Why do cops need guns that have more than six bullets?

So, there’s all this talk of trying to limit the number of bullets that a citizen’s gun can hold; I thought it would be interesting to put the shoe on the other foot and ask why cops need guns with high-capacity magazines. It seems like a foolish question. They need them, of course, for shoot-outs with bad guys. Right?

Let’s look at the facts:

American police shoot about 1,100 people a year killing about half of them.

Most of the time, when police use their weapons, it requires just five bullets or less to bring the situation to a close. Those twenty-minute shootouts you see in movies, the ones that require thousands of rounds of ammunition? They’re largely fictional. That’s why they’re in movies.

Gun control advocates like to cite the North Hollywood shootings, in which two men wearing body armor and firing assault weapons (but killing no one) outgunned the police. This is a rare exception.
Assault rifles are used in less than 2% of all gun crimes, including mass shootings and battles with police.

A “painstaking” study by the New York Times of NYPD shootings over an 11-year period revealed:

“The total number of shots fired in each situation edged up to 4.7 in 2006. However, the figure is skewed by the 50 shots fired in the Bell case. Excluding that case, the average would be 3.6 shots.”

www.nytimes.com...

According to a 3-year study of Portland police shootings:

“There appears to be a relationship between the amount of ammunition a weapon holds and a tendency to shoot more. Twelve officers firing six-shot revolvers fired an average of 2.6 times each. Nineteen officers using semiautomatic pistols with capacities ranging from eight to 18 rounds shot an average of 4.6 times apiece”

www.theppsc.org...

In other words, the presence of more bullets often causes police to use more bullets. If police were restricted to six bullets, they might cut the number of bullets fired in half. (The study reported by the New York Times showed that NYPD exercised more control with larger magazines, no doubt in response to several recent high-profile shootings of unarmed citizens.)

Another interesting point from the Portland study: when the number of cops in a shooting situation increases, so do the amount of bullets fired by each cop, up to 45% more bullets.

The Portland study also showed that police missed their target 40% of the time. New York cops, on the other hand, missed their targets 66% of the time

So, it sounds as though cops need to become better shots, instead of being allowed to carry weapons with high numbers of rounds and getting trigger happy when they’re in a group.

I love when actual numbers are broken down to show just how silly political rhetoric is. Although I haven't source checked your numbers, it would not surprise me for them to be accurate.

reply to post by boncho


Please feel free to check and correct where necessary. I'm not an expert; I just had a theory and went and looked up the facts. If someone can disprove my theory, I'll gladly eat humble pie.

Gun control advocates have zero common sense.

They NEVER tire of being shot down (no pun intended) by FACTS and REALITY.

They just want to ban all guns so that they can cover themselves with their warm fuzzy blanket of false security.

They will never learn common sense or reality. Its so painfully obvious...

Completely agree, it's the police that should be disarmed. I made that thread before but the hacks here only ridiculed me.

reply to post by Lord Jules


Infowars is the last place i'd go with something that I want to be taken seriously.

I think those numbers are low I've seen several recorded police shootings against both armed and unarmed many time times they empty the clip. Usually only one or two rounds seem to find the target poor shots except for the marksmen or as most call them snipers those guys are almost always spot on and would be my biggest concern if I was a baddie during a stand off.

Does the argument really matter?
We have guns,they have guns.
Some are bigger and better.
Some carry more ammo then others.
A gun is a gun.
How about a bow and arrow.
I have plenty of friends who bow hunt.
Will there be a limit on how many arrows they have?
No.
Lets put a limit on the number of kitchen knives I have and household chemicals I have that can produce a bomb.

Oh,and lets limit the number of rocks I can keep that I can use in my sling shot.

stupidity

the argument going on is about someone trying to take out as many people as possible in a crowded public place in the shortest amount of time

with no fear of the police because they have no intention of surviving the event

wtf do police stats have to do with anything ?

Attention~~~~

15e.) Recruitment/Solicitation:
i) You will not use your membership in the Websites for any type of recruitment to any causes whatsoever. You will not Post, use the chat feature, use videos, or use the private message system to disseminate advertisements, chain letters, PETITIONS, pyramid schemes, or any kind of solicitation for political action, social action, letter campaigns, or related online and/or offline coordinated actions of any kind.

Terms and Conditions of Use

reply to post by ResistTreason


A quote I love..........

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

What a preposterous thread.

Why would I NOT want a policeman to have an edge in a possible confrontation with an active shooter? Seriously?

Many years ago there was a cop in NYC who confronted two burglars and only had a six shooter. She was out of ammo (hit one of them), and the only thing that saved her was that the other perp's gun jammed.

Since the first weapons were ever used: rocks, spears, arrows, bullets..... we can call it a "fire fight"... for those who have been in such a situation the first thing you must do is establish fire superiority and get the opponent to duck for cover. While he is ducking his aiming is not to good. Military fire suppression 101 learned since the first rock was thrown and 20 came back at the thrower..

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
stupidity

the argument going on is about someone trying to take out as many people as possible in a crowded public place in the shortest amount of time

with no fear of the police because they have no intention of surviving the event

wtf do police stats have to do with anything ?

You freaking crack me up. So that officer who;
A. Can't shoot worth a damn.
B. Unless conveniently at my house at the time of a crime, won't be there to stop said crime.
C. Is also allowed to carry off duty and conceal his/her weapon even if illegal.

Should completely be allowed to carry a gun/magazine/clip that we aren't allowed to carry...because he/she may or may not actually help stop a crazy person with a gun...Nevermind the fact that most homes that have a responsible gun owner at home during a violent robbery end up stopping said robbery more successfully than the police ever could...and nevermind the fact that even the cops themselves agree more homes should have responsible gun owners since, "A majority of the time, we are always too late to stop a crime. We are usually left, to assist with the aftermath." Yeah, sounds real reliable to me...

So screw all the stats about all the mass shootings ending in, not police interference but suicide...yeah, screw logic...I guess that went out the window when American Idol appeared on your TV set...

Sheesh!

I imagine events like the North Hollywood shootout and similar events are a major factor.

Can also simply be answered by asking ... if you had to risk your life, would you want to do it with Gun A or slightly better Gun B. Police will always support having the second gun for themselves. As buddhasystem said, they want to be superior to the public in capability.

The .30 cal M1 used in WWII, "the finest infantry rifle in military history" (at the time) holds 8 rounds.

Almost easy - need to ask yourselves, "Why do cops need to carry guns?"

Can we, here in the states, imagine if our cops didn't carry guns at all? Why do we expect a cop to carry a gun?

You can then ask yourselves, "Why does a citizen need to carry a gun?"

The answer is almost the same - to thwart the evil doers from achieving their goals. To protect the ones without adequate protection. To ensure the law Abide'rs are still doing what is right.

Why do cops need to carry more than six bullets - to ensure they are adequately equipped to handle those who do the same. Which is the reason why law abiding citizens need the same.

Cops carry +P+ bulltets along with Lvl 3+ (sometimes 4) body armor - they need the ammo to back up their bad-assness. The bad guys will always go for the best - why shouldn't the law enforcers do the same?

Not saying every cop needs a high mag 40cal - or a super high mag 9mm. Same goes for the citizens. But they all need to be able to protect themselves from those who don't give a F about laws...

I'm more the common sense approach to the upcoming gun bans than most others... A 300 Win Mag rifle will do more dmg and at a longer range than any NATO round currently. Most Lvl 4 vests don't protect against modern Magnum rounds. Lvl5 stuff is for the gamers - expensive and almost unheard-of..so no worries there from the conventional department.

Take the Tactical stuff - leave us with what counts IMO...

Sry if my post goes off topic from the OP's. But I'm sure it is why cops now-a-days need more than a wheel gun.

-CN