Media admits police get powerful guns too
And they’re equally wrong. On the militarization of the police:
Police in large cities formerly carried revolvers holding six .38-caliber rounds. Nowadays, police carry semi-automatic pistols with 16 high-caliber rounds, shotguns and military assault rifles, weapons once relegated to SWAT teams facing extraordinary circumstances.
A 9mm (the most common caliber for carrying 16 rounds) is roughly the same caliber as a .38. The .38 is a bit more powerful due to having more powder. They typically carry only semi-automatic rifles because of the bad press that can result when someone puts 5 rounds into a suspect instead of one due to an active trigger finger.
Now, here’s the deal: Despite my yammering on about the police and their militarization, I don’t have any issue at all with a street cop carrying a regular capacity, semi-auto pistol. I also don’t have a problem with the police carrying semi-automatic rifles or shotguns in their cars. In fact, they should have them. If something goes down, they need to be able to deal with it in the most effective way possible. Period. My problem is when they cowboy up, put on their ninja outfits, and bust through some 92 year-old lady’s door and shoot her dead over an ounce of weed based on the likely paid for testimony of a crackhead informant (who later said they were asked to lie). Or when they kill a 23 year-old kid because he has an ounce of weed and a handgun carry permit. And my problem is when they put on their ninja outfits and stand guard on the streets.
Then, there’s the problem that when said 92 year-old is killed, that the police lie about it. Or some dumb ass says Well, if she didn’t have a gun, she’d be alive.
Sarcastro, on the police who killed a 92 year-old woman, writes:
Sure, you cops fired in self-defense. You and the rest of the SWAT team were just minding your own business terrorizing the elderly when she shot at you.
Update: In comments, Tam sets me straight:
Not to pick nits, but despite the bigger case, .38 Spl uses about the same powder charge as 9mm, and is less powerful, due to the resultant lower operating pressures. 9×19mm is closer to .357 than it is to .38 Spl.
Did not know that.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Not to pick nits, but despite the bigger case, .38 Spl uses about the same powder charge as 9mm, and is less powerful, due to the resultant lower operating pressures. 9x19mm is closer to .357 than it is to .38 Spl.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Tam, you’re a blogger. You’re supposed to pick nits.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:13 am
I agree with you completely on this. I have no problems with police having an AR-15 in their patrol cars, and think they should have them. My general feeling is the police should be allowed to have whatever I can have. Since I can’t have an M16, they should be off limits to police. If the government feel the police really need one, then they should let everyone have them.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Actually, it’s not particularly that much closer to the .357 (magnum I presume). Here’s the info from the Remington website:
Muzzle energy in ft-lbs, 125gn bullet, Remington UMC (Apples to apples, you know)
.38spl reg/+p: 220/248
9mm: 339
.357mag: 583
9mm is superior to the .38spl, but it doesn’t come close to touching the .357 mag.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Uncle blogged about a case earlier this year of a BLM cop in Idaho who would carry an AR-15 on her shoulder when confronting paintballers. It caused quite a heated discussion in the comments.
The problem wasn’t that she had been issued an AR-15, or that said AR-15 had been stolen from her car, but that she would carry it when confronting a group of kids that were probably guilty of nothing more than misdemeanors. It’s an issue of respect, not safety: Cops who openly carry their AR-15s when they clearly don’t need them are doing so to intimidate people.
Police intimidation is something totalitarian states do. It’s counterproductive and corrosive in free societies, or those societies that wish to be free.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
That bit of info from Tam about the 9mm makes me feel better about the potency of my newly acquired CZ 75B 14+1. It’s a great carry gun, the main erason for its acquisition. But as ben says, there is a considerable difference in the sound and recoil of my .357 Taurus revolver and the 9mm semi-auto. I’m thinking one vital zone, self-defensive, hollow-point round from the .357 would be a definite stopper.
November 30th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
I don’t think it’s fair to compare a 9 and a .357 – they’re world’s apart in power.
Having said that, the biggest issue is (All Together Now….)
Bullet placement!
Bullet placement!
Bullet placement!
So, Ron, if you can shoot the CZ 75 accurately, it’s the gun for you. (Evan Marshall, the co-conspirator with Sarnow who wrote up analysis for the “one shot stop study”, that promoted the .357 above all others.. carries a nine, and says he shoots to slide lock. 🙂 )
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Unix-Jedi,
I agree. I carry the 9 and basically use the .357 7-rd revolver for my first grab home-defense gun.