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.-- 21 Quest, Dec 15 2011 Here's my statistics http://en.wikipedia...aining_requirementsSee 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-19380492How many shots should it take to stop one gunman who isn't even wearing armor? [21 Quest, Aug 25 2012] "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 (-).-- normzone, Dec 15 2011 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).-- 21 Quest, Dec 15 2011 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.-- normzone, Dec 15 2011 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.-- 21 Quest, Dec 15 2011 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.-- Alterother, Dec 15 2011 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.-- 21 Quest, Dec 15 2011 [-] 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.-- FlyingToaster, Dec 15 2011 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.-- normzone, Dec 16 2011 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.-- 21 Quest, Dec 16 2011 I think it's a good idea. Tasers should be similarly equipped.-- afinehowdoyoudo, Dec 16 2011 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.-- ye_river_xiv, Dec 18 2011 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.-- Alterother, Dec 18 2011 "Ow!" said Pooh. "Did I miss?" you asked. "You didn't exactly miss," said Pooh, "but you missed the balloon."-- spidermother, Dec 18 2011 I'm not arguing merits, but bunning for creativity.-- baconbrain, Dec 18 2011 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.-- AusCan531, Dec 18 2011 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.-- normzone, Dec 18 2011 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.-- 21 Quest, Dec 19 2011 I'd rather be shot than beaten to death.-- Alterother, Dec 19 2011 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.-- 21 Quest, Dec 20 2011 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.-- ye_river_xiv, Dec 20 2011 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.-- 21 Quest, Dec 20 2011 // Not me... //
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.-- Alterother, Dec 20 2011 Ah... indeed it does.-- 21 Quest, Dec 20 2011 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.-- bungston, Dec 20 2011 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.-- Alterother, Dec 20 2011 random, halfbakery