I was looking at some photos of prisoners working in a field (in the USA) and noticed the guards had shotguns and sidearms. I can see needing arms to protect themselves from a prisoner who attacks them, but if a prisoner just ups and starts to run away (they were outdoors and not chained together or restricted), are the guards going to shoot them? I really don’t see the point of the guards being so armed. Seems like the number and position of the guards would suffice to protect themselves from the prisoners with side arms. No?
Yes.
No. First off, sidearms are nearly useless. Most cops I know can’t hit a Suburban from inside one, and I don’t think guards are, as a group, any more proficient with sidearms. Second, sidearms are not enough when faced with a group attack by prisoners. Shotguns are. Third, shotguns are intimidating. It is far better that a skittish prisoner think shotgun=real dead than sidearm=I can take him.
Silenus,
I’ll posit that if you’re faced with a group attack by prisoners, neither a pistol nor a shotgun will be “enough”. You’ll require quick backup or extraordinary good luck. Shotguns do beat the heck out of a pointy stick or a can of pepper spray, though.
I think that this is correct and Silenus is mistaken. Most state laws have provisions which state when deadly force can be used. Typically it is reserved for immediate threats to the lives of officers or civilians, but most states permit the use of deadly force for fugitives that are just running away as well.
In practice, the rules of engagement for prison guards are typically the same as thos for people that aren’t in prison; the deadly weapons will only be used for immediate threats to the lives of others. You’re unlikely to be shot just running off into the woods.
Depends on how big the group is, of course. I was thinking of a group of three or four, not ten or twenty. Still rather have the scattergun over a 9mm anyday. 
For reference, I was refering strictly to the sidearm vs shotgun question. I’ll leave the “shoot escaping prisoners” question to the legal eagles.
If 3-4 men are attempting to overpower you, and you have a pistol, rifle or shotgun, the likely outcome is you losing the fight and seriously injuring or killing 0 to 1 of your assailants. What happens once you’ve lost the fight depends on the preferences of your assailants.
There’s an outside chance you’ll manage to seriously injure or kill 2 of your assailants.
The odds of managing to seriously injure or kill 3-4 men in this scenario are similar to the odds that the whole September 11th thing was really the fault of the Freemasons, or that Ex-Doper Roland Deschain will become the next leader of North Korea.
I have several friends who are New York State Corrections Officers. Annually all officers have to qualify with the pistol, rifle and shotgun. If they retain any skills and ability while in a crisis situation is a go fish question.
The few outside work crews in New York are minimum security convicts with a short time left to serve. The idea is they have too lose by attacking an officer or running away and being put in a maximum security prison for a long long time.
Just after posting my last reply I emailed a CO friend who transports prisoners, here’s his reply;
Kind of depends if Boss Godfrey is on duty.
I’m sorry, silenus; however, this doesn’t sound right. Law enforcement officers are required to undergo firearms training, qualification, and periodic requalification, are they not?
Standards vary considerably among different agencies, and it isn’t unknown for the qualification records to be “pencil whipped”.
Yes, they are. In the case of the Sheriff’s Office where I do some work as a deputy, requalification is annual. Other organizations with which I am familiar qualify semi-annually or even quarterly.
The meme among gun enthusiasts that the average cop is a lousy shot is untrue. The average cop isn’t a competetive level pistol shot (neither is the average gun enthusiast) but they do have instruction in the use of guns and must demonstrate a certain degree of competency on a continuing basis.
Which is why I said “most cops I know.” It is far from being every cop. Recertification just means they managed to get some rounds onto a paper target under controlled conditions with the endless ability to retest. But really, look at any shoot-out cops are involved in. Odds are most of the rounds never got near the target (unless the target is an unarmed immigrant reaching for his wallet in New York City, but that’s neither here nor there. ) I’m not saying most handgunners could do any better. I **was ** saying, however, that the shotgun is more intimidating and more effective as a crowd-control weapon.
Your anti-police rhetoric does your “argument” no favor.
Didn’t seem like much of an argument to me. More of a 'hey can prison guards shoot you if you run away? question. Even if it was an “argument” I fail to see any anti-police rhetoric, unless you think all Police are marksmen, and daring to question their abilities is wrong.
In Texas:
What are you talking about?
Your pro-polioce rhetoric does your “argument” no favors either.
Cops are people, and as such are most likely not to be able to hit anything small and moving under extreme stress with a pistol. Doubt me? Go onto any academic index and search for “accuracy” or “precision” and “stress”.