From: Jonathan Spencer, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Knights wasn't even confronted by armed officers until he took
>the family hostage so it isn't a valid comparison.
It's an entirely valid comparison: it wasn't by design, but sheer
chance, that the police he fired on were not armed. I put the
point to you again, a pistol would have been of next to no use
in that incident. When Knights opened fire for the third time,
from the hijacked car, that too was from a considerable distance
and pistols would have been useless. At that point, armed
police were in pursuit of him. In fact, he fired on that
occasion because he thought the police (then on foot)
had pistols in their hands (they didn't, they were radios).
No one can foresee what the next incident will be or when it
will happen nor to whom. The MP5 gives a significant edge over
a pistol: it can do everything a pistol can do, and more besides.
>Of course unusual things can happen, but on that basis we would
>arm the police with M60E3s fitted with 40mm grenade launchers
>"just in case".
Of come on, reductio ad absurdium
>ACPO tell us that police shootings take place at ranges of
>ten yards or less. You don't need an MP5 at those ranges.
>(Or do the police have as much faith in ACPO as us?)
Then a pistol is fine for those distances. But not for the rest.
>Also, you aren't an AFO - take the average AFO and get him
>to shoot his MP5 at 100 yards and see how well he does with
>it!
I've not seen them fired at 100 yards, but certainly 25-50 yards and I
have to say, I've been *very* impressed with the skills. Ditto the
pistol at 25 yards, and 7,62 at 600 yards. Now, it may be that the
people I've seen in action are the exception, but I've no reason to
think that, they are ordinary AFOs (the sniper excepted) albeit more
senior and longer-serving AFOs than those I've seen in TV documentaries
undergoing training. YMMV.
--Jonathan Spencer, firearms examiner
"Justice is open to everybody in the same way as the Ritz Hotel."
Judge Sturgess, 22 July 1928
--
Of course it was by design and not sheer chance! Officers are
unarmed (well with guns at any rate) and have to call on the ARV.
If the patrol officer who walked up to Knights car had been armed
with a gun, do you think he would have pulled a pistol on him?
And I simply do not agree that you can do more with an MP5. They
fire the same ammunition as a pistol, they're heavier, cannot
be concealed, take longer to bring into action under most
circumstances "and more besides". The only advantage they have
over a pistol is that they are easier to hit with at longer
ranges, but I can't see how that is relevant in the Knights
case at all.
Do you seriously think that AFOs would have opened fire
on a fleeing vehicle while in pursuit on a residential
street? And how does an MP5 at a distance of about 15
yards (I've seen the tape) make a difference? Ever tried
sticking an MP5 out the window of a moving vehicle?
I'm not saying there is _no_ circumstance in which an MP5 is
better than a pistol, I just think the police rely on the MP5
in cases where a pistol would do. I don't see why they
have to walk around airports with them strapped across their
chests, it serves no purpose other than to scare people.
I also don't understand what the point is during the serving
of search warrants. There is a teeny weeny bit more point in
the US as their MP5s are full-auto, but not here. It's far
easier to move around a building with a pistol than with
a long gun, and the engagement distances are only a few
yards.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
