▲ 261 ▼ Assmold fans being moldy. (thelemmy.club) submitted 1 day ago by WanderWisley@lemmy.world to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Janx@piefed.social 49 points 17 hours ago (3 children) A well-trained officer of the law would not have missed all those shots. So unrealistic. Nothing is funnier than this comment... permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] needanke@feddit.org 1 point 2 hours ago* Officer of the law court permalink fedilink source parent [–] bluesheep@sh.itjust.works 10 points 13 hours ago* well trained officer of the law well trained officer of the law It's like an exercise in finding the oxymoron permalink fedilink source parent [–] tmyakal@infosec.pub 30 points 17 hours ago (2 children) I used to be buddies with a retired NYPD patrolman. One of the most funded and well-trained municipal police forces in the US. With regular range testing, they were expected to hit their targets 40% of the time. I'll say that again: in a controlled environment, against unmoving targets, an NYPD officer can usually miss, and that's fine. Does anyone think they suddenly get more accurate once adrenalin is pumping and a teenager is running away from them? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] MBech@feddit.dk 2 points 1 hour ago Makes you wonder what those 60% are gonna hit, random bystanders? Victims? Their collegues? permalink fedilink source parent [–] mlg@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago (1 child) I had a buddy who went into the army in HS and it was around the time some doofuses suggested arming teachers with guns. He already thought the idea was braindead stupid so we decided to look up cops as a comparison to civilians in terms of accuracy. We couldn't find civilian data but the cops in our state had a whopping 21% accuracy of actually hitting their target (in real situations) with some areas as low as 11%. He doubled down on disqualifying police as a real occupation after that lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago Police tend to be the most dangerous and least accurate group of gun owners. Even with the tiny amount of range time police get, you'd be hard pressed to find a worse group to hand guns to. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] needanke@feddit.org 1 point 2 hours ago* Officer of the law court permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bluesheep@sh.itjust.works 10 points 13 hours ago* well trained officer of the law well trained officer of the law It's like an exercise in finding the oxymoron permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tmyakal@infosec.pub 30 points 17 hours ago (2 children) I used to be buddies with a retired NYPD patrolman. One of the most funded and well-trained municipal police forces in the US. With regular range testing, they were expected to hit their targets 40% of the time. I'll say that again: in a controlled environment, against unmoving targets, an NYPD officer can usually miss, and that's fine. Does anyone think they suddenly get more accurate once adrenalin is pumping and a teenager is running away from them? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] MBech@feddit.dk 2 points 1 hour ago Makes you wonder what those 60% are gonna hit, random bystanders? Victims? Their collegues? permalink fedilink source parent [–] mlg@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago (1 child) I had a buddy who went into the army in HS and it was around the time some doofuses suggested arming teachers with guns. He already thought the idea was braindead stupid so we decided to look up cops as a comparison to civilians in terms of accuracy. We couldn't find civilian data but the cops in our state had a whopping 21% accuracy of actually hitting their target (in real situations) with some areas as low as 11%. He doubled down on disqualifying police as a real occupation after that lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago Police tend to be the most dangerous and least accurate group of gun owners. Even with the tiny amount of range time police get, you'd be hard pressed to find a worse group to hand guns to. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MBech@feddit.dk 2 points 1 hour ago Makes you wonder what those 60% are gonna hit, random bystanders? Victims? Their collegues? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago (1 child) I had a buddy who went into the army in HS and it was around the time some doofuses suggested arming teachers with guns. He already thought the idea was braindead stupid so we decided to look up cops as a comparison to civilians in terms of accuracy. We couldn't find civilian data but the cops in our state had a whopping 21% accuracy of actually hitting their target (in real situations) with some areas as low as 11%. He doubled down on disqualifying police as a real occupation after that lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago Police tend to be the most dangerous and least accurate group of gun owners. Even with the tiny amount of range time police get, you'd be hard pressed to find a worse group to hand guns to. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago Police tend to be the most dangerous and least accurate group of gun owners. Even with the tiny amount of range time police get, you'd be hard pressed to find a worse group to hand guns to. permalink fedilink source parent
