« True Tales Of Airline Horror, Part I | Main | Why You Should Practice Your Offhand Shot »

December 08, 2006

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.

A Modest Proposal (With apologies to Jonathan Swift)

2006_06_mayorbgunAccording to The New York Times of December 8th, New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has coerced (via lawsuit) six out-of-state gun dealers into allowing court-monitored supervision of their operations. These dealers are allegedly among 27 dealers who are alleged major sources of handguns used in crimes in New York.

But if the mayor is really interested in the safety of his citizens, he must also deal with an armed, dangerous group that periodically runs amok in his city. Am I talking of drug dealers? Biker gangs? No, I’m referring to New York’s Finest, who sometimes seem unable to remember their training when the lead is flying.

Bashing cops is not my intent. I simply think that they could use assistance in their dangerous work, and I’d like to suggest two steps that might provide it.

First, every undercover police operation should be accompanied by an officer from Internal Affairs and an attorney, preferably from the American Civil Liberties Union. These two-person units would be called Fusillade Management Teams, and their job would be to monitor each armed engagement, making sure that that the people being shot at are actually shooting back, and that no one officer fires more than good taste dictates.

Second, I think that every police sidearm should have a three-shot limiting device installed in it. The Army did this with the M-16 A1 rifle, preventing trigger-happy troops from burning through a whole 30-round magazine with one pull of the trigger. Thus, an NYPD officer would fire three shots and his automatic would lock open, giving him time to reflect on the department’s stated policy that its cops are supposed to fire only three rounds and re-evaluate the situation before re-commencing fire.

Anyway, that’s my proposal. No need to thank me. I’m just a concerned citizen trying to do his civic duty.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b54869e200d83502548469e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Modest Proposal (With apologies to Jonathan Swift) :

Comments

NobodySpecial

Quite eloquent, Allagash. Just one question though. How many hearbeats does it take to pump 51 shots into a vehicle full of unarmed drunks? Shouldn't on-duty cops who are trained (if unfortunately not paid well-enough) to deal with situations like this be held to a higher standard?

JA Demko

"Having served two tours in a difficult and far from obscure locale known as Vietnam, to be followed by an active career in the fire service, there is much I have seen that surely broadens one's perspective towards all that is near and dear."

What was it you did in Vietnam and why do you believe having served there gives you exceptional insight into this incident?

A. S. Moeggs

JA Demko, are you going to answer my question? See my last post.
Moeggsy.

Walter

NobodySpecial: You are quick to comment on a situation you know little of, other than what you read or here about. I wasn't there, nor were you. Let's wait to condemn and look for appropriate change AFTER the facts are in. What those cops were facing might have been a nightmare in their eyes.

Walter

JA Demko: That particular paragraph merely alluded to the fact that I have seen much pain and suffering.

A person more than likely desires to enter the law enforcement field because he or she wants to serve and protect... they want to do some good for their community. They don't join a force to become bouncers, bullies, nor to get a chance to shoot some moron who, unfortuately, might end up with lead poisoning. Many of those cops caught up in the NYC incident are going to have sleepless nights in weeks and months to come. Some could, very likely, leave the "job" and do something less difficult. Regardless, they will endure heartache and regret. The memories of one bad night will never fade away. All because they only wanted to be good cops.

JA Demko

Moeggsy,
Check the email address you use when responding to this blog. I answered your question via email a couple-three days ago. As I stated in that email, I want to minimize the amount of personal information I spread on Petzal's blog.

concerned_soldier

Dave,
Great Post!

One thing about your proposal, even though the service has the three round burst, it doesn't stop us from firing, it just means we have to reload a new magazine sooner!

Your idea of firing the first three rounds and locking the slide to the rear would hinder our brothers in blue ability to engage in numerous targets.

Okay, just my two cents

For our vets out there, Thanks and in my view you do have more of right to speak freely! Yeah let that one sink in!

V/R

C_S

Lt. Kuhns

The crux of Mr. Petzal's complaint focuses on the <1% of police who have an apparent inability to control themselves. I know that I and all my peers in the Marine Corps, to include those who qualified expert, lose our sight pictures when we fire our servie pistols. Therefore I know that the police officers in question lost their sight pictures when they were in the process of unloading into a car full of drunks. What I would like to point out is that they did one of two things. They either (1)took a second to realign their sights and decide that more bullets were necessary, or, (2) never bothered to realign their sights and just kept pulling the trigger. Now someone tell me how either of these two decisions could be conisdered good. They either chose to ignore the fact that the targets were unarmed or conisder whether the threat was nuetralized, or they were not actually aiming subsequent shots, sending rounds to who know where. For that 99% of police who do their jobs well, thank you for your service, but don't be suprised when the public complains about your fellow officers who are jacked up.

Errr,
Lt. Kuhns
USMC

JA Demko

"Thanks and in my view you do have more of right to speak freely!"

Do please expand upon your deliciously provocative assertion. Be sure to explain how you reconcile this with the Constitution.

Concerned_Soldier

JA,
Yes I know, this is not per the Constitution.

But as I say in the post, it is my VIEW, not law! Although sometimes I think it should be.

Just the whole sacrificed for the country thing!

V/R

C_S

W.P. Roberts

Dave: Thanks for your blog! I read it regularly and enjoy both your humor and point of view. After years of effort we finally have a concealed carry law in OH and recently the legislature has (by overriding a veto by our Republican governor) passed a law that cancels local firearms ordinances so that we won't risk being arrested by a local policeman during a traffic stop enroute to the duck blind or range for the crime of having a locally restricted firearm in the trunk. More good news. A local man was found expired in his apartment yesterday: strangled by his pet boa! Keep up the good work.

sgtmac

I liked one part of your proposal....having someone from Internal Affairs and the ACLU present in the MIDDLE of all shooting events...They should FIRST approach the suspects and attempt to de-escalate the situation before shots are fired. If and ONLY if they are shot, should the officers start firing...and then only three rounds at a time...no matter HOW wounded the ACLU rep is.




Our Blogs

Categories



Syndicate