My first blue label Glock came with a ny2 trigger, felt like shooting a really dirty staple gun.
May as well not even issue firearms at that point and save the money for more ammo they can just throw at bad guys by hand.
If guns are too big of a logistical hurdle, give 'em pepper spray, tasers, and a ticket book.
I was about to say: Do the British thing. Have some specialized armed police (who are trained to a level where negligent discharges are unlikely, thus defeating the original purpose of the heavy triggers or such that the weight of the triggers does not present as much of an issue - and most of the time that they get called out, they’re going to be carrying long guns anyway) and have most cops armed with less lethals.
This is as much of a training issue as it is an equipment issue. You have top brass making decisions on equipment theyve never used in an environment theyll never be jn or in many examples never experienced then not allowing for enough training with the particular piece of equipment.
Then these same top brass have the room to blame the officer for a “bad shoot” when they cant hit shit with what they are given.
Catch 22 for the officers.
The Brits are not as armed a society as we are. Considering that we now have 37 shall-issue states and 4 constitutional carry states, that course of action would not be prudent.
Any LEOs I know who can shoot worth a damn not on a tac team spent their own time and dime getting there. When the brass in some areas tend to be anti gun themselves, you end up with LEOs with a dead minimum of training with firearms. I have never spent time on a two way range so I don’t tend to arm chair their shooting skills, but we all know with additional and ongoing training their hit % would improve which decreases the risks to them and those around them, and that’s an obvious plus to everyone but the criminals they’re shooting at.
You also might want to consider the difficulty in ensuring that 33,000 officers have a modicum of marksmanship ability to begin with, much less maintain that ability.
I was merely stating that it would be impossible to turn all 33,000 cops into gunfighters, notwithstanding the fact that many of those cops don’t want to be gunfighters.
We have had folks from back east, New York City in one particular case, who got their first driver’s license in order to take the police job. Talk about a hoot on the EVO course.
Same deal, many of the native New Yorkers would not have a history on gun handling from hunting or other experiences.
Such an environment breeds susceptibility to believing everything you are told by blowhard senior officers and an ‘our way is the only way’ mentality.
Change in such organizations is often slow and painful.
And be sure, somewhere in the bureaucracy their is an actuary who has done the math to determine which course is less costly: spending the money to train to minimum standard and paying the expected lawsuits; or training to the highest standard and paying a reduced number of lawsuits. Because almost every time lethal force is used there will be some type of litigation.
The other obvious issue is that there are some top brass paper-pushers that don’t want the patrol officers or any officer to actually kill anyone, so they are hesitant to provide such training since there is almost always a wrongful death suit and it is always cheaper to settle out of court than to go into court.
It always come down to money and not lives when it comes to considerations by the top brass of large departments. An officer is just a number to them, data on a piece of paper.
So instead the wrongful death suit comes from an innocent bystander being wrongfully killed, makes sense. :lol:
Easier to blame the officer’s actions than pay out.
Well, there is no society as armed as we are.
And our society has never had to deal with people - civilians, terrorists - setting up mortars in Washington DC to shell Congress and the White House.
Are you suggesting that police in this country are less safe because of how many guns we have? Are you suggesting that they are less safe because of how many people can - and do - lawfully carry them concealed?
Considering the abysmal marksmanship of the NYPD and the apparent institutional inertia against training their officers adequately - or even trusting them to not shoot themselves - and given that it is a generally agreed upon principle that someone who carries a firearm without training or with insufficient training or with the incorrect mindset - all of which appear to be regularly exhibited by the officers of the NYPD - that one is a greater threat to oneself and one’s friends and family and that, therefore, everyone including these officers would be safer with these officers disarmed rather than armed.
I merely suggested that to expect unarmed police to police an armed society doesn’t seem to make much sense.
The vast majority of officers are staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment and the citizen’s right to go armed to protect themselves. However, considering that many of the folks involved in shoot outs with the police were legal gun owners right up to the moment they got into the shoot out with the police the idea of disarming the police is ludicrous to say the least.
You believe this all holds true for New York City?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/06/austin-cop-sure-shot-stopped-crazed-gunman/
Holding the reins of two horses with one hand, Austin Police Sgt. Adam Johnson raised his service pistol and fired a bullseye into the target some 312 feet away.
Down went Larry McQuilliams, and so ended his rampage through the streets of the Texas capital, where he’d fired more than 100 rounds from his AK-47 and .22-caliber rifles at buildings. The shot, from Johnson’s Smith & Wesson M&P .40 pistol, hit McQuilliams square in the chest and made the 15-year-veteran the toast of gun enthusiasts around the country.
Maybe this guy can take them to school?
I’m shocked that NYPD Police Commish Frank Reagan hasn’t personally looked into this and made the necessary changes post haste to correct this abysmal performance of his rank and file. Hopefully he’ll have the NYPD squared away by Sept. 25th. I look forward to seeing what corrective action will be implemented by then or shortly there after. Be strong Frank, be strong!
I believe that NYPD needs to train their police officers better (the same could be said for almost any agency).
I believe that most ‘big city’ police officers are exposed to more danger than their brethren in smaller jurisdictions.
I believe that even considering NY’s draconian gun laws firearms are readily available, especially to the criminal element who anticipate using firearms to further their criminal activity.
I believe that the presence of armed police is a deterrent to violent crime, although, obviously, armed police do not deter all violent crime.
I believe that based on that anyone who would espouse disarming the NYPD is not using basic logic in their thought process.
I also believe if there were NO guns a lot fewer people would be murdered each year, but, damn, that ship has already sailed.
I also believe that a life without freedom and the risk that freedom entails is not worthwhile.
I also believe in true love and Jesus, having experienced both.
Good enough?
12 lbs trigger and no ammo or time to practice. IMO it’s the city’s fault, these officers are set up for failure.
I’m more surprised they managed to hit him once than that they missed 83 times.
Please tell me the time is wrong at 0232
“Johnson, who works with the Mounted Patrol Unit, was about to get off duty and stabling the horses when he heard shots and returned fire at 2:33 a.m.”
We are not going to agree on this…
I don’t know where you grew up, but in “the hood” where I grew up, I would have been killed on several occasions had I not had the means to stop bigger, stronger and more numerous attackers.
You don’t think more people were murdered by bigger stronger foes back in the days before firearms came a long and gave the “weak” a means to fight back against bigger, stronger attackers?