Return of the Booth Babes: The 2007 SHOT Show
This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut
If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Nut at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut.
The NYPD Needs Your Help!
When I was in the Army, there was a drill that we called the Mad Minute, in which an infantry company would shoot every weapon it had nonstop for 60 seconds. I’m not clear what the purpose was, but it was lots of fun, and the American taxpayer footed the bill.
Apparently, the New York City Police Department has adopted the Mad Minute as tactical doctrine. This past Saturday, five officers emptied 50 rounds of 9mm ammo into a car that held three unarmed men, killing one and wounding the others. One intrepid cop cranked off 31 rounds, using up two full magazines.
Now I am not here to judge whether or not this was right or wrong. I am only an unqualified civilian. But I do know this. If the NYPD starts shooting at people who actually shoot back, they are going to run out of ammunition.
And so I call on you, my fellow gun enthusiasts, to lend a hand to New York’s Finest. If you have a spare box, or a case, of 9mm lying around, send it to people who need it more than you do. The address is:
Commissioner Raymond Kelly
New York City Police Department
One Police Plaza
New York, New York
Thank you.
Perhaps Ray Kelly should be making sure his "sharpshooters" are using UMC or Wolf ammo.
Hard to fathom.
Posted by: Archerwvu | November 28, 2006 at 10:23 AM
Not only are the prices of ammo supplies going up, we have idiots in NYC uisng it all up before the average hand loader is going to get to the stuff. I REALLY need to stock up now.
Posted by: ford | November 28, 2006 at 10:32 AM
I agree w/Dave, in that one cannot judge the event since we were not there, but it certainly seems that a few NYPD cops have caused one giant cluster *uck of a political storm. I plan on keeping my ammo, but I will gladly send the commissioner the latest issue of my "Cheaper then Dirt" ammo catalog.
Posted by: Ralph the Rifleman | November 28, 2006 at 11:38 AM
Kee-rist...the last thing the NYPD needs is more ammo!
Posted by: Peter C | November 28, 2006 at 11:45 AM
whut peter c said...
Posted by: ray | November 28, 2006 at 11:59 AM
Shipping ammo to the NYPD is wasteful. First, they must learn when to shoot. Second, they must learn how to shoot effectively. Going back to revolvers might prove helpful. Limiting the amount of ammo a NYPD officer can carry might help. Hey, where are all of those ten round clips Hillary and her ilk thought were so great? Here is a market for what many considered scrap metal and might also serve a useful social and political purpose.
Posted by: PbHead | November 28, 2006 at 12:13 PM
Three cops shot 50 times and only killed one unarmed man? They definetly need more training and ammo so maybe the next time they can kill all three unarmed suspects. Holy crap!!!!!
jim
Posted by: jstreet | November 28, 2006 at 12:26 PM
NYPD. you gotta love em but i think they could use a little andy of mayberry medicine . give them one barny bullet and they may appreciate it much more when they shoot it . how much does it cost to ship a box of bullets ?? i dont think anybody here is up for this expencive joke !!!
Posted by: craig curtis | November 28, 2006 at 02:18 PM
Dave,
I believe this goes back to a previous blog you wrote about making the police force go back to the revolver. I was going to write about this same story in my blog, but you beat me to it. Couldn't have said it much better.
Maybe we should suggest the police load the first 5 or 6 shots in their magazines with blanks. Since it seems they're firing for effect anyway.
THe word on that story was that the car rammed two uncover police cars before attempting to flee the scene. I hope if I ever get into a fender-bender with a police car I have a kevlar vest on.
Posted by: Corie P | November 28, 2006 at 03:10 PM
While it is too early and too few details are known to make an accurate judgment, it is hard to imagine the need for 50 rounds being fired. 31 by one officer? Geez - it's bad enough when you need a gun to defend yourself from the crooks. It's starting to sound like you might need to carry one to defend yourself from the cops, too.
Posted by: KJ | November 28, 2006 at 05:33 PM
And I thought those Hollywood gunfights are bad. Fact is stranger than fiction, indeed.
Posted by: O Garcia | November 28, 2006 at 08:56 PM
Terrifying. 50 rounds at unarmed people - who were IN a car! Tells me two things - the NYPD needs to learn how to shoot and the survivors are incredibly lucky. I smell a lawsuit - which Taxpayers will have to foot the bill for.
We need to tell Ray that their officers need some serious firearms training.
Posted by: Gflyz | November 28, 2006 at 09:55 PM
If NYPD would use a .40 or.45, I think they would discover fewer rounds would be needed. If a bad guy tried running me down with his car, I would be unloading my gack also!
Posted by: A. S. Moeggs | November 28, 2006 at 11:35 PM
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s political career hit the wall over this disturbing event. Doubt he or his anti-gun agenda will go any further now. Is Bloomberg a Republican????
Unfortunately, the real issues aren’t so much the mechanics [50 plus rounds fired in promiscuity], but the social-political policies existing that allowed such event to occur. Can’t wait to see how the Bloomberg Administration glosses over this event trying to escape accountability where the “good guys” and their knuckles blasted three un-armed Voters that don’t seem to have been breaking any laws.
Posted by: Mark | November 29, 2006 at 09:21 AM
Bloomberg is a RINO (Republican In Name Only). He might be slightly to the right of Ted Kennedy, but not by much. I suppose that now he could say that this incident proves that not even the police should have firearms. When you have as much money as Bloomberg, the media and all your associates are not likely to be willing to call you an a$$hole.
Posted by: Peter C | November 29, 2006 at 10:48 AM
Dave,
We now call it, "SUPPRESIVE FIRE"
Good Stuff, keep up the good work!
V/R
C_S
Posted by: Concerned_Soldier | November 29, 2006 at 11:30 AM
Few years ago we had a shoot in Oklahama City that hit this level. A armed robbery or attempted murder suspect(can't remember which offhand) was spotted in a Denny's. Several plainclothes officers got a booth across from him and, when everyone around him had left, did the "You're under arrest" business. He reached for a gun.
Range of about 8-10 feet, 42 rounds fired as I recall. Don't remember the hit ratio, but wasn't real good.
Posted by: Firehand | November 29, 2006 at 12:03 PM
To Concerned Soldier: As I recall, the first rule is to achieve fire superiority. I would call 50 to 0 a pretty good effort.
By the way, a gun dealer friend of mine tells me that a major handgun manufacturer is coming out with a 9mm NYPD Model automatic. It holds 32 rounds in a drum magazine, much like the one that was available for the Luger. Fairly awkward to carry, but should eliminate those embarassing pauses for reloading.
Posted by: Dave Petzal | November 29, 2006 at 12:04 PM
Naturally, if there was even one case where a civilian gun owner unleashed half as much lead, every anti-gun politician on the Potomac would want them to be burned at the stake and the ATF immediately go door-to-door like some sick halloween. But if the coppers do it... business as usual. I've always wondered how Sarah Brady could say only police are responsible enough to carry firearms and say it with a straight face. Must have a pretty strong anti-giggle reflex.
Posted by: Matt | November 29, 2006 at 12:11 PM
The "unarmed" guys were using their CAR to try to run over the Officer. Most of the facts are being left out by the Main Stream Media. A car is a pretty BIG weapon if you ask me.
Posted by: FISCHERHUNTS | November 29, 2006 at 01:42 PM
If someone tried to run me over and ram my vehicle, I would unload on them also and I'm not a cop. Certain groups of people in our society don't listen to police commands. And it seems like it ALWAYS is the same group !
Posted by: Jenks | November 29, 2006 at 02:22 PM
That's what you get when they have an anti-gun, anti-business, spying mayor in NY.
Posted by: Jtamethyst | November 29, 2006 at 03:16 PM
Although it APPEARS that this shooting was an over-reaction on the part of the police, until you become a NYC police officer & walk the beat, best to keep your lips zipped. While no one wants excessive force used, there may be times when your life is in danger & the terror of the moment causes an unfortunate result. We weren't there so we're not in a position to judge EXACTLY what happened.
Posted by: John Ludovico | November 29, 2006 at 04:15 PM
Unfortunately this a case where a few idiots make the rest of a fine bunch of policemen look bad. Kinda of like when someone leaves a loaded gun out for his 3 year old to play with.
Posted by: KANE | November 29, 2006 at 04:22 PM
Of course if someone tried to run me over I would probably unload on them too (hopefully with better accuracy). But the NYPD isn't suppossed to use lethal force against a vehicle and they stated they thought they were being shot at.
Posted by: KANE | November 29, 2006 at 04:27 PM