The last few high profile shootings in NYC have resulted in civilians being hit as they attempted to neutralize suspects. It stands to reason that if police were limited to 6 rounds, and Im all for giving them high powered rounds like the .357, they are less apt to "spray and pray" out of nervousness.
With 6 rounds between reloads, the officer (or civilian) is forced to take careful aim of their target because once they're out, they're out until the next reload - might make a cop think twice about wasting ammunition and potentially innocent civilians.
Besides, if NYSAFE requires that civilians carry only 7 rounds, should the police not receive the same limitation? After all, its for the children.
All cops should carry a .357 for the more amount of protection and to minimize the amount of civilian casulties.If our cops would carry a revolver they could have more protection for themselves, while carrying less ammo in the chamber..I think our country would strive better if our cops could carry a .357.
If they need somebody killed, they should call the S.W.A.T. Team. Recent history has shown us that the police too easily resort to the fall-back of deadly force. How lazy! How wasteful! The police exist to help our society run smoothly and productively. When they resort to killing somebody they are robbing the rest of us of the benefit of that persons productivity. This is not a decision that should be made street level. The police in Great Britain are not armed with more than tasers and clubs, and they are able to create one of the safest environments in the planet. (even when you control for population size)
Cops need to be equally armed against any potential threat they may face. If they encounter multiple criminals or maybe one or two with guns, the cop needs the tool that will get him through the situation alive and well. A revolver is not the best tool for the job. It's too slow, the double action trigger is inaccurate, and doesn't hold as many rounds as the criminals they will be up against. So let the cops stick with their semi-autos.
The typical revolver is a very stylish and classic sidearm but it the cons of the weapon outweigh the pros. Slower reload times and smaller ammunition capacity make it rather inefficient compared to say a Glock 17 which is chambered in 9mm and has a standard magazine capacity of 17 rounds, The G17 also boast a higher rate of fire then say a Colt Python .357 Magnum. The only thing revolvers really have over most other handguns is the cowboy romantics and usually more powerful rounds. (this is not including the desert eagle which is classified as anti-vehicular due to it's .50 caliber standard ammunition.)
I agree they need to be armed with something,but maybe not a lethal weapon. I suggest heavy tranquilizers, this way if they have to shoot, they will still have the culprit alive for questioning. Maybe the reason why america has so much violence, is because the cops demonstrate it and young teens, not knowing any better, just follow their example.
The police need trained and arm to deal with criminals and the weapons they carry. We cannot expect police to enter dangerous enviroment, where there is a probability they may be killed or injured.
The English police do not carry guns as the criminals do not carry them, due to the difficulty and the heave penalties for carrying guns. The English have effectively managed their gun culture to make it unprofitable for criminals to carry guns. The guns the police carry reflect the work they do and the society they operate in. A cop should carry the weapon that is required to get the job done safely whether it is an AK47 or a revolver or a baton.