Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC Police renew their call for Semi-Automatic Handguns

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by QuarterWit, May 14, 2008.

  1. So, shootout on the Kingsway and it turns out that the copper who copped a bullet was reloading his revolver when he was hit.

    So today, the Police Association is calling for an updated weapons system. I was a bit shocked when i moved down here to see the police still carried the old .38S&W revolvers. Every state in Australia, I believe, use the Glock 22 in .40. I remember seeing the Hobart Police carrying theirs in holsters that had a cut out to eject the round, and a hole at the bottom for the muzzle. Theory was they could shoot somebody while being grappled etc without having to draw their handgun. But I digress.

    Anyway, I'm no expert on handgunning, but the more i think about rearming the police with semi-automatics the more it loses it's appeal. A revolver will just about never fail, and lets face it, if you don't hit them with six, you aren't going to hit them in 15. And with enough training, you can load a revolver with speed loaders as quick as a semi-automatic magazine. (This I have done)

    Anyway, I'd be interested to see what the cops on the forum think about this? And why haven't Victorian cops made the leap yet?

    My uncle, who was a firearms trainer in the QLD Police said the only reason they changed to Glocks up there was to allow more females who have less strength in their hands to enter the force and fire a revolver.


     
     Top
  2. Ah, but a hit doesn't guarantee a stop. If you look at the stats, in a lot of shootouts more rounds miss than hit. If you assume multiple assailants (even two), that's three rounds per target. Then assume you miss with one or two.

    Personally, if I was ever in a situation that I thought was best solved by shooting someone, I'd like to have as much ammunition available as practical.

    Of course the real issue in all of this is why the Police think it's necessary to carry guns for self-defense while their bosses deny ordinary Australians the right to do the same ...
     
     Top
  3. Not sure about police use, but my dad was a moderately senior army officer and claimed to have been mightily disappointed when the British army discarded the large calibre revolvers of old, as the standard officer's side-arm, and went to the 9mm Browning semi-automatic.

    Reckoned that the Browning had an unpleasant tendency to jam at inconvenient moments where the revolvers never did (which could be an issue here) and didn't blow big holes in things like his previous hand-held cannon (which probably isn't). Was also more complex and time consuming to maintain.

    On a less practical note, is it really a good idea to give VicPol more firepower? :grin:
     
     Top
  4. Give the police katanas so they're effective against criminals AND zombies.
     
     Top
  5. I've heard reports of poor stopping power from 9mm ammunition too, from people working in Iraq. Maybe not an issue if .45 semi-autos were used?

    I've only been in Melbourne for a year or so ... do the cops here have a bad reputation for use of force?
     
     Top
  6. Nearly 10 years ago there was a spate of confrontations with Victorian police which the police resolved with deadly force.

    Mostly they were just kinda 'dude with a knife who is a bit crazy and refuses to put it down' incidents.
    There were big enquiries and stuff into pepper-spray, tazers maybe?, and are people getting shot because a female officer lacks the strength to physically restrain a person.

    ... loads of cash was spent not finding answers to anything, and killing suspects became infrequent enough for us to forget all about it until they now decide they want guns that shoot more bullets, faster.
     
     Top
  7. I reckon those are two different issues. If you genuinely have a problem with cops using lethal force when it's not warranted (a.k.a. 'murder' or 'manslaughter') then you solve that problem through the courts by prosecuting those responsible.

    IMO, if you have a need to use lethal force in self defense & you're one of the Queen's subjects sufficiently privileged as to be allowed to carry firearms for that purpose, then you'll want (& should be allowed) as much ammunition as practical.

    Put it this way - if you were a cop, would you want to die on the beat just because some other numb-nuts in your department shot someone w/o justification, leading to you having to carry 1800s technology?
     
     Top
  8. WTF are cops doing shooting dangerous criminals? Aren't they supposed to be out behind hairdryers rattling tins for the state coffers?
     
     Top
  9. But the issue WAS whether or not the force was warranted... or whether mitigating factors were making lethal force warranted where a change in practice might assist police resolve a situation in a different way.


    Hey whoa! The "Queen's subjects" enforcing statute law in the constitutional monarchy? How terribly inconsistent with the powers police like to heap upon themselves at any and every opportunity.
    But you're right, I certainly wouldn't begrudge police the freedom to choose whichever firearm they think they need to do their job the best - with as much ammunition as is practical.

    I'm certainly not saying we ask them to take feather dusters to a gun-fight, but someone's going to make the argument soon that while a trained officer of the law is in possession of equipment X; you want it to be the best available.

    ... though, when a crim nicks it off them; you'd probably prefer it wasn't the latest, greatest, most effective, and most expensive thing in the world.
     
     Top
  10. They don't need guns at all, 'normal' cops in the UK don't have guns, so what do our guys need them for?
     
     Top
  11. Shooting homos, communists and Aboriginals.
     
     Top
  12. Go search Google for the Tueller Drill & let me know what you think ...
     
     Top
  13. Why not just arm the homos and Aboriginals and pay them a bounty to shoot the communists? :twisted:
     
     Top
  14. There are several reason why the use of a semi automatic gun outweights the inconveniences it carries.

    First of all is the loading time. A regular pistol nowdays carries between 14 and 19 bullets in the single magazine and up to 36 rounds for the oversized one. That alone is about 2 to 3 reloads on a .38 revolver and many of the other common sized ones (357, .45, etc). Add to that the time to empty the revolve and then reload the six bullets (even with a speedloader). A very trained person can reload a revolver almost as quick as a pistol, but whenever I have seen it done it was on a controlled enviroment without the imminent fear for your life and the lives of others.

    It is true that the stopping power (wich is the important bit here) of the .38 is better than on a 9mm, but it is very similar to a .40 and I think it is outperformed by a .45. Also, nowdays there are several kinds of rounds that can be used to increase the stopping power of weapons like the 9mm. Flat round, hollow point, etc, etc.

    Another important point is the portability, speed loader are bulkier than magazines and they don't take up a lot of space but the carrying device has to be well designed to allow a quick reach and control of the loader, while the magazine is easier to carry and to control. Also whit speed loaders can happen (not very likely but still possible) that the rounds are released while manipulating it before loading them into the gun, and losing the bullets in that important moment.

    Also, the mayority of the pistols nowdays come with balancers and mechanisms that reduce the recoil giving a better recovery time after shooting the round that translates into faster shooting time and with a well trained user it also gives better accuracy. The jamming problem is sorted with better maintenance and the use of quality rounds.

    Will
     
     Top
  15. Just give them 2 revolvers and a new gun belt :shock: Oh and a big hat plus a horse and we got cowboys.Oh hang on theres already enough of them around :p
     
     Top
  16. Duncan, the M9 handgun was due to be replaced in American service by a firearm of .45ACP a while ago, until the funding was cut.

    Although the average British police officer doesn't carry a firearm, the numbers of armed police are ever increasing. Furthermore, each area command has an armed response group on 24 hour standby. Armed police are everywhere in the UK, but they aren't posing for tourist photos.

    PatB, your father would have been armed with a Webley or Smith and Wesson .38. The soldiers didn't like it when it was replaced by the Browning, which is still in service. A friend of mine had to qualify with one recently and he said it was a nightmare. Every 10th round he would have to do a "rack and tap".

    I hope the police don't go with the 9mm. Like i said, I'm not a handgunner, but it's pretty much universally accepted it's an insufficient cartridge for man stopping.

    All this being said, I'm surprised the gunman hit anything with eyes like these: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=562621
     
     Top
  17. Correct !!!!

    They pack H&K MP5s !!
     
     Top
  18. lol, was on clarendon street at the time it happened... didn't hear anything tho :? no fair!
     
     Top
  19. The dangers of making assumptions too quickly.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/15/2245137.htm
     
     Top
  20. Cop confirmed this morning he had already re-loaded when he was hit.
    Initial reports he was reloading when hit was bullshit.

    Police were promised an upgrade to automatic firearms by previous
    Govt.
     
     Top