Slashdot Mirror

It may not include hitting innocent bystanders, but the police tend to have one out of 7 shots fired actually hit the target. Meaning that 6 of 7 are potentially injuring innocent bystanders.

This statistic is also a great example of why limits on the number of rounds a firearm may hold is bogus; if the police (who we assume - and are often told - are trained "experts") only "succeed" with lead-on-target one out of seven times, then a 10 round (or 7 round like NY) limit essentially means that the average citizen would be guaranteed to never hit their assailant before needing to reload.

Please see District of Columbia v. Heller where the Supreme Court found that possession of firearms for self-defense was part of the 2nd Amendment.

Now, why 30 rounds? Well, The Police Policy Studies Council found that trained police officers tend to have a hit rate around 15%. That means, on average, one of every 7 shots fired will strike the target. And that is for trained police officers, who practice rapid-fire, movement-based engagements. Not your typical firearm enthusiast.

So how many rounds are needed, on average, to stop an assailant? Well, a little digging and we find that you typically need 3.5 hits to stop an assailant. In other words, you need to put between 3 and 4 holes in a person to incapacitate them to the point they are no longer a threat. Sometimes you get lucky and it's a single shot; sometimes it can take 17 hits to incapacitate someone to the point where you can finally safely handcuff them.

Now add it all up. Assume you're as trained as a police officer. Assume you need 7 shots to strike your assailant once. And you need 3.5 hits to stop your assailant. That means you need somewhere around 25 rounds to pretty much guarantee you can eliminate a solitary assailant.

But what if there are two or three assailants? Suddenly 30 rounds doesn't look too promising, does it? There is a reason police officers typically carry pistols with magazine capacities in the 14-17 round range, and carry between 2 and 4 backup magazines. It's because in many armed confrontations it's not at all unreasonable to expect an officer to expend 50+ rounds to end the situation, if it comes to the point of gunfire.

Now, given the above, and the fact that the right to self defense is part of why the 2nd Amendment exists, why do you feel that 9 rounds is sufficient?

the police video tape the public every time they stop a vehicle.

In Austin, Texas, when the police shoot someone they've pulled over, they are allowed to review the dash camera before having to give a statement or answer any questions about the incident. This policy was instituted by police chief Art Acevedo to ensure that the descriptions of the incidents given by officers would align with the video taped evidence. Civilians are not afforded this privilege, however.

Seth

It definitely is and assuming that this is a somewhat accurate description of what happened, the police officers involved could easily find themselves behind bars for witness tampering, destruction of evidence amongst other things. And police officers do get sent to prison from time to time for this sort of behavior.

Every once in a great while when there is a massive public outcry and there are no other politically viable alternatives, yes, they do. This is far, far less often than it should happen. Of the instances of police overstepping their bounds I have heard of exactly one police officer being fired, and that was for a clear case of murder that was committed on camera and the victim was a homeless person who was well known and liked. The officer's excuse was that the man (who was known as 'the woodcarver' by locals) had a knife, and he did not put it down in the 2.5 seconds between the time the officer told him to and the time he fired. The man made no threatening gesture with the knife.

I have never heard of a police officer going to jail.

You're either making stuff up or you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

First, some simple facts. Ian Birk, the police officer who shot the "wood carver", resigned after he learned that there would *no* criminal charges filed against him. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41632205/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/seattle-cop-who-fatally-shot-woodcarver-quits-force/]

Second, wood carver John T. Williams, the person who was shot bu Birk, had 2 knives on him when he was shot, one which was open a and visible to Birk when Williams walked past his police cruiser. Williams also has an extensive criminal record, a substance abuser and alcoholic. This article doesn't make him seem as dangerous and violent as these people can really be: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012784234_copshooting02m.html I say this as a 14 year full-time paramedic who has worked (and still does) the street of the South Bronx, Alphabet City, Harlem and Spanics Harlem.

Third, the actual shooting was not recorded by video camera, only audio of the officer telling the suspect to put the knife down and then the gunshots. So, you didn't see what happened and *you* sure as hell were not there see it.

Lastly, the officer had a bit more than an excuse of not putting down a 3" blade in "2.5 seconds between the time the officer told him to and the time he fired." Here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013905500_inquest12m.html

Now, if I told you that just about any person can close a distance of 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds would you be surprised? Would you be more surprised to learn that the typical police officer needs approximately 1.5 seconds to draw his pistol from his holster and bring the front sight to eye level? Now remember, most if not all cops have retention holsters, i.e., holsters that must me manipulated in a certain way to release the firearm. And, brining the front sight to eye even doesn't mean you have actually had time to put that sight to the center mass of the person you are about to shoot.

What I just described above was the result of a officer named Dennis Tueller. He came up with what is now famously (among cops and people with pistol permits who take training) know as the Tueller drill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill You can read the article he wrote called "How Close Is Too Close: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm Videos on YouTube demonstrating this: http://www.youtube.com/results

Most gun encounters occur within 15 feet, which is about a second away from physical contact with the bad guy. Even 0-5 feet, the gun is invaluable, and can stop an adversary or at least allow you to escape. And if your adversary has a gun, the only thing to give you a fighting chance is another gun.

No it's not. An untrained person with a melee weapon at 15 feet would win *every time* against a trained person with a holstered gun. Don't believe me, try a Tueller drill with your own weapon. For most people drawing a weapon takes active thought and is not reflex. Also for most people they won't have a round chambered which would mean 2-handed operation. Here is the steps to respond to threat with a gun:

1. Threat identified
2. Decide to draw gun
3. Draw gun (first removing any retention and assuming it's immediately accessible)
4. Chamber round
5. Hammer cocked (may not be necessary)
6. Remove safety
7. Raise and point

Police studies have been conducted for a prepared cop (remove steps 1, 2, 4, 5) and a standing assailant armed with a melee weapon. At a range of 21 feet, both sides have an even chance. This is a Tueller drill and it ignores the two longest steps, deciding to draw and chambering a round. I would question the ability of a moderately trained but *unprepared* person to confront a real threat at less then 150 foot range. If you're carrying a weapon all the time for self-defense I question that you'll leave a round chambered and the hammer cocked (but I know some people do).

The martial arts bit is a red herring, the real problem is guns aren't good close combat weapons when in holster. If most gun encounters really do occur within 15 feet then drawing the gun probably was not necessary for defense but merely as a threat. I would question that statement by asking how many resulted in the gun being fired. A spring-loaded expandable baton is a better weapon for self-defense (unless the aggressor has a gun, but you're not suggesting drawing a gun against someone who has a gun pointed at you, are you?). Now if you want to hurt someone running away then you need a gun.

This is not an anti-gun post. Part of knowing how to use a gun is knowing the limitations. It's the same for all weapons or unarmed training, and it's quite amusing to watch videos of overconfident people getting their ass-kicked. The best thing you can do for safety is be aware of your surroundings and leave dangerous situations before a threat emerges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm

OMG THE GOVERNMENT IS EVIL!!

More NY police are shot and killed on the job each year than there are perpetrators killed by cops.
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

But don't let the truth stop you from being a retardedly hateful and paranoid of "THE MAN," thinking you're the only intelligent guy in America, even though 70% of the populace feels exactly the same way you do.

They do of course have an agenda, and they are biased--as are all humans on the planet. Human objectivity, especially on something as emotionally complex as civil rights, is impossible, and it's irresponsible to say that they have an agenda without acknowledging that everyone else has one as well.

As far as doing more harm than good, would you prefer to have just the NRA, which sticks up for 1/10 of the Bill of Rights? What other organization fights so consistently for such a broad range of civil rights? I thank the ACLU that cops can't (legally) torture confessions out of people, you can't be locked up indefinitely without trial (less true than it used to be, but still...) and so on.

Even if they are more selective than we would like in which causes they champion, and even if they are imperfect (as we would expect them to be, being human), the alternative is... what? No civil rights organizations at all? Are you one of those who think that the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Red Cross, etc., have harmed the USA by saying "torture is wrong" and similar things?

The ACLU has (perhaps rarely, but still) occasionally defended gun rights; recently in Texas, for instance.

See http://www.theppsc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1836

Cheers,

timothy

However, I already pointed to this in a previous comment on yet another article on the coming ban on 'M' rated games. (I really don't know how long it will take, but I believe it is coming so be prepared for it.)

So, in the interest in presenting new research on the subject of this impressive charlatan, I present this, The Dave Grossman Debate. The author tends to use emotional rhetoric too much but is understandably upset by the implications of Grossman's writing, which is that police officers and military personel are being turned into homicidal zombie killbots by the new 'murder simulators' that also happen to be the basis of the evil videogames that are poisoning our children:

Your allegations imply that deadly force is routinely employed in a manner that is the product of a conditioned response. The troubling implication is that police don't use professional judgment on a case-by-case basis..... they merely pull triggers as a matter of conditioning!

Of course, none of this is going to matter to the believers.

Oh, I don't know. Mere possession of a firearm doesn't give you IFF, x-ray low-light vision, or even basic good sight picture. If you want, you can blast away in the general direction of a perceived threat. In fact, aimed fire is pretty rare, even among law-enforcement professionals. And how many innocent cattle die each deer hunting season because "trained" hunters risk shots through cover at a barely-glimpsed "deer"? Hell, how many hunters are fired on under the same circumstances, in spite of mandatory high-visibility clothing?

No, guns and "active network defense" are very similar, for very much the same reasons: everyone downrange is in the threat space, innocents get hit as easily as the "intended target", it's easy to reaction-fire on an innocent (non-actual) "threat", and the bad guys already know to duck or hide behind innocent "shields". And it doesn't take too much imagination of two different parties of armed personnel attacking the same "bad guy" and inadvertently engaging each other. The military has a few names for it: "fratricide", "friendly fire", "Blue-on-blue".

No, the weapons analogy stretches pretty well in this case. "Active network defense" may be a wonderful idea or a terrible one, but it certainly has consequences comparable in kind (if not scope) to gunfights in the streets.