Anti-Gun Stupidity in Colorado?
"...Next week, the City Council will decide whether to change an ordinance limiting guards to revolvers, and let them use semiautomatic weapons. Law-enforcement officers already carry semiautomatic weapons like the .40-caliber handgun, the 9-mm handgun or the AR-15 9-mm assault rifle."
The article is rife with idiocies, but none more stupid than the essential point, that the Colorado Sprimgs City Council sets arbitrary limits on what arms a security guard can carry. Like every gun control ordinance, this one is not rooted in common sense. If you are asking a guard to place himself (or herself!) in a position where he might have to employ deadly force, then shouldn't he be allowed to choose the weapon that he is most comfortable with?
Note that the article asserts that one is "outgunned" if armed only with a revolver. I don't think so; a .38 or a .357 is a very effective weapon, especially at the conversational distances that characterize most gunfights, and they probably have an edge over semi-automatics at longer ranges. They do require learning and mastering a different set of gunhandling skills, but that's a training issue, not a suitability issue. Remember that volume of fire does not constitute firepower; effective hits constitute firepower. I can't remember who said that-- it may have been Jeff Cooper himself-- but the truth of the matter remains.
The problem here is not that the city council says that you can only use revolvers, but that the city council places any limits at all on the choice of armament. If a security guard carries a .38 Special revolver and an M1 Carbine, but can make these guns perform up to their capabilities, then he's certainly not outgunned. But let him make the choice. It's his life at stake.