Why shoot a bus?
Good question…
The reason that guards are issued sidearms and shotguns is because they are two different weapons and they are used in different circumstances. The sidearm is the better weapon in a situation where the target is very close (like if a prisoner trys to attack you) or where you want to fire a single shot (like when one prisoner is fleeing in a residential area). The shotgun is better in a medium range situation where you have multiple targets (like in a riot or mass escape). Another reason to have two weapons is to always have one available when the other is temporarily out of service (for example being loaded or unloaded).
I’m not talking about the crappy remarks floated to insinuate that cops are just bad shots, the weak “that’s why I said those I know” comment, and the comment about shooting someone reaching for a wallet.
Did you not read the thread?
What pro-police rhetoric? Be specific and accurate in your response, please.
AFAIK, firearms qualification in every agency that uses them involves shooting at paper targets. Training exercises may be different, but qualification and training aren’t the same thing. Qualification is to verify that the officer has a certain minimum level of skill with the issue arms. Training is practice and may take many forms and use a variety of targets and weapons.
Endless retests? Which agency, specifically, are you talking about that permits that? The fact that cops do not have 1 shot = 1 kill record overall means nothing. No police or military agency does.
should, of course, read
Yeah, I did. That’s why I asked you what you were talking about. I didn’t see any anti-cop rhetoric in that post.
You are welcome to attempt to demonstrate that most of the cops silenus knows are, indeed, marksmen. You are also welcome to attempt to demonstrate that the N.Y.C. cops did not, indeed, shoot to death a man armed only with his wallet.
You are welcome to reread those comments which I mentioned in the context in which they were made.
Seems to me the only one who sees those comments as anti-police rhetoric is you. At any rate, that’s enough of this hijack. Any further comments or criticism should be taken to the appropriate forum.
Well, it could be threatening an officer or attempting to escape from a correctional facility.
Regarding marksmanship, and this goes back to my earlier posts in this thread, everyone sucks at operating firearms when they’re being threatened, cops, soldiers, random gun enthusiasts and expert marksmen included.
The real world isn’t like TV, as I’m certain most of the posters in this thread know. Most gunslingers will miss most of the time in a fight.
Or you can start back-to-back and take your ten paces and fire! 
I have zero experience with guns, but I find these claims somwhat perplexing. Care to explain why killing people with a gun is so hard? Is it because they’d be on you before you had time to re-cock your weapon? What about a semi-automatic handgun? I’ve never fired a gun in my life, but I was under the impression that it was basically point and squeeze. Is it that hard to hit someone from point blank range? Are gunshot wounds just not all that incapacitating? Are you assuming the 4 men have the guard surrounded, so that one hits him in the back of the head while he’s shooting the other?
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just don’t get it.
My two cents is that what they are saying is that in these kind of circumstances, you are rushed all at once. You only have a fraction of a second to react. If you react properly, you can certainly take out 3-4 assailants.
The problem is that of a fairly normal human being taking the time to decide if OMG! I have to kill these folk!! And hesitating for that second or two, and by then it would be surely too late.
Human factors such as these delay reaction time, adrenaline makes the hands shake and fear plus no time to think it all over leads to very shaky results.
This is not a slap at police, just things in the real world. They are life-death situations that no test range can simulate, no matter how good the training. In these situations, you need to be stone cold, and that is a very hard thing to achieve with real-life human beings who have never been in that situation before.
-
There aren’t always a lot of guards around and even if there are, they could be seperated geographically and alone in practice.
-
These are convicted felons here, not high school students. Some are capable of violent impulse actions. That is why they are in prison.
-
A shotgun represents a very intimidating threat of deadly force. It keeps prisoners from plotting violence or escape. It is a preventative measure as well as a weapon. The sound of a cycled pump twelve gauge will cause almost anyone to stop what they are doing.
-
An escaped felon creates fear in the community and the felon will have to be recaptured at some point. Recapturing a felon on the run can be dangerous and endanger the lives of both the police and civilians.
-
Why wouldn’t you give guards of dangerous felons the most effective tool you can especially since the law allows it?
-
Following through with the threat of deadly force strongly discourages prisoners from trying to escape, harm an officer, or riot.
I can believe that claim. I think the basic problem is that a coordinated attack by three people is that they can simultaneously attack from 3 different angles or more. Imagine an X with three people each coming from a different branch towards the shooter in the center. Even with a semiautomatic, it still takes time to aim and shoot at each one. It doesn’t take the three attackers more than a few seconds to reach the shooter if they start from a close distance. Two attackers can wrestle even a handgun away from the shooter fairly well. A shotgun is easier.
Combine that with problem number two. Accurate combat shooting is extremely difficult with a handgun and fairly difficult with a shotgun. The surprise elements, adrenaline flowing, and chaos of movement make it very hard to hit an attacker moving towards you even if the shooter is skilled on the range.
Maybe not so difficult to kill with a gun – a small-caliber round is often deadly. However, the reason most people don’t choose to protect themselves with small-caliber rounds is that it’s not always possible to immediately stop someone from whatever misdeeds they are in the process of committing with such a round. Even larger, more powerful rounds wouldn’t necessarily immediately stop a criminal unless directed properly at center-of-mass (or the head, perhaps, if one were an amazingly good shot under pressure).
Also, the choice of drawing a pistol from an open holster upon an assailant running at you, from, say, 10, or possibly as much as 20 feet away might well be a losing proposition, especially if one isn’t trained in drawing from an unconcealed side holster, removing the safety, pointing, and shooting, in one swift move. Very few people master that kind of shooting without lots and lots of practice.
Again, not necessarily. Someone may well die eventually from a gunshot wound, and continue to function aggressively for a significant period of time after the shooting.
I would respond, but I’d just be repeating verbatim what shagnasty said without adding any further content.
Here is a partial quote that helped me form my opinions:
“…in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet.” [1]
I’ve read quite a few newspaper articles, too, where police used deadly fire on suspects. These incidents get documented quite well, and when you compare the ratio of “shots fired” versus “bullets found in suspect by coroner” you reach the conclusion that most cops don’t land their first or second shot in anyone they were aiming for. Especially when you realize that their pattern is likely to go “miss miss miss hit hit hit” or similar.
[1] http://www.policeone.com/columnists_internal.asp?view=94340&vid=102828
Okay, and just in case anyone is confused by my citation regarding edged weapon defense, the pertinent part is that an average man close with an officer and engage him in fisticuffs before the officer can get off a useful number of rounds if said average man begins advancing from less than 20 feet away.
The knife article and the 21 foot rule is just a point of information.
If the situation became 3 guys 15 feet away, my assertions earlier in this thread should fall into place. You’ll probably get off at most two good shots into one suspect… more likely ZERO. If your remaining two attackers are determined, moderately skilled at fighting and as strong as you are, your day is about to get really bad.
This was more or less the image the OP brought to my mind, if you catch the reference to “Cool Hand Luke.” That is, a southern chain gang from the 40’s.
When were the photos taken? Are the inmates chained together? Are the guards with shotguns at a reasonable distance from the inmates?