New Tactical Cycling Maneuver

On 9/26/2020 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 19:19:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
... as I mentioned, we had the opposite here a few days ago -
someone barging in, shooting four adults and killing a four-year-old
kid. This afternoon we rode by several memorials to the kid.

I don't want a society where every family has to have a rapid fire gun
ready in the living room, because any punk on the street can easily get
a rapid fire weapon and barge in. It's beyond me how someone can pretend
that's wonderful.

But Frank. you live in a society with probably the highest crime rate
in the civilized world, or at least you have the largest number of
criminals in prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...ther_countries
In fact you have something like 2-1/3 times that of the next country
on the list.

Yes, indeed. We also lead in medical expenses per capita (but not in
good medical outcomes), in cost of pharmaceuticals, etc. etc. We're
number one!

And, by the way, a shotgun is a far more effective weapon for
household defense then a rifle or pistol :-0

I agree. But AR-style guns are what's cool!

Fashion. It's weird and powerful.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/26/2020 10:27 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 9/25/2020 8:25 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 9/24/2020 9:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:

To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg

... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun control at all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be armed.


Meanwhile, just a few days ago and about three miles away, some dude
barged into a house in a very quiet neighborhood at 2 AM and blasted
away, shooting four adults and one four-year-old boy. The boy died in
his mother's arms.

Oddly, no "good guy with a gun" prevented the murder.

I suggest that the question is "Why". I did read that the police,
"stressed that it was not a random act of violence but rather a
targeted attack."

And I later read that "A suspect connected to a shooting that killed a
4-year-old Ohio boy and wounded four adults, including the boy's
mother, was arrested Monday night, authorities told Fox News.
and
Kimonie Bryant, 24, surrendered to the U.S. Marshals Service around 8
p.m., Struthers police Chief Tim Roddy said.


I do find it odd that one seldom hears calls for edged weapons control
or ban:

https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/2020092...-hebdo-offices


Follow the UK news and you'll see lots of calls for knife control.

Here's a story on the CoE calling for a ban on pointy assault knives:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...rn-world-says/

I gather that carrying a folding knife with a locking blade is
considered a serious offense in Blighty, sort of like a "gravity knife"
in NYC:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/n...knife-law.html

Seems that particular misbegotten law has been repealed, sometimes there
is progress.

Rest assured that if knives are banned the powers that be will move on
to rocks and sharp sticks.

Let's compare knives vs. fast acting firearms.

There's this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_s..._United_States

vs. this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego..._United_States

The totals seem to be a bit different.

I'm not sure how that's a rebuttal to my statement. The UK has made
non-police civilian firearms ownership close to impossible, but the
movers and shakers are not satisfied. They have moved on to trying to
ban pointy knives.

You might also ponder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

There are hundreds of slippery slopes, and there are countless attempts
to lobby for laws that are senseless. Most of those efforts fail, with
good reason, so I don't worry about most of them.

Somewhere in my technical education I was trained to compare benefits
with detriments; and when feasible, to attack the worst problems first.
I also tend to wonder "What do other countries do?" and consider
successful strategies they've discovered.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 4:19:20 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Yes, and as I mentioned, we had the opposite here a few days ago -
someone barging in, shooting four adults and killing a four-year-old
kid. This afternoon we rode by several memorials to the kid.

I don't want a society where every family has to have a rapid fire gun
ready in the living room, because any punk on the street can easily get
a rapid fire weapon and barge in. It's beyond me how someone can pretend
that's wonderful.
And yet you support a party that makes the owning of a gun for protection imperative.

On Saturday, September 26, 2020 at 6:02:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:

Unbeknownst to you, there is NO RIGHT to drive a motor vehicle in the USA. It is a privilege awarded by the state in which you reside.
Then by all means tell us what state in which you do not have that right to drive and that any state government that refused that right to lawful members of the community would survive even one election?

On 9/26/2020 4:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 5:30:54 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 3:28 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 9:54:58 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/24/2020 11:00 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 8:37:23 AM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote:
On 24/09/2020 15.59, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/a-seat...s-head-during/

Why are the cops riding bikes at night with no lights? Is that not
illegal?
Why are you unaware that police are not subject to traffic regulations? Are you supposing that the police are going to pursue someone while staying within the speed limit?

Technically they can run stop signs/stop lights and blow
speed limits, go wrong-way and so on only when the red
lights are rolling.

(or blue lights or whatever in your area)

Maybe in your state Andrew but not in most. It is pretty difficult to sneak up on criminals when your lights and siren are on.

California Statues section 21055:

https://law.justia.com/codes/califor...050-21070.html

When sneaking up on people a police car has to obey the
other traffic statutes. Mr Beattie, in his capacity as an
actual California ambulance operator, told you this already.

Well tell you what, someone better explain that to the police. In California all a cop needs to break the traffic laws is a red light. It does not need to be flashing and he does not need to have his siren on. Turning on a red light is all it takes.


Oh, that. Yes police vehicles do that all the time-
sometimes with a brief flash of their top lights, sometimes
not. It's still illegal. Of course there's nothing anyone
can do about it except get out of their way.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/26/2020 4:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 5:50:55 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 3:37 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 5:25:14 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/24/2020 5:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:39:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 12:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/24/2020 10:37 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 24/09/2020 15.59, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/a-seat...s-head-during/



Why are the cops riding bikes at night with no lights? Is
that not illegal?



Probably. Ring 911 to ask for more police?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lling-911.html

Similar to that incident: One friend of mine lives on a lot of wooded
rural acreage. He has "No Hunting" signs posted.

He got wind of a hunter on his property and walked out to confront the
guy. As he told me, the hunter's attitude was threatening. He pointed
his gun at my friend and asked "What are you going to do about it?"

My friend faced him down, saying something like "You're not going to
shoot me." But I think that takes extraordinary courage. I'd certainly
have called the cops.

And about the "Defund" movement: ISTM that many, if not most, of those
saying that are not saying police forces should be abolished, or that
criminals should be given free rein (although I suppose there are
radical libertarians). They are instead proposing that other agencies
handle encounters that don't require an armed man in uniform.

As to radical libertarians: I suppose people who frequently say "laws
don't work, legalize everything" must be very much in favor of
abolishing police forces. I'm not one of those people.

Are there "other agencies". I believe that the Military is
specifically forbidden to act as police in U.S. territories.

Perhaps a new agency could be formed, "The Agency of Armed Force",
(TAOAF). But would that be a State or Federal force?

Not all that simple. You're right about the formal armed
forces but the prior administration set up armed security
branches in every Department:

This from 2012:
https://www.theblaze.com/contributio...h-armed-agents

and 2016:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/prett...s-hank-berrien

those are from a quick web search. It's a perplexing trend
to those who wonder why the Education Department needs an
assault team.

To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg

Every one of these armed agents is required to qualify at a range once a year. And that qualification means hitting a 50 foot target with a hand held gun in rapid fire situations. So they are pretty damned good with a handgun. I was never much one with a handgun other than an automatic, but with a rifle you should have seen me there with a Federal Agent. It was one of those ranges where at 100 feet to 100 yards, targets would pop out and you had to make sure you only hit qualified targets Someone with a weapon that wasn't a uniformed cop) and not the picture of the little old lady or the man with a walker. I hit bullseye on 100% of those and the Federal Agent gave up after he couldn't even hit the long targets before a new one appeared. That was 3 or 4 years ago.

With you broad wisdom and experience in the area, please
enlighten me. Why does the Education Department need
assault squads? Extra points for the Weather Service.

What gives the idea that because they have armed officers protecting entry into Federal buildings they constitute an assault squad?


Nope, Federal buildings are monitored, secured and defended
by DHS with their FPS division. That's not new. Those are
the guys you see at the scanners inside the doorway and the
guys you don't see up on the roof or wherever.

The separate pseudo armies in the various Departments is new
from the BHO administration and not well publicized.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/26/2020 5:57 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 07:36:30 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/25/2020 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 20:26:25 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/25/2020 7:30 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, 25 September 2020 16:28:46 UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:00:04 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 9:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2020 10:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg

... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other
prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort
executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun control at
all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be armed.

I think Andrew's implication is that if (say) America
introduces universal background checks and restricts the
purchase of rapid fire assault-style weapons, that police
will begin executing civilians on the streets.

IOW, the implausible connection to gun control was not mine.

You mistake my position. The Second was clearly and
tersely written with a definitive and final period after
'shall not be infringed' by men whose memory of Lexington
was fresh.

Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since 1934.
One might argue that the National Firearms Act is an
unconstitutional abridgement but the courts are not
interested in that argument. So here we are, some 80+ years
later in a nation where firearm ownership is widespread,
voluminous and growing. Yesterday, virtually all of them
passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun...s-by-state/13/

which comes to just under 5 million firearms in Ohio.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

In the USA firearms kill about 100 people per day. Does that meet your "virtually all of them passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident." criteria? I guess the number of people dying by firearms is only one tenth the number dying by Covid-19 each day. So its irrelevant. Trump and the Republicans think Covid-19 is a hoax and is going to go away very soon, so one tenth as many dying by firearms each day is surely immaterial.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...ty/firearm.htm
Sum of DEATHS
YEAR Total
2014 33,508
2015 36,132
2016 38,551
2017 39,673
2018 39,615
Total 187,479

Funny thing is about 3000 fewer people died in the USA from vehicle accidents each year. I'd have guessed vehicle deaths were much higher than firearm deaths. But NO. Americans love to shoot people to death! Even more than they like to run them over. Of course keep in mind all these deaths by guns and cars are one tenth as many as the Covid-19 is killing each day.

Any two years on that list equals more firearm deaths than the Vietnam Conflict had in total.


sorta kinda but not really.

Hint: Subtract the suicide and negligent discharges from
firearms deaths.

Also the horrific 58,000 number of US deaths supporting ARVN
includes accident disease and misadventure above the 47,400
combat deaths. Bad enough, but accuracy ought to matter.

It might also be noted that this was for a twenty year period, from
1955 til 1975.


One more thing about death comparisons- since auto deaths
include both vehicles you might pause to note 1,100,000 NVA
and VC, and that after the earlier French Indochina bloodbath.

ref: http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

I suspect that the NVA/VC numbers should be taken with "a grain of
salt" as I remember some reporter keeping count of "enemy Killed"
figures by Saigon and announcing that the U.S. had killed more then
the total population of Vietnam :-)


Check the sources in that link it's pretty well documented.

On the other hand, I read on another site that there were 849,018
PAVN.VC military personnel dead, including combat death and non-combat
death, from the period between 1955 and 1975. Across all three wars
including the First Indochina War and the Third Indochina War there
was a total of 1,146,250 PAVN/VC military deaths or missing, included
939,460 deaths (their bodies were found) and 207,000 missing (their
bodies were not found).
The reference seems to be an official Vietnam government report or
statement.

But I liked the statement from your reference (referring to the
Vietnam reports) that "These figures were deliberately falsified
during the war by the North Vietnamese Communists to avoid
demoralizing the population. In that the U.S. headquarters in Saigon
were doing exactly the same thing to demonstrate how well they were
doing. :-)


Both sides manipulating information during a conflict?
Oh, my (clutches pearls) how unsporting!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/26/2020 6:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/26/2020 3:30 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 9/26/2020 11:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/25/2020 10:52 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 17:30:57 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, 25 September 2020 16:28:46 UTC-4,
wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:00:04 AM UTC-5,
AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 9:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2020 10:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg


... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other
prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort
executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun
control at
all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be
armed.

I think Andrew's implication is that if (say) America
introduces universal background checks and
restricts the
purchase of rapid fire assault-style weapons, that
police
will begin executing civilians on the streets.

IOW, the implausible connection to gun control was not
mine.

You mistake my position. The Second was clearly and
tersely written with a definitive and final period
after
'shall not be infringed' by men whose memory of
Lexington
was fresh.

Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since
1934.
One might argue that the National Firearms Act is an
unconstitutional abridgement but the courts are not
interested in that argument. So here we are, some 80+
years
later in a nation where firearm ownership is
widespread,
voluminous and growing. Yesterday, virtually all of
them
passed another day nicely oiled and cased without
incident.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun...s-by-state/13/



which comes to just under 5 million firearms in Ohio.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

In the USA firearms kill about 100 people per day. Does
that meet your "virtually all of them passed another day
nicely oiled and cased without incident." criteria? I
guess the number of people dying by firearms is only one
tenth the number dying by Covid-19 each day. So its
irrelevant. Trump and the Republicans think Covid-19 is
a hoax and is going to go away very soon, so one tenth
as many dying by firearms each day is surely immaterial.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...ty/firearm.htm


Sum of DEATHS
YEAR Total
2014 33,508
2015 36,132
2016 38,551
2017 39,673
2018 39,615
Total 187,479

Funny thing is about 3000 fewer people died in the USA
from vehicle accidents each year. I'd have guessed
vehicle deaths were much higher than firearm deaths.
But NO. Americans love to shoot people to death! Even
more than they like to run them over. Of course keep in
mind all these deaths by guns and cars are one tenth as
many as the Covid-19 is killing each day.

Any two years on that list equals more firearm deaths
than the Vietnam Conflict had in total.

Cheers

I don't know whether you consider it significant or not
but in most
years suicides account for more then half of the firearm
deaths.
In 2017, for example, some 23,854 committed suicide with a
firearm.

If you had a family member who committed suicide by
firearm,
you might not write those deaths off quite so cavalierly.



Yes, some are tragic but of all the suicides I've known most
made the best decision for themselves and more importantly
those around them. If not firearm then something else, the
method being secondary in most cases.


That seems uncharacteristically cold of you, Andrew. I’m
no expert on
suicide, but I see it as a result of a temporary loss of
all optimism. The
one person that I know attempted suicide is still alive
and quite happy
now. Perhaps if they had used a gun, the story wouldn’t
have had quite so
happy of an ending.

I have known several people who suicided or attempted it.
Only one succeeded without using a gun. Two others who
attempted and failed have healed through therapy and are
living decent to extremly good lives.

Had they used guns, they'd be dead and those who love them
would be endlessly mourning.

People should not make light of suicide. They certainly
should not do it to advance pro-gun objectives.


Plenty of jumpers (I knew two), car into wall (one) and so
on along with firearms and then there's the slow but just as
certain death by alcohol of which I've seen several. You
can argue ODs but just how accidental they really are is not
at all clear to me.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/26/2020 6:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/26/2020 2:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/26/2020 10:20 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote [but I just
corrected one minor typo]:
On 9/25/2020 9:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:


I've never been to a two-way range, and I hope never to
experience that, but many things can transpire in a very
long full sixty second minute. Your
off-the-top-of-the-head 'standard' is idiotic.

I can tell you don't like my standard. But your post
contains no real rebuttal, except for what Jim Jeffries
notes from about 1:45 to 2:00 in this clip:
https://youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0?t=102

I've never claimed that lots of guns can't shoot more than
five rounds in a minute. I know they can. I've shot several
myself.

Instead I'm saying (outside of military combat, of course)
that capability isn't needed. It's detriments to society far
outweigh it's benefits.

We rode by a shooting range just a few days ago. Among the
normal reports of normal target practice we could hear one
guy's occasional "pop pop pop pop pop." What do you suppose
he was pretending?


Pretending my ass. Probably home defense training which is
popular and like anything else deserving of practice in
order to be effective.

Pretending. They may be pretending they'll prevent a home
invasion by shooting an intruder, but their shooting
practice is based on pretending.
This
from Tuesday:

https://abc7chicago.com/waukegan-new...mpted/6506524/


Yes, and as I mentioned, we had the opposite here a few days
ago - someone barging in, shooting four adults and killing a
four-year-old kid. This afternoon we rode by several
memorials to the kid.

I don't want a society where every family has to have a
rapid fire gun ready in the living room, because any punk on
the street can easily get a rapid fire weapon and barge in.
It's beyond me how someone can pretend that's wonderful.


'Rapid fire' is vanishingly rare and a red herring to your
argument, unless one defines 'rapid' as 'normal rate'. There
were just a handful of crimes committed using automatic
weapons in the entire country since 1934.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 9/27/2020 9:27 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/26/2020 8:28 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 11:22:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/25/2020 11:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 20:07:48 -0500, AMuzi
wrote:

On 9/25/2020 6:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/25/2020 12:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 9:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2020 10:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg


... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other
prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort
executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun control at
all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be
armed.

I think Andrew's implication is that if (say) America
introduces universal background checks and restricts
the
purchase of rapid fire assault-style weapons, that
police
will begin executing civilians on the streets.

IOW, the implausible connection to gun control was
not mine.


You mistake my position.

Perhaps, then, you should explain more clearly why you
linked a photo of a Nazi officer murdering captives.

The Second was clearly and tersely written with a
definitive and final period after 'shall not be
infringed'
by men whose memory of Lexington was fresh.

I think it's obvious that the 2nd amendment has never
been
interpreted as complete and total license to own any
and all
firearms - at least, not by anyone with at least two
functioning brain cells. The current radical
interpretation
is rather new and is at odds with many decades of
interpretation and practice. It's even at odds with the
NRA's historic positions. It's a product of a campaign to
line the pockets of LaPierre and others like him.

Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since
1934. One might argue that the National Firearms Act
is an
unconstitutional abridgement but the courts are not
interested in that argument.

Please. The courts saw through that argument long ago.
They
are not interested for very sound reasons.

So here we are, some 80+ years later in a nation where
firearm ownership is widespread, voluminous and growing.
Yesterday, virtually all of them passed another day
nicely
oiled and cased without incident.

My guess is the majority of guns in the U.S. pass
multiple
years while stored away. In other words, they are not
necessary, except to comfort certain paranoid
individuals.

In particular, it's essentially never necessary to have a
gun capable of firing more than about five rounds in one
minute. Given that rapid fire guns have the proven
detriment
of facilitating horrible illegal behavior, the balance of
benefits vs. detriments is heavily against them.

(BTW, only a tiny fraction of red light running causes
fatalities. That's not justification for allowing red
light
running.)


Image is not a National Socialist but rather NKVD
(International Socialist) for those who see any difference
whatsoever among the sorry lot of socialists all together.

Five rounds per minute? WTF?
My .38 Police Special does all five in about 3 to 4
seconds
when actually concentrating on a target. Guys who are
good
at that sort of thing use 8-shot revolvers and the
record is
one second.

Back when I was a competition pistol shooter I used to
practice on a
range where the State Police also practiced and I used
to,watch then
shooting the "Practical Police Course" that included 10
rounds at 10
feet, or some such distance. 5 rounds, reload and 5 more
in 10
seconds... with a six shot revolver and loose ammunition
:-)

I'm curious how much time the typical British police have
to put into
that kind of drill.

Probably very similar.
"in the year 2011–12, there were 6,756 Authorised
Firearms Officers,

... That's out of 130,000 total police? Not very similar to
the U.S.

12,550 police operations in which firearms were authorised
throughout
England and Wales"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police...United_Kingdom

and, it might be noted that in N.Ireland - still a part of
the British
Empire - all police are armed.

It doesn't sound very similar at all to the U.S. First, that
paragraph talks about only Northern Ireland, not Great
Britain or the entire UK. IOW, it's not the "typical British
police" I asked about.

Also, that article said that during World War Two, police
were given revolvers "in case of invasion" but did not carry
them on patrol. "Training for the Webley & Scott revolvers
usually consisted of firing six shots and to pass, it was
required that three shots had to be on target although
loading of the actual weapon was not taught."

That was a special circumstance during wartime, and even
then there was no mention of pop-up targets and other
extensive shooting drills that American cops frequently use.

https://atstargets.com/home/security...tems-security/




That's funny! I wonder who they hired if loading a Webley
revolver without formal instruction was a possible impediment.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971