In article <1qie2rINN1b9@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) says: > [stuff deleted. all mine]  >Define "armed better". Go shoot a revolver and a semi-auto like the >Colt .45. Does one fires faster than the other? Nope. Aside from which >faster rate of fire is usually not desirable. Sure it makes the other >guys duck for cover, but just *YOU* trying hitting anything with a Thompson >in hose-mode. This is why the military is limiting it's M-16 now to  Aw come on.  It worked great in the 1920's (or the movie version of the '20s anyways) :-)  >3-round burst-fire. Simple semi-auto would be better, but the troops >like to be able to rock and roll even if it is wasteful of ammo (something >often in short supply when the enemy is plentiful). > >A revolver is equally capable as a semi-auto in the same caliber. > [stuff deleted about how revolvers are just as good as semi-autos]  All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as I am not really familiar enough with handguns.  >Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly >switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having >accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks >require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex >as the timer on a VCR.  Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety. > >Anyone who goes anyone saying that the criminals obviously outgun >the police don't know nothing about firearms. Turn off COPS and Hunter >and pay attention. I do not seek here to say "semi-autos are junk" >merely that assuming they are better for all jobs is stupid. A cop >with a revolver on his hip and a shotgun in the rack is more than >equipped for anything short of a riot. > Actually I don't watch those shows :-)  And you're right (at least partially). I don't know much about handguns.  I'm more familiar with rifles.  >Gun control is hitting what you aim at. If you whip out a >wonder-nine and fire real fast you may find you don't hit anything. >Good controlled fire from a revolver is more likely to get you a hit. >I own a 9mm Beretta myself but consider it inferior as a carry weapon >to something like the Ruger Security Six revolver. If I haven't hit >what I'm aiming at in the first 5 shots, something is quite seriously >wrong somewheres. While I might like having the backup capacity of those >extra shots in certain cases, overwhelmingly the # of shots fired in >criminal encounters is less than 5. > >What do crooks overwhelmingly use in crime? Why the same nice simple >.38 revolvers that the police often use. Well actually some police >prefer the much heftier .357 Magnum, but anyway..... > >ObPlea: Don't flame me, I prefer semi-autos for most things. But they >        introduce unneccessary complications to something as nerve-wracking >        as an abrupt encounter with a lone criminal. > >-- >"If everything had gone as planned, everything would have been perfect." > -BATF spokesperson on CNN 3/2/93, regarding failed raid attempt in TX.  No flames here.  All your points are well taken.  Guess I still have a lot to learn but thanks to this discussion I already am :-)  Guess I assume too many things like more bullets are better and that sort of thing.  Of course you know what happens when you assume ......... :-)