies that shot quals and training with us.  Their numbers were about the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...