Arming the cops

[Kevsterxxx]

Guns for all!

Not gonna dwell on this but when some knob is trying to blow your your head off, you DO NOT have the time to find your target, take aim ever so carefully and squeeze off a round to wing the tosser. Training takes over, and it's peace through superior firepower that wins the day. Was issued with the SLR during my service and if you got tagged in the arm or leg with a 7.62, it took your feckin' limb off, awesome! And we were told we were shooting to kill, oh yes indeedy! As for arms to the public, in Germany with Silverone and Canary, we were told by the young German people that we could buy an AK47 AND 200 rounds for about ?45 just down the road, it was a really peaceful area, I wonder why? :shooter:

 

[Mac166]

Oh The SLR. Great weapon, especially when you adjusted the gas regulator for the newbie's, what a kick. we did a range day with the yanks. Exchanged weapons so we were firing their M16's. Their faces were a picture when they felt the recoil of the SLR, some refused to fire a 2nd round.
Mind if you didn't hold it correctly it gave a lovely bruise on your cheek.


Far better than the current 5.56 plastic 'toy'

 

[BlackBirdBaz]

Oh The SLR. Great weapon, especially when you adjusted the gas regulator for the newbie's, what a kick. we did a range day with the yanks. Exchanged weapons so we were firing their M16's. Their faces were a picture when they felt the recoil of the SLR, some refused to fire a 2nd round.
Mind if you didn't hold it correctly it gave a lovely bruise on your cheek.


Far better than the current 5.56 plastic 'toy'

SLR ? Puffs toy :tosser:

Try a good old bolt action Lee Enfield Mark 4 303 for dislocating your shoulder :yo:

Rounds per min ? Ooooooo about 8 !! lol c7u8

 

[Jono]

Ok, I wasn't touting for a bite but, seeing as I've got one, I may as well play it.

I wasn't aware that you were a 'boot'. Now I do, I can assure you the amateur tag certainly does not apply to you - or anyone with your sort of background. I've been working around the infantry long enough (19 yrs SH inc SF) to have gained a huge amount of respect for even a basic 'grunt', although I'd never admit it to them. I wouldn't do their job.

However, your original comment sounded very 'touchy feely PC', which would explain my not realising you were ex-RM, and implied that you would not shoot to kill, but would shoot to "incapacitate". Now, whilst admiting that being dead tends to really incapacite someone, I can not see any distinction between trying to incapaciate and actually attempting to wound them.
I'm assuming we have recieved the same basic training - single aimed shots, centre of largest target (the torso) etc, obviously you went on to higher level techniques - but, hopefully, you will agree that attempting to wound by deliberately aiming at an arm or leg carries a huge risk. The best that you can achieve is your objective, the worst is that you miss and the round goes on and hits an innocent by-stander. The best option is aim for the largest target area. The problem, if you consider it to be a problem (I don't), is most of your vital organs are in the target area and a hit in that area is going to be serious.

Finally, re the 'amateurs'. About 6 years ago we did a work up with the Thames Valley firearms people - we were working a military assistance scenario. The group attached to us were a bunch of Coks. Perhaps not amateurs, cowboys would be a better description, they treated the aircrew as taxi drivers, we (the ground crew) just didn't exist. The crew refused to do a couple of insertions because they were just plain dangerous and got told they were not up to the job. Those "few armed police I've met" were arrogant, ignorant :wank: who thought they were 'Special'. Special needs more like.

p0pc0rn41

S.G. You stand in the dock in any court in this land and tell 'em you shot to kill. c7u8
Better have booked a room with Mr. Kelly on a long term basis first though!
Shooting to incapacitate is an acceptable term, get my drift???

 

[derek kelly]

S.G. You stand in the dock in any court in this land and tell 'em you shot to kill. c7u8
Better have booked a room with Mr. Kelly on a long term basis first though!
Shooting to incapacitate is an acceptable term, get my drift???

I thought the policy for the armed police was shoot to kill that way it leaves no room for error, if you are faced with someone who has what appears to be a weapon then self preservation comes foremost.
If someone is daft enough to brandish a stick or something that resembles a weapon and does not put it down when told to do so then they obviously have a death wish.

 

[Mac166]

I thought the policy for the armed police was shoot to kill that way it leaves no room for error, if you are faced with someone who has what appears to be a weapon then self preservation comes foremost.
If someone is daft enough to brandish a stick or something that resembles a weapon and does not put it down when told to do so then they obviously have a death wish.

In America the fraggles do that sort of thing. It is refered to as 'Suicide by Police'

 

[Jono]

I thought the policy for the armed police was shoot to kill that way it leaves no room for error, if you are faced with someone who has what appears to be a weapon then self preservation comes foremost.
If someone is daft enough to brandish a stick or something that resembles a weapon and does not put it down when told to do so then they obviously have a death wish.

Crikey this is hard work, there is no shoot to kill policy, it's shoot to stop or incapacitate.......if that leads to a death......well....Like the security forces in N.Ireland, iraq and everywhere else, there is no shoot to kill policy. But.....we all know whats likely to happen to someone that gets shot....It's all a play on words and how it sounds to you, the members of the public. Get it! d34l

 

[Duck n Dive]

'tis indeed "playing with words"........

appear to be armed and a serious threat to the safety of the police/public and it's likely you would be shot.......

an apparently little known side effect of being shot is....... dying.......

so... shoot to stop........shoot to kill........ what's the difference??

luck of positioning.......

 

[derek kelly]

Ok picture this scenario:

Man in street waving a gun about, takes a couple of shots at joe public.
along come armed police they say "drop the f*cking gun or we'll shoot" man aims gun at police, police shoot to wound, man falls down still holding his gun aims it at policeman pulls trigger kills/wounds policeman. if they had shot to kill then he would have been in no state to fire his gun.

another scenario:

Man in street with hand inside a holdall claims to have a gun, armed police come along & tell him to put down the holdall or they'll shoot, [they have made clear their intentions if he doesn't comply] he points the holdall at the police they shoot & kill him, on investigation they discover that there was no weapon in the bag, the mans family & the gutter press start bleating that the police have killed an unarmed man. the fact remains that the police felt they were in the same danger as the first scenario and acted accordingly. if you want to walk round like a pillock either brandishing or pretending to brandish a firearm or weapon do as the police tell you and you won't be harmed, don't comply, you die.

 

[Jono]

'tis indeed "playing with words"........

appear to be armed and a serious threat to the safety of the police/public and it's likely you would be shot.......

an apparently little known side effect of being shot is....... dying.......

so... shoot to stop........shoot to kill........ what's the difference??

luck of positioning.......

That is it exactly, spot on, well done that man, there is no difference, apart from the wording.........it sounds better to say shoot to stop, rather than shoot to kill, it is more acceptable. :bow: Now could you have a word with Mr. Kelly who is struggling with this concept.

 

[Duck n Dive]

Well I suppose you could alter the wording to a compromise:


"shoot to stop .................................. permanently"

 

[Jono]

Ok picture this scenario:

Man in street waving a gun about, takes a couple of shots at joe public.
along come armed police they say "drop the f*cking gun or we'll shoot" man aims gun at police, police shoot to wound, man falls down still holding his gun aims it at policeman pulls trigger kills/wounds policeman. if they had shot to kill then he would have been in no state to fire his gun.

another scenario:

Man in street with hand inside a holdall claims to have a gun, armed police come along & tell him to put down the holdall or they'll shoot, [they have made clear their intentions if he doesn't comply] he points the holdall at the police they shoot & kill him, on investigation they discover that there was no weapon in the bag, the mans family & the gutter press start bleating that the police have killed an unarmed man. the fact remains that the police felt they were in the same danger as the first scenario and acted accordingly. if you want to walk round like a pillock either brandishing or pretending to brandish a firearm or weapon do as the police tell you and you won't be harmed, don't comply, you die.

Scenario one, they would not shoot to wound, they would shoot to stop, man falls down he has been stopped....he continues to point weapon, he gets shot again, he doesn't point weapon, hey presto job done, There is no guarantee that because you shoot someone, centre of body or even head you will kill them first time. if you shoot someone who no longer poses a threat, murder comes into the frame. It is a fine line we tread, and we are only scratching the surface here. h1d1ng2

 

[Jono]

Well I suppose you could alter the wording to a compromise:


"shoot to stop .................................. permanently"

Yep, that would do it. :yo:

 

[scruffygit]

Sorry, been away for a couple of days.

With you now

.

Although I think my defence in court would be something along the lines of "acting in accordance with my training". Then let let the bastids who put me in that position explain themselves. Assuming they hadn't managed to hide back under their stone by then.

Quote:

Scenario one, they would not shoot to wound, they would shoot to stop, man falls down he has been stopped....he continues to point weapon, he gets shot again, he doesn't point weapon, hey presto job done, There is no guarantee that because you shoot someone, centre of body or even head you will kill them first time. if you shoot someone who no longer poses a threat, murder comes into the frame. It is a fine line we tread, and we are only scratching the surface here.

Err, Gibraltar, a bunch of Hereford Hooligans and three "innocent Irish tourists" ring any bells.

 

[Duck n Dive]

Err, Gibraltar, a bunch of Hereford Hooligans and three "innocent Irish tourists" ring any bells.

It was a "stop and search" .........................

 

[BlackBirdBaz]

It was a "stop and search" .........................

But the search wasnt done until they got to the mortuary when purely by coincidence they were found to be terrorists !! :shooter:

 

[KevKing]

Why not have a shoot to kill policy - after all, every terrorist and wacko in the world does it. Who was it said "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime etc" ?? Same bloke who bolloxed up foot and mouth, the Iraq war and everything else he touches. Allow our police to fight on a level playing field - and while were at it - can we shoot to kill every bleeding heart lawyer who t b0x2 :shooter: hinks human rights are more important than human responsibility. Bleat over!

 

[BlackBirdBaz]

Awwwwwwww please dont stop now, I was just begining to enjoy it :yo:

 

[KevKing]

Why do I think you taketh the michael??! Anyhow, my mate Ghengis was just a little too left wing for my liking, perhaps a new rant thread required c7u8
Red is best

 

[BlackBirdBaz]

Why do I think you taketh the michael??! Anyhow, my mate Ghengis was just a little too left wing for my liking, perhaps a new rant thread required c7u8
Red is best

No Pith taken honeth, I was agreeing with you.