h a l f b a k e r yTempus fudge-it.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Intended to be distributed to law enforcement
personnel, these pistol grips are designed to be very
comfortable to carry - in the holster. In fact, they
are
even quite comfortable to carry in the hand - until
you
actually discharge the weapon.
See, many Hogue pistol grips have thick,
soft
rubber
padding around them designed to absorb the recoil
of
the weapon, making it oh-so-comfortable to shoot.
Rogue pistol grips have thick, soft padding as well.
Underneath the thick, soft padding, along the spine
of
the pistol grip, is a row of hard metal spikes. They
aren't very sharp, mind you, but they don't really
have
to be. They're designed along the same lines as the
spikes atop most wrought-iron fences.
When carrying the weapon, it feels amazing. When
you actually fire it, the soft rubber yields, pressing
the
spikes painfully* into the shooter's hand.
See, this design retains the ergonomic shape so it
doesn't foul up the shooter's aim, but it discourages
pouring unnecessary amounts of ammunition down
range**, and encourages the shooter to try really
hard
to aim very carefully before pulling the trigger so as
to
make each shot count***, and to do so only if
absolutely
necessary.
*Painful, but not injurious. The idea is to make an
impression (figuratively and literally), but not to
draw blood or break bones.
**Down range often being in the crowded downtown
shopping district.
***Every firearms instructor I've ever spoken with
agrees on one thing: never point a firearm at
something you do not intend to kill. Every decent
shooter agrees on one other thing: If you have to
shoot something more than once to kill it, you're
probably not a very good shot.
Here's my statistics
http://en.wikipedia...aining_requirements
See sections titled 'training requirements' and 'Research on the efficacy of concealed carry' [21 Quest, Dec 15 2011]
This may have been avoided
http://www.bbc.co.u...-us-canada-19380492
How many shots should it take to stop one gunman who isn't even wearing armor? [21 Quest, Aug 25 2012]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
"Every decent shooter agrees one one other thing: If you have to shoot something more than once to kill it, you're probably not a very good shot."
|
|
| |
Generalization, not representative of most real-life defense situations involving firearms (-). |
|
| |
You're right. Most real-life defense situations
involving firearms are acted out by people who
aren't properly trained and disciplined. That's what
needs to change.
|
|
| |
I was watching an Intelligence Squared U.S. debate
a few years ago on whether or not guns reduce
crime. One of the points brought up by the team
arguing for the motion was that there has never
been a murder in the United States committed by a
concealed-carry permit holder (police excepted).
|
|
| |
Most accidental gun deaths are caused by people
carrying
without a permit or other unlicensed users on their
own property where a permit isn't legally required.
Others are caused by police who are highly trained,
but poorly disciplined. A gun can feel very
comfortable in the hand, and lends to its holder a
great sense of power. Knowing that firing will inflict
a measure of pain on oneself incentivizes one to
exercise greater control and discipline.
|
|
| |
You're also forgetting that most shootings involving
police aren't defense situations. The police are
chasing a suspect (chasing = offense, not defense)
and the criminal shoots back in self-defense (I'm not
justifying the criminal's action here, just saying how
it is). |
|
| |
I'm not forgetting anything. And you're making up statistics. And if you get a great sense of power from holding your firearms, then we have a whole 'nother problem. |
|
| |
If you claim I'm making up statistics, I put it to you to
prove that claim with statistics of your own. I'm not
claiming people don't often use a gun as a visible
deterrent to diffuse a situation without actually
shooting the target. That happens more often than you
may think, and does not contradict the teachings of
the instructors so long as you are prepared to shoot if
the target calls your bluff. |
|
| |
This is a worse idea than mandatory registration. Making it
painful to use a handgun will discourage practice, meaning
we'll have even more people running around with guns they
don't know how to use. As a purported firearms enthusiast,
you should be ashamed, man. |
|
| |
As I said, these would be distributed to police, for use
on their service weapon, to
reduce on-the-job trigger happiness. That is all. It
would not be mandated for private citizens and would
not be mandated for use by police while at the range.
At the range, during practice, they can swap it out for
whatever grip they choose. When out in public, on
patrol, they must put the Rogue Grip on. |
|
| |
[-] despite my feelings regarding the lack of training that some officers seem to have regarding weaponry...
|
|
| |
//never point a firearm at something you do not intend to kill//
|
|
| |
How'bout "never give a gun to somebody unless you plan on letting them use it" ?
|
|
| |
That oft-spake phrase is simply a profound-sounding reinforcement of "never point your gun at somebody as a joke". In actual use both military and police forces are not intending to kill anybody, simply make it impossible for the target to commit a harmful action of their own. And for legal hunting or target usage, pointing a weapon at a target doesn't have to be a precursor to firing. |
|
| |
I dragooned my sweetheart to some firearms training, not wanting to teach her only my bad habits. A retired local police officer taught it.
|
|
| |
He said in his twenty-some years of service he'd drawn his gun more than a hundred times and never had to fire it - I count that as a win statistic. |
|
| |
Ok. Then this wouldn't have had any negative
impact on his
ability to do his job, would it? This idea is intended
to reach out
to those who do not have to fire their weapon, yet
choose to do
so instead of searching for alternative ways to
diffuse a
situation. Perhaps it could be said that on at least
some of those hundreds of occasions, he didn't
actually *have* to draw his weapon then, perhaps
simply placing his hand on it and maybe unsnapping
the holster would have served as an appropriate
deterrent?
|
|
| |
If a rookie policeman reaches for his weapon,
chances are he's going to be a little stressed and will
grasp his weapon with a very firm grip. He's going
to feel that soft rubber yield soothingly, and
beneath it feel the firmness of the Rogue points,
and perhaps be reminded that sometimes, it is
worth it to search for an alternative solution. |
|
| |
I think it's a good idea. Tasers should be similarly
equipped. |
|
| |
All the gun instructors I've ever heard mention that fear of recoil will ruin one's aim for years.
|
|
| |
While I'm all for making cops carefully restrict their use of firearms to an absolute minimum, I'm afraid that punishing them with physical pain every time they fire in the line of duty is probably the worst possible way of doing it.
|
|
| |
Chances are, they'd be too nervous to shoot correctly in the rare instances where shooting someone does sadly happen to be the best decision.
|
|
| |
If you can't implicitly trust someone with a gun in some situation, make sure they don't have a gun in that situation. |
|
| |
The best way to ensure firearms safety is education and
practice. I know very well that a firefight is worlds away
from hunting and target shooting, but my personal
philosophy is never to put my finger on the trigger unless I
know I'm going to hit the target. Don't discourage the
shooter from firing. Instead, encourage them to fire, and
hit, over and over and over. After almost 18 years of
marksmanship and hundreds of thousands of rounds sent
downrange, I'm not bothered by recoil and I don't miss*
very often, even when I challenge myself. If all law-
enforcement officers put in 1/10 the practice I have, this
would be a non-issue. Sadly, this is not the case; BION, I
have met veteran street cops who have fired less than 500
rounds in their entire lives.
|
|
| |
*by competition standards, 'missing' doesn't necessarily
mean missing the target, but rather missing the point on
the target you were aiming for. |
|
| |
"Ow!" said Pooh.
"Did I miss?" you asked.
"You didn't exactly miss," said Pooh, "but you missed the balloon." |
|
| |
I'm not arguing merits, but bunning for creativity. |
|
| |
This is outside my field, but if I was a cop the thought of spending the next 4 years of my life filling out paperwork would be much more of a disincentive to firing my weapon than any potential fleeting pain in my hand. |
|
| |
I'm giving [21] credit here not for being serious in this idea but taking the spirit of the 'bakery and running with it, until somebody runs up behind him, and, evading his blockers, shoves him between the shoulders and causes him to stumble ten yards before the goal line, therefore allowing the rest of the team another chance to stop him before he completes a bad idea unfettered.
|
|
| |
No doubt influenced by some recent local event. |
|
| |
The problem with trying to ensure only good cops
get through the academy and get armed is that it
never works. That is exactly what all existing
policies strive to achieve, but until police academy
examiners become mind-readers, there just isn't a
guaranteed way to keep out the bad cops.
|
|
| |
In the UK, they largely solved the problem by
disarming their street cops. Here in the USA, that
wouldn't work. We'd end up with a shitload of
dead/abducted cops the first day.
|
|
| |
Down in the deep south mostly, but also occasionally
in some northern locales, we frequently hear about
racially-motivated police shootings, as well as other
shootings based on sketchy logic. What's worse, it
isn't even limited to shootings. Just last month, a
policeman in my town named Karl Thompson (you
can look it up if you want, it made several
headlines) was convicted of wrongfully beating to
death an innocent man with his baton. Karl, the
cop, was in his sixties, a long-time veteran with a
pretty good record.
|
|
| |
I realize Rogue Grips won't stop all wrongful deaths
caused by bad cops, but the hope is that it will at
least cut down on the shootings. |
|
| |
I'd rather be shot than beaten to death. |
|
| |
Not me... a baton I can take away and shove up the
cop's ass if need be. Or not. At least I've got a chance
of defending myself. I'll defend the assault charge later
in court and probably win on self defense grounds. |
|
| |
I'd rather see these grips get put on guns that will be sold to untrustowrthy individuals in the effort to locate criminal gun runners. Most of those folks deserve to get hurt every time they fire their guns. Cops... it's more of a judgement call. |
|
| |
How do you weed out //untrustowrthy individuals//
from the trustworthy at the point of sale? Racial
profiling? There are already mandatory background
checks and waiting periods in most, if not all, states
in
the USA. Most honestly-purchased guns that end up
in
criminals' hands are obtained one of two ways: they
are stolen from the homes of honest buyers, or they
are purchased by people with clean records who are
paid by the known criminals they deliver them to.
|
|
| |
If I wished to buy a firearm and was told I have to
have special grips installed on something I'm buying
because I appear untrustworthy, I'd sue on
discrimination grounds. I've worked security,
apprehending shoplifters for a living, and I can say
with 100% honesty that I was shocked by some of
the things I saw. Folks dressed like lawyers stealing
condoms and cologne. People of minority race
wearing tattered clothes and smelling of sweat and
exertion purchasing some of the most expensive
items in the store with an American Express card.
|
|
| |
You simply can't tell by looking who's trustworthy
and who is not. Police don't buy their weapons.
Taxpayers do, and the weapons are issued to the
officers who carry them. That is the fact that makes
this idea, as posted, the only legal way of
implementing this. Even police who carry their own
weapons do so by choice, and can be offered a
choice of either installing Rogue Grips on their
personal weapons *while on duty* or carrying issued
weapons. |
|
| |
Yes, somebody like you or I would be perfectly capable of
defending ourselves in any case; I was simply citing your
reference to the officer who 'accidentally' beat a man to
death. Given an A or B choice, with no alternatives such as
self-defense, I would sooner have the cop shoot me than
beat me with a baton. The likelihood of neater, non-
crippling injury is much higher from a gunshot than from
extreme blunt-force trauma, and if it does kill me, the
chances of a quick death are also much greater. |
|
| |
I wonder if the slew of young people who have done service time recently will improve the quality of police in years to come. One would think that armed service would give a person a chance to act on any inner demons, besmirching the record in a way to prevent later hire by a police force. |
|
| |
I don't know about inner demons, but modern soldiers
certainly have better firearms training than your average
street cop, and isn't that kind of what this discussion is
about? They use the same 'finger rule' that I conduct my
own shooting activities with. |
|
| |