NYPD hit their target only 18% of the time. Avoiding hitting innocent bystanders not that easy

[Quixote1818]

Note: This article is from 2013 but there is nothing to indicate their accuracy has gone up since then.

Ready, Fire, Aim: The Science Behind Police Shooting Bystanders
A Saturday incident in Times Square showed yet again that even highly trained police are not always accurate marksmen

Snip> On Saturday night in New York City’s Times Square, police opened fire on a man who was walking erratically into oncoming traffic and, when approached by law enforcement, reached into his pocket as if he were grabbing a weapon. The officers fired three shots. One hit a 54-year-old woman in the knee and another grazed a 35-year-old woman’s buttocks. None hit the suspect, whom police subsequently subdued with a taser.

Snip> According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department’s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time.

Snip> The data show what any police officer who has ever been involved in a shooting can tell you–firing accurately in a stressful situation is extremely hard.

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/ready-fire-aim-the-science-behind-police-shooting-bystanders/

[Sophia4]

1. Teachers already have the responsiblity for organizing their students in emergencies

to the extent possible. To expect them to line their students up, to get them to cover maybe in a closet or out a window and also focus on shooting a gunman is absolutely insane. It's totally unrealistic.

And banning the sale of specific types of guns to people under 21 would have done nothing to stop the shooter in Las Vegas.

Most of us no longer live on the range or in the wilderness or somewhere where we can hunt or where we have no law enforcement protection. We don't need high-powered guns. We need to be safe from high-powered guns.

It also is absurd to think that depriving people identified with mental illness from having guns will solve our problem. First, people who have emotional problems are usually not all that dangerous. Second, people who are angry at their wives or girlfriends or angry for some strange reason are not always people who have been identified as mentally ill. Third, most people who are identified as mentally ill are probably not dangerous in the sense that they would shoot someone. That's a prejudice that would be worsened if we just increase background checks.

I could go on and on but the only way to stop the gun violence is to pass laws that ban certain guns and certain attachments to guns.

If we have to change the Constitution to do it. So be it. Enough is enough.

Hunters should be allowed to have hunting rifles. And anyone else who wants a gun should have to go through a rigorous examination that includes making sure they have never abused their family members or significant others and are extremely responsible.

[BigmanPigman]

2. Every word!!!!!

[PJMcK]

5. Schwartzenegger did all of that in "Kindergarten Cop"

Just kidding.

What parent would want a gun in their child's classroom?

What teacher would want a gun in their classroom?

This is insanity.

[Revanchist]

3. At the risk of sounding like a "gun nut"

One of the main factors of the NYPD accuracy is the trigger pull that the department chose. The standard glock has a 5lb trigger while the force uses a 12lb trigger, meaning there is a greater likely hood of the shooter missing.

[safeinOhio]

4. Also making

accidental discharge less likely.