"I stand behind the police 100 percent, but when it takes them three shots to hit a dog that's less than 50 feet away, something's wrong."The charging pitbull? A small shoulder wound.
The owner? Hit with a ricochet in the chest.
Nice shootin', Tex...
3 comments:
Well, if they're using handguns it's understandable. Pistols are innacurate beyond 30m (dependent on the type of handgun) especially if you are firing at something that is small and moving quickly at you to possibly rip your throat out. Getting a good grouping in such a situation is equally difficult.
To achieve a high level of accuracy with a handgun (or any firearm) takes a lot of time and effort to achieve, and an equal amount of time to maintain. To shoot well under pressure takes even more time. It is also a skill that degrades very quickly. This is why special forces, and other elites spend so much time firing weapons of all types.
That said, this argument is probably a good reason for ordinary police not to have weapons as the time taken to maintian profficiency is prohibited by the other aspects of their job.
I find your blogs illuminating and witty and so funny sometimes I laugh fit to bust. This one is no exception so thanks and long may you blog.
"That said, this argument is probably a good reason for ordinary police not to have weapons as the time taken to maintian profficiency is prohibited by the other aspects of their job."
Quite! We wouldn't want to cut into their form-filling and Home Office target-recording...
"..so thanks and long may you blog."
Cheers! Until they pry my keyboard from my cold, dead hands...
Post a Comment