From: Jonathan Spencer, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>It's an entirely valid comparison: it wasn't by design, but sheer
>chance, that the police he fired on were not armed.
>--
>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.
Perhaps I have to express it another way: when Knights opened fire on
the police Land-Rover Discovery, **he** did not know that it was not an
ARV. By chance, it wasn't. For all Knight's knew (or cared) it could
just as easily have been an 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?
Have you seen the video footage of the incident? I guess not. No one
walked up to his car. The sirens went on, Knights took off in his
Cavaliar. The LR gave chase and, as it turned round a corner, they
found Knights out of his car firing at them with a pistol. He got back
in his car, drove a few yards, and then fired some more out of the
driver's window. Then took off again. A mile or so down the road, he
stopped, the LR also stopped maybe 5-100 yards distant whilst Knights
pulled out the AR15, and let rip. At that distance (and it's hard to
tell from a video because of the effect of the camera), a pistol would
have been of no use whatsoever, but an MP5 might well have nailed him.
The LR driver sat there waiting to be shot. His passenger, a former
soldier, was out of the LR and under cover behind a wall. He *could*
have engaged Knights if he had been armed.
>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".
Concealment isn't an issue, as these are deliberately carried overtly.
They have a longer sight radius for iron sights, they mount accessories
such as lights and optical sights much more effectively. Most
importantly, the people I've spoken to who use them say they shoot
better with them and have much greater confidence in them. That latter
point is an important one. These people also carry pistols as a backup
weapon. I really can't see what your objection is.
>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.
If you saw the video footage, I think you would. But that's just one
example. There's no shortage of other incidents (e.g. the only time
that South Yorkshire Police has fired a shot in anger) in which the MP5
did the job where a pistol would have failed.
>Do you seriously think that AFOs would have opened fire
>on a fleeing vehicle while in pursuit on a residential
>street?
Not for a second. But when Knights produced the AR15 and fired at the
LR, the opportunity existed to shoot him, and a firing a pistol at that
range would have been both reckless and extremely unlikely to hit him.
>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?
You've got the wrong end of the stick if you think I'm recommending
Dirty Harry tactics.
>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.
Of course it serves a purpose: its a deliberately overt display of
deployed weaponry for the purpose of discouraging a violent attack by
terrorists. It says to all "this airport is not a soft touch". That's
its purpose. As for scaring the travelling public, are we scared when
we land at JFK and see every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a gun on his hip?
--Jonathan Spencer, firearms examiner
"Justice is open to everybody in the same way as the Ritz Hotel."
Judge Sturgess, 22 July 1928
--
I've seen the few minutes of tape on the news. The press
reports say that he was approached at a petrol station for
an out-of-date tax disc, so I assumed the LR chase was after
he had sped off from the petrol station and the police had
caught up with him.
It doesn't look anywhere near 100 yards away from what I recall.
In any event it's not relevant because I've already said that
having a long gun in the back of the ARV for certain emergencies
is a perfectly reasonable idea.
What I object to is AFOs with MP5s walking around when it really
isn't called for, such as outside court houses, outside polling
stations (at the last election), in airports and so on.
Saying that it will scare terrorists into not bombing an
airport sounds like a pretty limp explanation for it to me,
same goes for scaring people into not taking potshots at
defendants entering court. City of London used to (probably
still do) put counter-snipers on the roof of the Old Bailey
when the occasion warranted it, that seems much more sensible
to me.
I've been to airports all over the world, I can't think of
many where they are armed with what most people assume are
submachineguns. Italy is the only place I can recall
off-hand, and I think they use Glocks now. Most people
are used to seeing police with handguns in holsters (i.e.
travellers from other countries) so it doesn't cause alarm,
but MP5s do.
I remember when the Queen came to Lichfield to hand out the
Maunday money, Staffs Police had a marksman on top of the
car park with an SSG 2000, and a few patrol officers had
P225s in holsters under their tunics, this seemed a better
idea to me.
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
