Thread: Im lost for words

One military service trains once a year. On specialised weapons some only train on pre deployment training.
That service has had a few people shoot themselves and have plenty of negligent discharges.
If they have to use it they shoot 50 rounds once a year.

That sounds like not enough training to potentially use a weapon to shoot a person and defend peers.
Now think that police requirements are even less....

As always is a budget and HQ/heirachy problem

Originally Posted by nseagoon

One military service trains once a year. On specialised weapons some only train on pre deployment training.
That service has had a few people shoot themselves and have plenty of negligent discharges.
If they have to use it they shoot 50 rounds once a year.

That sounds like not enough training to potentially use a weapon to shoot a person and defend peers.
Now think that police requirements are even less....

As always is a budget and HQ/heirachy problem

Well that is a ton more training than they used to do And they are some what better for it too given the other training that is conducted at the same time.

Originally Posted by nseagoon

One military service trains once a year. On specialised weapons some only train on pre deployment training.
That service has had a few people shoot themselves and have plenty of negligent discharges.
If they have to use it they shoot 50 rounds once a year.

That sounds like not enough training to potentially use a weapon to shoot a person and defend peers.
Now think that police requirements are even less....

As always is a budget and HQ/heirachy problem

Which military service is that.

Definitely yes more training for police no question about it

But hiding behind this "my buckle did it" bullshit does not engender my faith and trust and as for quoting surveys only old people with landlines answer surveys

Originally Posted by jim160

Which military service is that.

That is a smaller post than the one you deleted... I am sure you can work it out given you were in the service yourself at some point.

Originally Posted by Shooter

That is a smaller post than the one you deleted... I am sure you can work it out given you were in the service yourself at some point.

Yes I know. Didn't like the last one as it was more of a rant. Which I don't like. I try and have tact, well try to most of the time. I have probably posted and deleted a dozen posts before.
I just get frustrated when people claim to know what and how much training people get, when clearly they have no idea. Im not trying to offend people but there are a lot of people out there which the closest they get to the Army is Call of Duty and to the Police is Grand theft Auto.

And these people are the ones we get our opinions from. Not to mention the Facebook Valour soldiers out there who say we should fight ISIL, yet 80% of the same people refuse to enlist or protect their country.

All mouth, and no balls to stand up and protect, they rather bitch and moan about the Military / Law Enforcement.

Pretty much, if you want it to change, then step up or shut up.

Now this ended in sort of a rant. Nevermind.

Originally Posted by jim160

And these people are the ones we get our opinions from.

I hear you mate!

Remember "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of them stink".

There are always some gold nuggets when reading through this stuff.

You could learn to fly an aeroplane 8, then get chucked into a dog fight, 20 hours is more than enough

I might just wait till the morning before I reply to the last few pages.

Originally Posted by Jexla

As you can see from the above image, when the glock was introduced, police were given 20 hours training with it.
20 hours.

Problem probably lies in the fact most know nothing about firearms, never been actively involved in hunting, then get one scary bit of steel in their hand and 20 hour to get to know and use it professionally, just my guess

I have a few questions, luckily the man isn't dead, and a number of things were done very wrong in the lead up to this.
how many officers would normally deploy to a call out,
is it normal for an armed officer, (with a carbine or long rifle) to be directly involved in detaining the suspect, I can understand a pistol.
I would have thought, once suspect was cuffed and on ground, that all arms would then be safed, right away, is this the case, or standard practice is.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Remind me what experience you have with policing in NZ, police training and dealing with the criminal element, because your comments seem to display a distinct lack.

Cops talk to armed people in a calm conversational manner, but it often doesn't work through no fault of the officers. Doorman don't get charged for putting bruises on people, most of the time it's justified, and when it's not that is when they get charged, much like a Police Officer. Cops don't get much more than $20 an hour either.

NZ is a safe country as a whole, and I'd like it to stay that way, but parts of it aren't safe, funnily enough Police spend most of their time in those areas, areas I'm guessing you don't go by choice.

Cops don't get trained that they are going "war on joe public", however they do get some training on how to lessen the risks to themselves.

Language ridiculous, how so? Guns ridiculous, how so? Should they get a Tikka or a 10/22? Costumes ridiculous, I'm guessing you're talking about the AOS 'costume'. Have you got a more practical way of carrying the necessary equipment along with body armour? Militarization or just practical and safe in a given situation?

I've seen and dealt with some corrupt Police forces overseas, luckily the NZ Police is a long way off of that.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by jim160

Pretty much, if you want it to change, then step up or shut up.

I like how you think that by just joining the police you can change how the whole organization works, that's like saying if you want the country to change, become and politician and you can do it....

AS IF

For a thread that was "lost for words" there sure are a whole bunch of em

Originally Posted by Maca49

Problem probably lies in the fact most know nothing about firearms, never been actively involved in hunting, then get one scary bit of steel in their hand and 20 hour to get to know and use it professionally, just my guess

Problem is you've described a situation that existed 20 years ago. It simply doesn't exist now.

Just as non shooters judged hunters as idiots who grab a gun and shoot at anything they see, including each other. Or school teachers.

It's an overly simple generalisation, which clouds opinion.