Empire State shooting

[DiggerJim]

So, it seems the only people who can be trusted with guns in NYC (the police) are seriously dangerous to passersby. Bloomberg reported that the shooter yesterday shot his old boss several times and then proceeded down the street where 2 police officers at the Empire State building took him down - he did not shoot back. They fired 16 rounds and connected with their target (assuming they were not deliberately aiming at bystanders) less than 1/2 the time! They shot 3 other people and wounded another 6. Am I the only one who thinks this is just incredible? What kind of training do these guys get? A man sized target at close range and they miss more than they hit? Sheesh.

 

And it's not the first time - the NYPD has had other high volume lead throwing events where their hit ratio is in the single digits. I wonder about all the talking heads who after the Colorado shooting were pontificating that armed civilians would have been dangerous in the theater and they'd only want cops in there with guns - do they recognized the irony of yesterday's events?

 

Is weapons training this bad everywhere or uniquely NYC?

 

[upflying]

50% hit rate sounds about right for LEO's.

In a shooting situation, it's mind control not gun control. Both those cops probably 100% 10x'd stationary paper silhouettes every 6 months.

But when faced with an armed suspect, mind control is lost and cops tend to spray suppression rounds. The cops had exactly 3/10ths of a second to decide and react.

shyt happens.

How is it that NYC has the most restrictive gun laws in the USA and this armed subject was allowed on a busy street? Isn't owning and possessing a handgun strictly forbidden anywhere in NYC?

Since the suspect did not return fire, it was probably suicide by cop.

[moshe_levy]

I wonder about all the talking heads who after the Colorado shooting were pontificating that armed civilians would have been dangerous in the theater and they'd only want cops in there with guns - do they recognized the irony of yesterday's events?

 

It proves the very point I raised after Colorado. If the cops - who are at the very least trained periodically - have this kind of ratio.... just imagine what a regular citizen - who is NOT compelled to train periodically either physically or mentally - are capable of, when the S*** hits the fan.

 

-MKL

[ratfink]

My best friend and I started shooting at a pretty early age. (His father was a Hunter Safety instructor.) Our first real guns were single shot .22 rifles. Our Dads wouldn't let us step up to repeaters until they were confident that they had instilled in us to "make your first shot count." So I have always been puzzled about the two tap, three tap, or empty the clip methods that are in current favor, perhaps necessitated by wimpy rounds like 9mm and .40SW.

[Quinn]

I see this as an argument for higher capacity magazines. Maybe scatterguns? Handgrenades?

 

------

 

 

[beemerman2k]

I see this as an argument for higher capacity magazines. Maybe scatterguns? Handgrenades?

 

------

 

 

Oh yeah, a grenade ought to get the job done

 

What do you think the hit ratio is in the Star Wars movies? Seems these 2 LEO's did pretty well compared to the Storm Troopers :smirk:

[Mike]

50% hit rate sounds about right for LEO's.

In a shooting situation, it's mind control not gun control. Both those cops probably 100% 10x'd stationary paper silhouettes every 6 months.

But when faced with an armed suspect, mind control is lost and cops tend to spray suppression rounds. The cops had exactly 3/10ths of a second to decide and react.

shyt happens.

How is it that NYC has the most restrictive gun laws in the USA and this armed subject was allowed on a busy street? Isn't owning and possessing a handgun strictly forbidden anywhere in NYC?

Since the suspect did not return fire, it was probably suicide by cop.

 

Bob's right. These guys did about as well as the average, but they sure sprayed a lot of civilians in the process. What most folks don't realize is that most officers receive pretty minimal training. Incidents like this illustrate the perils of that approach. It's seen time after time, but it generally takes a tragic outcome to force change.

 

Surprising to many, individual citizens often do better than coppers in armed confrontations, largely because some gun nuts tend to spend a lot time on the range, in tactical training, and in competitions like IDPA. I've known a fair number of guys who shoot hundreds or thousands of rounds a year.

 

If we want better outcomes than what happened in NYC, we need to ensure our police forces have funds for adequate training.

[Mike]

My best friend and I started shooting at a pretty early age. (His father was a Hunter Safety instructor.) Our first real guns were single shot .22 rifles. Our Dads wouldn't let us step up to repeaters until they were confident that they had instilled in us to "make your first shot count." So I have always been puzzled about the two tap, three tap, or empty the clip methods that are in current favor, perhaps necessitated by wimpy rounds like 9mm and .40SW.

 

The "double tap" approach has been taught since at least the 1930s and was first formalized in OSS training. Maybe others in the military or law enforcement have differing experiences, but it's a pretty universally accepted tactic, regardless of the handgun caliber employed by the agency.

[George S.]

My best friend and I started shooting at a pretty early age. (His father was a Hunter Safety instructor.) Our first real guns were single shot .22 rifles. Our Dads wouldn't let us step up to repeaters until they were confident that they had instilled in us to "make your first shot count." So I have always been puzzled about the two tap, three tap, or empty the clip methods that are in current favor, perhaps necessitated by wimpy rounds like 9mm and .40SW.

 

You shouldn't be puzzled. When hunting deer, rabbit, pheasant, etc you have the luxury of being able to fire one shot and then waiting to see if that did the animal in, and you don't want to shoot up the game so there's nothing left of it.

 

Police, OTOH, when confronted face-to-face with a situation like NYC- an armed individual who just demonstrated his willingness and ability to shoot and kill another human, can't fire one shot and wait. We've been taught to shoot two. I've also been in situations where an officer fired off the entire weapon's capacity in about 1.5 seconds, and I can't blame them. I can't describe to you the sudden chaos, terror and intensity of a situation like that.

[MT Wallet]

Do you think the new green laser systems would go the distance to eliminate some of this inaccuracy?

[MT Wallet]

My best friend and I started shooting at a pretty early age. (His father was a Hunter Safety instructor.) Our first real guns were single shot .22 rifles. Our Dads wouldn't let us step up to repeaters until they were confident that they had instilled in us to "make your first shot count." So I have always been puzzled about the two tap, three tap, or empty the clip methods that are in current favor, perhaps necessitated by wimpy rounds like 9mm and .40SW.

 

I've used a .45 ACP for the exact reason you site-wimpy rounds. My brother was a Korea war era Marine and told me the Corps always maintained that the venerable .45 would knock a man down. They further maintained, according to him, that if you hit the guy in the little finger it would spin him around and put him down. Either way he'd be off his feet. Marines is it still true?

[George S.]

IMO, it would not help in most situations. Most of them that I was involved or nearby to have happened very quickly with little or no warning- BANG- BANG- like a close play in baseball- and they say most shooting incidents occur within 3 feet of the actor. If, OTOH, you have time to draw and aim your weapon like when you suspect that a situation could go bad, then, yes, in those instances I feel it could help. Maybe like in the previous NYC incident, where they were following a deranged individual on foot for seven blocks before the shooting happened.

[DiggerJim]

It proves the very point I raised after Colorado. If the cops - who are at the very least trained periodically - have this kind of ratio.... just imagine what a regular citizen - who is NOT compelled to train periodically either physically or mentally - are capable of, when the S*** hits the fan.

Sorry, it doesn't prove that at all. All it proves is that 2 NYC cops have a 50% hit rate, it says nothing about all other cops or anything about civilians. OTOH, there are enough precedent actions with NYC cops where 50% would be stellar performance so it may be another point in a trendline of NYC police performance. However, it has zero relation to what civilians are capable of - there's no data in the NYC incident that bears at all on civilian performance. "Imagining" what would happen with a civilian & a gun can go either way - you imagine awfulness, I imagine a successful & controlled response.

 

Just because someone is compelled to train doesn't make them better at something. I used to be a state EMT test instructor/evaluator. The people coming thru the scenarios who were volunteers almost always did better than the professionals who were doing it because it was their job. Passion for something matters more than job compulsion.

 

 

[George S.]

Performance varies greatly from one person to another whether they are professionals or not also. That's just the way things are. Humans are human, not machines. I'm not bragging, but I can qualify twice a year without practicing in between and there's times that I'll score better than my instructor who shoots every week.

 

And a 50% hit rate in the real world is not bad at all. It's just that midtown NYC is so packed with people it made it impossible NOT to hit innocents. If the incident happened in some small town of 7,000 people, I bet no one else would have been hit, and no one would even notice where a stray round ended up unless it broke a window.

[4wheeldog]

Do you think the new green laser systems would go the distance to eliminate some of this inaccuracy?

 

Iron sights would work, if the shooter has time and presence of mind to use them. When things go south, the first part of gun control to suffer is the aiming part. Untrained people have a tendency to actually lose the weapon, have their grip fail while drawing the weapon. Shooting someone that you think is trying to shoot back is nothing like shooting a target.

[pbharvey]

I'm guessing the average LEO never fires his weapon in the course of his career. How much training should be allocated to something that most likely won't happen?

 

 

[Paul Mihalka]

I'm guessing the average LEO never fires his weapon in the course of his career. How much training should be allocated to something that most likely won't happen?

 

That is like questioning airline pilots training for emergencies that may never happen to that pilot.

[pbharvey]

I'm guessing the average LEO never fires his weapon in the course of his career. How much training should be allocated to something that most likely won't happen?

 

That is like questioning airline pilots training for emergencies that may never happen to that pilot.

 

I don't know, maybe. I realize they have to train but a point was raised that they aren't trained enough. So how much is enough...for an LEO or a pilot?

 

[Firefight911]

I'm guessing the average LEO never fires his weapon in the course of his career. How much training should be allocated to something that most likely won't happen?

 

 

This is viewed as high risk, low frequency training. The other is considered low risk, high frequency.

 

How much is enough? Depends on the scenario and the individual.

 

As a firefighter we don't fight structure fires nearly as often as we used to so ripping structure fires are becoming low frequency high risk scenarios. This places a higher premium on our need to train for these events. We have progressively increased the training and time we invest (specifically chose that word versus spend) in preparing for structure fires. Medical aids (our department averages approximately 70% of out overall call volume here) are a high frequency low risk scenario. We do it a lot so the need to train is still VERY much so there but the type, time investment, and frequency of this training is somewhat less than the low frequency high risk scenarios.

 

The less often you face a scenario in the public safety realm the much more importance is placed on investing in preparing for it and, subsequently, the greater amount of time involved in preparation.

 

At the end of the day though there is just no amount of training that fully prepares you for when the high risk low frequency scenario is now real versus training. This is where there is so much more involved than quantifiable through training scenario.

[glockster]

I'm guessing the average LEO never fires his weapon in the course of his career. How much training should be allocated to something that most likely won't happen?

 

 

I suspect the same could be said for ATGATT.

[Downs]

My best friend and I started shooting at a pretty early age. (His father was a Hunter Safety instructor.) Our first real guns were single shot .22 rifles. Our Dads wouldn't let us step up to repeaters until they were confident that they had instilled in us to "make your first shot count." So I have always been puzzled about the two tap, three tap, or empty the clip methods that are in current favor, perhaps necessitated by wimpy rounds like 9mm and .40SW.

 

I've used a .45 ACP for the exact reason you site-wimpy rounds. My brother was a Korea war era Marine and told me the Corps always maintained that the venerable .45 would knock a man down. They further maintained, according to him, that if you hit the guy in the little finger it would spin him around and put him down. Either way he'd be off his feet. Marines is it still true?

 

This isn't the movies. One stop will not always stop the threat. They train to fire multiple rounds because when using a pistol you generally need more than one shot to stop the threat.

 

And there ARE lots of firearms myths flying around that are simply untrue. Lots of Marines still think that if a .50caliber round passes within 2 feet of you it will rip a limb off. Total and utter bullshit but it still gets passed from instructors to students and what not.

 

Think about the physics of such a thing. If the .45 bullet had the power to physically knock a man down it would knock the person down who was firing it. Equal and opposite reaction and all that. And a hit to the finger spinning someone around is about preposterous. For a bullet to take off a finger it would have to expend very little energy on the target and would keep going. There wouldn't be enough energy transfer to the target to cause them to do much but flinch.

 

Maybe if you were off balance when you got hit center mass you might fall over. There's also the psychological aspect of getting shot if you actually notice it and some people will simply give up or sit down. Others who are more determined will continue to present a threat until their circulatory or central nervous systems can no longer support it. Short of a hit to the central nervous system one shot will generally not stop a determined or drugged threat

 

t proves the very point I raised after Colorado. If the cops - who are at the very least trained periodically - have this kind of ratio.... just imagine what a regular citizen - who is NOT compelled to train periodically either physically or mentally - are capable of, when the S*** hits the fan.

 

Go watch some cops shoot on a regular basis. Most cops I know I wouldn't trust within 10 miles of me with a rifle or pistol. Most of them only have to qualify once or twice a year and usually standing in a static position shooting one target. That trains them for absolutely nothing they would ever encounter.

[Huzband]

 

At the end of the day though there is just no amount of training that fully prepares you for when the high risk low frequency scenario is now real versus training. This is where there is so much more involved than quantifiable through training scenario.

 

Exactly. We had a non threat disruption in church service this morning. Could have gotten ugly, but fortunately it didn't. As a member of the security team, I , as well as the others, learned from it. While training is good, it's unfortunate that only real world experience will train you for the real world.

 

Still, practice helps.

[Danny caddyshack Noonan]

Green laser, no. Both sights, only sometimes.

 

In a gunfight, do you want to train someone to look for the laser reflection? It is going to be subject to ambient lighting and how reflective the clothing is. Now, I've never been a laser believer and still am not. It can cause fatal delays. Frankly, those that I knew who used them were not the best shooters to begin with so, perhaps it might have helped them with target shooting.

 

Both sights, sure for target shooting. Maybe if you need to pull off a precise shot in a fight. Pretty rare and probably not being shot back at yet.

 

Front sight is usually what is used, if any at all. It doesn't even pay much benefit to front sight usage at less than somewhere around 8ish feet in most circumstances. The guys I've talked to rarely even recall if they used it nor how many rounds they fired. Probably half couldn't tell you if they reloaded or not. But,every one of them did say they used a two handed style like they were trained. Looks like one of the NYPD guys was going off hand. The one exception to the above observations was another special team guy. He knew exactly what he had done throughout the engagement (he had a lot of expensive training). A close relative was in one and initially didn't know if he'd fired or not.

 

It takes many many rounds to get to a point where you can pull off a good combat shot at the distances where skill becomes important. Regular guys are paid to shoot usually twice a year. When on a special team and using a MP5, I'd shoot at least once a month somewhere around 100 rounds through each gun, plus what team training was....when we had budget for it. That's a lot of shooting and I'd still throw a round from time to time with the handgun when simulating real combat shooting.

 

So, as said previously, the hit ratio is pretty low. A lot of rounds go through the bad guys clothing and continue on. The hit ratio is kind of key to the general result that the bad guy loses more often than not. Theirs is usually lower than 50% or so. There are unfortunate exceptions to that though.

[MT Wallet]

Peter and Downs, Thanks for the schooling. Getting your viewpoints is why I asked. There are a lot of gun myths out there. Like I mentioned my brothers training was circa 1950. I went with a .45 for the reasons I mentioned and, big "and" I figure if I ever had to use it I'd be so rattled I be lucky to get a good shot in so I wanted a round that would impart a lot of energy. Kill shot or not I want to put a hurting on my assailant with any shot I might connect with.

[Huzband]

Admin Note: Edited for political content.

[Downs]

Peter and Downs, Thanks for the schooling. Getting your viewpoints is why I asked. There are a lot of gun myths out there. Like I mentioned my brothers training was circa 1950. I went with a .45 for the reasons I mentioned and, big "and" I figure if I ever had to use it I'd be so rattled I be lucky to get a good shot in so I wanted a round that would impart a lot of energy. Kill shot or not I want to put a hurting on my assailant with any shot I might connect with.

 

You can use pretty much any of the major handgun calibers and be alright just use a quality Hollowpoint and make sure your pistol will run it before carrying it.

 

Honestly given the option I'd rather be shooting back with a rifle

[pbbeck]

Think about the physics of such a thing. If the .45 bullet had the power to physically knock a man down it would knock the person down who was firing it. Equal and opposite reaction and all that.

 

Not true. You are not factoring in the hydrostatic shock effect, which is at the root of a .45ACP's stopping power.

[Downs]

Everyround produces hydrostatic shock. You CANNOT make extra energy that hasn't been imparted on the bullet already. The round can only expend "x" energy no matter what happens. The amount of recoil that you feel in the pistol is the only amount of force the bullet can exert on the target and that's assuming the round stops in the target. If the round makes a through and through hole and comes out the other side it only expended part of it's energy in the target.

[Danny caddyshack Noonan]

You CANNOT make extra energy that hasn't been imparted on the bullet already. The

 

+1. Physics is a cruel myth buster.

Hydrostatic shock really relates to damage. This is one reason why exploding rounds were developed.

[philbytx]

+1

Some folks need to see various bullet designs/calibre testing results to accurately compare "damage done".

[pbharvey]

My son and I were at the range today shooting .22s, 9mms, and a .45. It takes about a nanosecond after looking at and then handling the ammo to figure out which one you'd least like to get shot with.

[Firefight911]

My son and I were at the range today shooting .22s, 9mms, and a .45. It takes about a nanosecond after looking at and then handling the ammo to figure out which one you'd least like to get shot with.

 

Uhh, duh, any of them!

[dba]

we need to ensure our police forces have funds for adequate training.

 

Told my bosses that almost everyday I worked. Bullets are cheap, lives are expensive. Fell on deaf ears. Sadly, it's not until the policy makers have to answer questions from their supervisors and/or the public that things will change.

[Matts_12GS]

My son and I were at the range today shooting .22s, 9mms, and a .45. It takes about a nanosecond after looking at and then handling the ammo to figure out which one you'd least like to get shot with.

 

Uhh, duh, any of them!

 

Winner!!!

 

Reminds me of the old first aid thing from the Navy about treating a sucking chest wound. I asked our instructor, "Uh, seems like any kind of chest wound would suck..."

 

All I remember is "On your face and gimme 25"

[Peter Parts]

OK in this case, even the cops do more harm than good once their guns come into play... as is often the case.

 

I guess all the justification that's left is the same kind of logic you had in the old days when "hot pursuit" car chases always seemed justified, no matter how much collateral damage occurred.

 

Ben

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I guess all the justification that's left is the same kind of logic you had in the old days when "hot pursuit" car chases always seemed justified, no matter how much collateral damage occurred.

 

In the present case, the perp was pointing a gun directly at the police; they are as entitled as anyone else to defend their own lives with deadly force when threatened with same. It's unfortunate that they were such wild shots, but that's not entirely unexpected when there's a quart of adrenaline coarsing through your arteries and you're rushing to shoot him before he shoots you.

 

And they had to confront him when they did because they did not know his intentions. If a guy flees a roadside traffic stop, it's likely he's just trying to get away. OTOH, if someone shoots some random guy at the Empire State Building, is that an isolated incident, or is he now enroute to the site of his next target? No idea at all, so you gotta confront him ASAP.

[Peter Parts]

I agree that sometimes "hot pursuit" is justified, even unavoidable. But sometimes it is not.

 

Ben

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I agree that sometimes "hot pursuit" is justified, even unavoidable. But sometimes it is not.

 

Ben

 

Many police departments agree with you, which is why they are starting to implement policies that call for terminating high-speed pursuits when the danger to the public outweighs the merits of prompt apprehension of the fleeing suspect.

[eddd]

It is my hope that this situation will be used as a training tool for police everywhere.

 

I understand that they were in a real difficult position, but that many errant shots, hitting that many innocent people is not acceptable. They were lucky beyond words that there were not deaths or more serious injuries.

 

 

[Mike]

It is my hope that this situation will be used as a training tool for police everywhere.

 

I understand that they were in a real difficult position, but that many errant shots, hitting that many innocent people is not acceptable. They were lucky beyond words that there were not deaths or more serious injuries.

 

 

I'm sure that there will be a follow up to this. Hopefully, it will be objective and helpful. When this many bystanders are hit by police rounds, it at least raises some questions.

 

One of the things that NYPD required after moving to semiautomatics was a higher than standard trigger pull--the Glock NY-1 (developed as I understand it for the NY State Police) and NY-2 trigger pull is rated at 11 lbs, significantly higher than the norm. I've read that actual trigger pulls on NYPD-compliant Glocks often exceeds 12 lbs, which can be a significant impediment to accuracy when combined with minimal training.

[Kathy R]

I've read that actual trigger pulls on NYPD-compliant Glocks often exceeds 12 lbs, which can be a significant impediment to accuracy when combined with minimal training.

 

The world is full of human error, but it's maddening when your goal is to solve a problem and yet you create another problem.

[pbharvey]

I wonder what the criteria is for qualifying marksmanship with a 12lb trigger pull? It's bad enough being in a gun fight with handgun rather than a rifle. I can't imagine having to rely on a weapon with a 12 lb trigger pull. Do their squad cars have power steering?

[Kathy R]

 

 

 

( no disrespect to our LEOs intended...I just thought the power steering comment was funny )

[eddd]

I wonder what the criteria is for qualifying marksmanship with a 12lb trigger pull? It's bad enough being in a gun fight with handgun rather than a rifle. I can't imagine having to rely on a weapon with a 12 lb trigger pull. Do their squad cars have power steering?

 

 

+1

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

 

 

( no disrespect to our LEOs intended...I just thought the power steering comment was funny )

 

It's got a cop motor, a 440 cubic inch plant, it's got cop tires, cop suspensions, cop shocks. It's a model made before catalytic converters so it'll run good on regular gas. What do you say, is it the new Bluesmobile or what?

[pbbeck]

I am a shooting noob. I've only been shooting for about two years. I've taken several training courses and I'm actually pretty good at hitting a target. Nevertheless, what I don't understand about firearms can fill a library. I understand what "12lb trigger pull" means as a measurement convention, but can you explain what implications this has on marksmanship?

 

 

[pbharvey]

The more difficult it is to squeeze the trigger, the more that action will cause the gun to move thus pulling it off the target.

[pbbeck]

Thanks for your reply, Brian. I understand that. I'm accustomed to the light, crisp trigger on my Kimber, but when I use a friends double action 38 I can barely hit the paper because the trigger is so heavy. I guess what I was curious about was the 12lb figure. Is this considered heavy? Light? In general, what would the values be for a handgun vs. a rifle?

[Mike]

The more difficult it is to squeeze the trigger, the more that action will cause the gun to move thus pulling it off the target.

 

I think the standard trigger pull for a Glock is around 5.5 lbs (though I stand to be corrected). The concern of the NYPD and some other agencies in transitioning to the Glock was that there is not an external selectable safety. In fact, this was Gaston Glock's intention--to design a pistol that was safe, reliable, and intuitive. In high-pressure confrontations, some officers (particularly those with only revolver experience) fail to disengage the external safety, losing seconds--and sometimes their lives--in figuring out that they'd missed this critical step.

 

The concern of the NYPD was that this ease of employment rendered the Glock more susceptible to negligent discharges, so the remedy (again, I don't think they were the first to do this) was to specify a heavier trigger spring.

 

For someone who fires a lot of rounds with a gun with a heavy trigger, this might not be a big issue. However, most police officers qualify once or twice a year. Often, it's a matter of shooting 30-50 rounds at a stationary target from a standing position. In a stress situation, errors are compounded and unless one's developed appropriate muscle memory from shooting many, many rounds, one is likely to tug at a heavy trigger, diminishing accuracy. Simply put, it's more difficult for almost anyone to be as accurate with a heavy trigger pull.

[Quinn]

The trigger pull on the Kimber is probably less than 5 pounds. The standard Glock is maybe 5.5 pounds but there is a lighter modification that cuts it to 3.5. Makes the Glock almost as accurate as the Kimber.

 

----