Newsgroups: tor.general
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Toronto Police
Message-ID: <1989Feb7.224501.2951@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <4800@hcr.UUCP> <3615@geaclib.UUCP> <358@ists.ists.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 89 22:45:01 GMT

In article <358@ists.ists.ca> mike@ists.ists.ca (Mike Clarkson) writes:
>>   A pistol is a point-blank defensive weapon, intended as a means of
>> protecting a soldier's life in extreme circumstances.  Police and
>> criminals use them as general-purpose weapons, at the cost of not
>> being able to hit what they aim at a large part of the time.
>
>[Vancouver bank stickup]
>A firefight ensued at point-blank range. 13 shots were fired at less than 10 
>feet.  If I recall correctly, the officer was the only one to be hit,
>and even then, only grazed by one bullet.

What this demonstrates is that standard police training does not lead to
a useful standard of pistol marksmanship, especially if not backed up by
persistent practice.  (Pistol marksmanship fades quickly unless maintained.)
A police officer with proper pistol training and a proper pistol -- both very
rare in normal police departments, unless the officer sought them out (and
probably paid for them) himself -- would probably have fired two shots, which
would have ended the "firefight" with no return fire.  (Actually, the first
shot would usually suffice, but firing twice is safer.)

Yes, Virginia, it is possible to fire a pistol accurately, even under stress.
However, it takes proper training, which is too lengthy (i.e. expensive) for
most police departments (and, for that matter, most armed forces), and serious
continuing practice.  A well-built pistol is capable of being quite accurate,
but it doesn't come for free.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
