Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u28037
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago, academic Computer Center
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 23:10:49 CDT
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Message-ID: <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Distribution: usa
References: <viking.734512792@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>
 <93103.170753U28037@uic <1qie2rINN1b9@cae.cad.gatech.edu>
Lines: 73

In article <1qie2rINN1b9@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent
Fox) says:
>
[stuff deleted. all mine]

>Define "armed better". Go shoot a revolver and a semi-auto like the
>Colt .45. Does one fires faster than the other? Nope. Aside from which
>faster rate of fire is usually not desirable. Sure it makes the other
>guys duck for cover, but just *YOU* trying hitting anything with a Thompson
>in hose-mode. This is why the military is limiting it's M-16 now to

Aw come on.  It worked great in the 1920's (or the movie version of the '20s
anyways) :-)

>3-round burst-fire. Simple semi-auto would be better, but the troops
>like to be able to rock and roll even if it is wasteful of ammo (something
>often in short supply when the enemy is plentiful).
>
>A revolver is equally capable as a semi-auto in the same caliber.
>
[stuff deleted about how revolvers are just as good as semi-autos]

All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
I am not really familiar enough with handguns.

>Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly
>switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having
>accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks
>require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex
>as the timer on a VCR.

Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
>
>Anyone who goes anyone saying that the criminals obviously outgun
>the police don't know nothing about firearms. Turn off COPS and Hunter
>and pay attention. I do not seek here to say "semi-autos are junk"
>merely that assuming they are better for all jobs is stupid. A cop
>with a revolver on his hip and a shotgun in the rack is more than
>equipped for anything short of a riot.
>
Actually I don't watch those shows :-)  And you're right (at least partially).
I don't know much about handguns.  I'm more familiar with rifles.

>Gun control is hitting what you aim at. If you whip out a
>wonder-nine and fire real fast you may find you don't hit anything.
>Good controlled fire from a revolver is more likely to get you a hit.
>I own a 9mm Beretta myself but consider it inferior as a carry weapon
>to something like the Ruger Security Six revolver. If I haven't hit
>what I'm aiming at in the first 5 shots, something is quite seriously
>wrong somewheres. While I might like having the backup capacity of those
>extra shots in certain cases, overwhelmingly the # of shots fired in
>criminal encounters is less than 5.
>
>What do crooks overwhelmingly use in crime? Why the same nice simple
>.38 revolvers that the police often use. Well actually some police
>prefer the much heftier .357 Magnum, but anyway.....
>
>ObPlea: Don't flame me, I prefer semi-autos for most things. But they
>        introduce unneccessary complications to something as nerve-wracking
>        as an abrupt encounter with a lone criminal.
>
>--
>"If everything had gone as planned, everything would have been perfect."
> -BATF spokesperson on CNN 3/2/93, regarding failed raid attempt in TX.

No flames here.  All your points are well taken.  Guess I still have a
lot to learn but thanks to this discussion I already am :-)  Guess I
assume too many things like more bullets are better and that sort of
thing.  Of course you know what happens when you assume ......... :-)

Jason
