Posts by A S
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Kyle,
I sincerely hope that cops would never have to fire a weapon in anger. The consequences of that would not be a pleasant thing to contemplate.
BUT, and it is a big one, when you are messing around with rifles, which have a potential lethal range of up to 2km in extreme (ie. incredibly unfortunate) circumstances, there is a duty of care on the Police to make damn sure their staff are adequately trained in their use, so some poor unfortuate doesn't wind up a statistic if something goes wrong due to poor training/lack of experience.
Given the potential for harm or death if things go wrong, as far as I can see, training with firearms should be a priority, and if it isn't a priority for police, then with all due respect I'd rather they did not deploy firearms at all because they are a danger to others and to themselves.
If a lack of officially sanctioned training is an issue, there is no reason that Police officers cannot obtain firearms licenses, and then they are perfectly able to practice as much as they like in their own time. Although this is unlikely to occur (I know of some, but not many police who shoot outside a work environment), and police hq should cough a few grand a year extra for some additonal ammo, it remains an option.
-
No bad on your part. .223 and 5.56x45mm are effectively the same thing. The .223 Remington is just the civilian version of the NATO round.
You're right, centre mass is definitely the safest bet for them (despite the apparently appalling sight picture of the police issue m4s esp compared to the Model 7's). I was mostly worried about the potential for 'buck fever' to kick in, due to lack of familiarity/experience. The temptation to empty the magazine is a frighteningly easy one to give in to, and there is scope for a whole world of things to go wrong if that happens.
-
Matthew,
I agree that the semi-auto action absorbs recoil, so too does the weight of the rifle. The recoil from a .223 is pretty negligible, in fact it is hard to find a centrefire calibre that has less recoil, so the argument about the model 7's having too much recoil is a bit of a stretch from my perspective. Anything less and they may as well issue .22's.
On the ammo compatibility point, I find this pretty hard to believe. The army uses NATO specification FMJ rounds (in line with Hague Convention requirements), the Police use hollow point rounds. The ammunition price discount argument doesn't quite make sense to me as they will be purchasing two completely different rounds.
The recoil from a 12ga isn't that horrendous, and TBH the reduced lethal range of shotgun projectiles cf. the .223 in my view is an adequate trade off against a (potential) slightly sore shoulder for police officers.
50 rounds a year verges on criminal in my view. If the police are not going to adequately train their staff to use equipment, they should think long and hard about deploying them at all. The average target shooter would put hundreds, if not thousands, of rounds down range annually, because by practicing, they are able to confidently use their firearm, and hit what they are aiming for. This is in the context of shooting at targets, but when people are potentially in the firing line, I'd expect the police to be even better trained than civilian shooters.
By way of illustration, the decision to shoot at that dog, broke at least three sections of the arms act, and any civilian who made such an idiotic decision would probably be facing a prison sentence. Shooting a moving target in a built up area, with what sounded from the footage like multiple shooters is a recipe for disaster. Those involved should be very thankful they still have jobs and that they managed to avoid shooting each other in their stupidity.
-
Any thoughts on the new model M16s in wider use by the cops?
I'm in two minds myself.As am I. Although they aren't strictly speaking M16s (no fully automatic capability) I'm not entirely sure they were a good choice for the police.
Aside from the pretty abysmal training of police in the use of firearms (according to some firearms instructors the safest place to be when the police are armed is directly in front of them). A calibre that was adopted by the US because it was capable of punching a burst of fire repeatedly through a steel helmet at 600 yards is probably not the best choice for a generally urban police force. Despite arguments around the use of frangible rounds, I think the potential risk to the public is unacceptably high from the combination of poor training/calibre/semi-auto capability.
The bolt-action Remington model 7 rifles that were the previous rifle of the Police were IMHO quite sufficient, completely aside from their being more reliable and more accurate than the replacement rifle. The new, (more warlike) M4/AR15 may quite possibly have been adopted based on the 'look' rather than the need for a new rifle.
I'm a bit unsure why shotguns weren't adopted as a first option rather than the M4. Perhaps shotguns weren't sufficiently cool? At the ranges police have tended to deploy rifles, a shot gun would probably have done the job just as well... Having said that, who can understand the workings of government procurement processes? Not I.
-
I'd rather they shot someone who's a direct threat to their lives, because at least they're under no illusions as to the potential danger of their actions
IIRC, a similar sentiment was (incorrectly) attributed to something I said in another thread, and you were seemed to have a distinctly different point of view there. Has something changed your mind, or have I misread what you are saying?
On the issue of tazers, I would much prefer that if I am seen as a threat, that I get tasered, where there is a limited chance of me dying, rather than being shot with a hollow-point police issue round (there is no international convention about using "humane" bullets when shooting civilians) where there is a much greater chance of a catastrophic wound and me dying.
I would be happy for tasers to be introduced, IF, AND ONLY IF, the taser was classed as a firearm and each use by the police was treated as a shooting and was investigated by the IPCA, and decisons to prosecute police were made by an independent authority.
By way of explanation of my reasoning for this, I'm 6'4 and weigh in at over 110kg, and am of a somewhat "swarthy" complexion. I'm aware that on meeting people, many find me threatening, largely due to my size, and I don't want anyone over-estimating my threat to them and making a wrong, and for me likely to be fatal, decision.
the great majority of mankind is little other than self-interested and petty, but, that's what we have to work with.
Careful, you don't want to end up as cynical as me...
-
Buses however however are brighly coloured, driven slowly and responsibly on predictable routes in cities. There is also a difference between amateurs and professionals.
Having watched the apparently homicidal maniacs that drive buses in wellington, I'd dispute the buses driven slowly and responsibly bit.
-
...but it would be idiotic to claim that an SUV is a practical, reasonable proposition. The only practical rationale for an SUV for an urban dweller who is not a builder or tradesperson is ergonomic ...
I'd probably separate usage from purpose a bit more in this context. A 4wd is well suited to doing what it was designed for, and presumably from the perspective of the user, they must feel it does it quite well, or you'd probably assume that they would own something else.
-
"iconic" removed from function = fetish.
You'll need to explain that one for me, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean that you don't think those examples are functional, which makes them some sort of fetish? Or something else.
If you meant the first, I'd suggest that they are examples of things are both functional and iconic, it looks to be the use to which they are often put that makes them appear less funtional and more of a fetish. The functionality remains, even if it isn't used.
Kind of like having a phone/pda/mini-pc thing, even when all it is used for is texting, the ability for it to do those other things isn't reduced.
-
I will add too that the inherent proportions of the monstrosities means that there has never been a beautiful SUV and that the neon sign can be footnoted "I also have irredeemably vulgar taste."
I don't know about beautiful, but the original Willys jeep was a pretty iconic design, so was the original series 1 landrover. The Mercedes G-wagen (especially the AMG spec one) is fantastic, and the original suzuki sj410 was a great little design too.
None of them are beautiful in the way that say, a Ferrari 250 California, or a Lamborghini Miura, or even the original alfa spyder could be described as beautiful. You're definitely right there. Mind you, it's pretty hard to find much beauty in the majority of vehicles that currently ply the roads.
-
But if you're saying people shouldn't rely on the police, then what are you advocating?
I'm sorry, isn't not relying on the police exactly the point you've been trying to convince me of for the last day or two?
I'm a bit lost because I'm not advocating anything, whether anyone would like me to or not. I'm merely wondering whether the police saying rely on us, when it seems pretty clear you shouldn't rely on them, isn't just a little bit hypocritical.
I'm very aware of the likelihood of the wgtn cbd being buried under a few metres of broken glass and rubble in the event of the big one, and I'm quite well aware that the city could be effectively cut off for months if not years in the event of a really big one. Those risks are ones I'm aware of, and have allowed for as much as I can. But cheers for the advice anyway, it makes sense.
I don't see this debate really going anywhere, as we seem to be talking past each other quite a lot, so I'm going to echo Nick and stop about now. Thanks, all. It's been real. :-)