The Parkland Shooting And The Reluctant Deputies
On the one hand, I'd expect the right to emphasize that the police (apparently) have no duty to protect citizens; so the deputies, in a sense, did nothing wrong; so this shows that individuals should take responsibility for their own defense; so they should (often, at least) arm themselves.
On the other hand, I'd expect the left to argue that even cops won't take on an "assault rifle" if they're armed only with handguns.
Which...uh...sure. It's suboptimal.What I'd really want under those conditions is a shotgun. But, I mean, if we're playing that game, gimme an AA-12. Or a CZ Scorpion.
But you go with what you've got. And even if people are understandably hesitant to go into any firefight out-gunned, the point of having a handgun--rather than nothing at all--is that it's better to be outgunned than to be slaughtered like a pig. And, again: at close quarters, I don't think I'd be all that hesitant to go after a shooter armed with an MSR if I had, say, my Glock 29. Not that I wouldn't be afraid or, for all I know, even paralyzed. But be that as it may, under such conditions I'd expect to have the advantage of surprise--which is a massive advantage indeed. It's one of the biggest advantages these psycho shooters have. But if someone else had a handgun, then the advantage would be largely flipped: they'd know about the shooter, but he wouldn't know about them. They'd probably have something like a 50/50 chance of surprising him and getting off the first five or six rounds. Which, a lot of the time, is going to be enough to finish things.
I'm sure the FBI or somebody must have run simulations of this kind, no?
On the other hand, I'd expect the left to argue that even cops won't take on an "assault rifle" if they're armed only with handguns.
Which...uh...sure. It's suboptimal.What I'd really want under those conditions is a shotgun. But, I mean, if we're playing that game, gimme an AA-12. Or a CZ Scorpion.
But you go with what you've got. And even if people are understandably hesitant to go into any firefight out-gunned, the point of having a handgun--rather than nothing at all--is that it's better to be outgunned than to be slaughtered like a pig. And, again: at close quarters, I don't think I'd be all that hesitant to go after a shooter armed with an MSR if I had, say, my Glock 29. Not that I wouldn't be afraid or, for all I know, even paralyzed. But be that as it may, under such conditions I'd expect to have the advantage of surprise--which is a massive advantage indeed. It's one of the biggest advantages these psycho shooters have. But if someone else had a handgun, then the advantage would be largely flipped: they'd know about the shooter, but he wouldn't know about them. They'd probably have something like a 50/50 chance of surprising him and getting off the first five or six rounds. Which, a lot of the time, is going to be enough to finish things.
I'm sure the FBI or somebody must have run simulations of this kind, no?
posted by Winston Smith at
12:31 PM
1 Comments:
Take whatever gun you like (CZ Scorpion!), it's practically suicidal to counter-attack by yourself. In the general case, a one-on-one gunfight goes to whoever shoots first, so the optimal strategy is to find a good spot and set up an ambush. The real game-changer isn't having a better gun, it's having back-up going in with you.
If there were multiple deputies all holding back together (which seems to have been the case) then I have a hard time seeing how that could possibly be anything other than negligence. Whether the department failed to train their deputies or the deputies failed to do their job (or both) someone screwed up.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home