Many anti-gun proponents feel that only military and police should have guns. They state that the training undertaken by military and police entities prepares them for correct operation of the firearm.
Enter this story.
Police officer tries to shoot a bad guy with his AR-15. The story says he missed. His fellow officer fires thrice, and misses with all three shots. The bad guy goes back into the house to continue the standoff.
I am a fan of the AR-15 platform. When one fails to shoot - the most likely issues are:
- No round in the chamber (solution: operate the charging handle)
- Safety on (solution: manipulate the safety)
- Bad round; aka "a dud" (solution: chamber a new round by operating the charging handle)
Note: Many police departments require Rifles stored in police cars to be stored in "Cruiser-safe" condition. That is, with a loaded magazine inserted, no round in the chamber, and the safety on. Good chance this rifle was in that condition and the officer forgot whatever training he had (indicating he hasn't been trained much!).
Notice that none of these failures are the problem of the rifle. Two of them are the failure of the operator, and the third is the failure of the ammo. In all cases, the remedy takes less than a second to fix.
Meanwhile, the fellow officer shoots three times - which takes at least one second - and misses all three. Why didn't the first officer fix his weapon and get back into the fight? Why did the second officer miss three times? At the likely range they were shooting, it is easy to hit a man-sized target - even if he is moving. Again, a training issue.
So, for just a moment, let's assume the Second Amendment was intended for sporting uses only, or some-such garbage. Is it telling, or just plain scary that those here to "protect us" could not do so?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will be displayed after approval.
Approval depends on what you say and how you say it.