I can get consistent headshots on gnomes at 25 feet with a BHP, and at 50 yards with a Hi-Point 995. OOORAH!!!
I hate gnomes.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...yeomkmrr-1.jpg
Printable View
I can get consistent headshots on gnomes at 25 feet with a BHP, and at 50 yards with a Hi-Point 995. OOORAH!!!
I hate gnomes.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...yeomkmrr-1.jpg
An Air Force cop dropped a active shooter with his M9 at 70 yards
Dean A. Mellberg shoots and kills four people and wounds 22 at Fairchild Air Force Base hospital on June 20, 1994. - HistoryLink.org
The discussion started when someone wondered what would happen at the local airport, where police patrol with MP5s, if they opened fire. How many innocent travelers would perish? Is an MP a suitable weapon to provide security in congested areas?
depends on barrel length alot
Personally, I think there´d be a massacre and that they only increase the danger of being killed by a terrorist bomb. But it looks a lot better to have them walking around. Just hope that their weapons are not loaded.
Never trust a Sarge to do much thinking ....
What would you consider a better weapon? The possibility of accidentally hitting someone in a congested area exists no matter what weapon is being used. The MP5 is one of the best choices available, low recoil and the round doesn't travel as far as many alternatives (for example a full auto FN-FAL would be a terrible choice as the bullets would be going everywhere and would continue travelling for a long distance). It is a better choice over a pistol (longer sight radius and if fully stocked easier to aim, which also means more shots on target, less shots elsewhere), better than a shotgun (significantly less collateral potential than a shotgun blast), and better than a standard rifle (rounds don't travel as far as a rifle round and with less recoil for the MP5 it means they stay on target easier). What matters most is how well trained the individual is. If they are poorly trained then, it doesn't matter what they are armed with as they are a danger to everyone else.
How is security being armed going to increase the danger of being killed by a terrorist bomb? If anything it gives you the means to prevent it (well at least more likely to prevent it than being unarmed). The reality is it is a significantly low risk of happening in the first place. In terms of a massacre, it depends on the situation and who is doing what. Crowded areas are always at a higher risk of multiple deaths simply due to the number of people around. Again this is where training comes in. When I was doing force protection with the RCN we were trained on multiple scenarios and made sure we understood the concept of aimed shots due to the risk to surrounding areas and individuals. The police in the airport I am sure are given similar if not better training than what I received.
Well short of being rude I can't comprehend your line of thought! I hope the cop is armed to the nuts and a darn good shot as I can't think of many guns better than a MP5 for a close quarter situation. I would expect the cops I saw with FA's in airports in Europe and the UK are more than capable of doing the best job possible in the event of a confrontation.
Possibly you would be more comfortable with the officer wielding a gun loaded with Buletten?:bash: