What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

From the "women can do it all" file

Members of Scotland Yard's elite bodyguard unit are being armed with smaller, lighter "baby" guns as part of a drive to attract more female officers.

This despite...

It's a disadvantage because the smaller guns have less firepower and are less accurate

and

In a firefight, officers using the "Baby Glock" would have to stop shooting and reload their weapon more frequently than those with the bigger gun.

Now can we stop pretending that bringing women into every sphere of life is a great idea?

HT: VFR

Back-reference to Jeff Culbreath's post here and his follow-up on a pregnant policewoman who got killed here.

Update:
Courtesy of The Masked Rhymster (no relation to the Chicken), herewith a song to be sung to the immortal tune (familiar to all little evangelical children from thirty years ago) of "Only a Boy Named David."

Only a cop named Jenny,
Only a little Glock.
Only a cop named Jenny
With a gun with a trimmed-down stock.
Only a cop named Jenny,
Only a few rounds less.
Only a cop named Jenny,
But she could wear a dress.

And one little round went up in the air,
And the bad guy didn't fall down.
And one little round went up in the air,
And the bad guy didn't fall down.
And another and another and another and another and another and another round, too.
And then her gun was out of lead,
And the cop named Jenny was through.

Comments (30)

"It's a disadvantage because the smaller guns have less firepower and are less accurate"

This may not be an issue. All Glock 9 mm pistols have optional magazine capacities up to 33 rounds. The issue here is the size of the grip. Also there are advantages as to increased concealibility and the standard 11 rounds isn't nothing. As for accuracy we aren't talking about match shooting. Hitting a person sized target at any pistol range shouldn't be a problem for a trained person.

Yeah, that's why they had the minis all along for everyone up until now, because they're just as good or better (easier to conceal). Oh, wait...

I'm not sure what your point is here. Various agencies have always been conservative when it comes to various tech issues and are ofter arbitrary in weapon choices.

Flintlocks persisted well into the percussion era and some U.S. troops in the Spanish-American War were still using .45-70 Springfields. It is now common to see patrol vehicles with m-16s; officers at the Valley bank robbery shootout found themselves out-gunned as did the police whose issue weapons were .32 decades before.

The model 26 is commonly used in this country for police work (back-up, off duty CCW, and plainclothes). In the end, dead is dead, regardless of it resulting from a Model 17 or a Model 26.

Al's so funny. What a wonk.

Al, you're straining at gnats. They _said_ why they were changing, and it wasn't for any reason having to do with, you know, doing _better_ at police work. One of the funniest lines in the story is the one where it says they denied that it had to do with "political correctness." _Instead_ it was part of "a legitimate attempt by the Metropolitan police chiefs to reflect the community better."

That one's to roll around laughing for. What sort of fool says a thing like that? What a contrast: _Not_ political correctness but an attempt to "reflect the community better." Gotta get our newspeak just right. So glad we got that confusion cleared up.

Now, along you come, Al, telling us that it's all for the better after all and trying to convince us that it just _happens_ that this "improvement" in the guns has a _totally unprofessional actual motivation_--i.e., pure feminist recruitment.

Why not give each person the most firepower they can handle?

From the files of Mr. Obvious.

The Chicken

Lydia,

Allow me to take the wind (straw?) out of the sails of at least a few prospective commenters:

You just want to turn back the clock on all the gains that women have made. How are you any different than the Taliban? You want women barefoot and pregnant. "A woman's place is in the kitchen." This isn't the 1950s anymore, I hate to inform you. Gender is mere construct. Gender is everything. Gender is nothing. My body, my choice.

There. That should take of it.

~~~they denied that it had to do with "political correctness." _Instead_ it was part of "a legitimate attempt by the Metropolitan police chiefs to reflect the community better."~~~

That's what we call a tautology in these here parts.

"Al's so funny. What a wonk."

"Al, you're straining at gnats."

Au contraire, I'm interested in the nuts and bolts of this. I really don't care what dreck some pr flack came up with and I certainly don't take at face value anything that comes out of some News Corp hack shop.

This thing has become yet another example of conservative bloggers getting their cues from some Murdock rag and running with some sort of second order analysis.

1. The general incompetence of the MSM goes triple for the News Corp. folks. We actually don't know the full statements by the principles, hence we are in no position to play the PC card.

2. How about explaining how having members of a security team that don't look like stereotypical security folks makes a potential target less safe.

3. It's the bullet that kills you. Glock 17, 19, 26, and 34s all fire the same cartridge. BTW, and again focusing on the media problem, what if the agency is also allowing the Model 19? Calibers should be standardized but personnel should be allowed reasonable variation based on what works for them ( understanding that "reasonable" will vary by agency mission).

Everyone here has missed perhaps the most important part of this story: Glocks!? Seriously?

As for the difference between a compact and full sized 9mm, its better for concealing, and is inferior in all other aspects. Yes, the bullet is what kills, but can't kill if it misses, or kills the wrong person. Furthermore, the bullet does not magically achieve the velocity it was designed for, as it must accelerate within the barrel. Shortening the barrel reduces velocity, which reduces the firepower.

While women on average have smaller hands, that doesn't make the full sized handgun unwieldy or clumsy in their hands. I have seen plenty of women use 9mm and 45's quite competently. As it stands, I cannot see female police officers be anything but insulted by this deliberate act of liberal patronization. Yes, that is correct, the likes of "al" are perhaps the most sexist in this regard, because they assume that women faint at the sight of a scary handgun. Sure, there are fewer women in the police, but that doesn't mean those who consider such a career are scared of the firearms used by the boys. It is only arrogant liberals who presume that by handicapping the larger (for a 9mm) handgun to appease these hypothetical swooning damsels, that vast multitudes of them will swell their ranks.

As for stereotypical security staff, there are already some women in it. You don't need numerical parity to utilize those women who aren't intimidated by the ...ahem... full sized 9mm. Replacing every square jawed male man in plain-clothes with a square jawed woman does not change that half of the population is male, and its difficult for a would be assassin to be entirely isolated from men. This does bring me to question just how often a police officer, wholly by the fact that she was a woman, managed to prevent an assassination.

I suppose that when this initiative fails, and it will, Scotland Yard will need adopt the .22 as its new standard.

Now can we stop pretending that bringing women into every sphere of life is a great idea?

I happen to agree, but think this story better supports the observation that it's a really bad idea to nerf areas of a sphere so that you will have more women.

Leave stuff [language edit LM] alone as much as possible, admit those women who can cut it, and don't assume the best of people.

Thing is, though, the people in charge always _do_ "nerf" things to get more women. Here's the pattern, as I see it: First admitting women into some area is sold on the grounds that it's _just_ gonna be the women who can cut it, same as the men, etc. So we ignore all the morale, bonding, male-protective-instinct, stuff (and there's more) to bring women into that area. But very rapidly it turns out that there are very few women who really can literally cut it at the original level, same as the men. After all, most fire departments used to have plain, absolute requirements for height until the courts told them they had to toss those out because they would (of course) mean that almost no women were admitted to the fire departments. So it really never takes very long for the areas to be dumbed-down, requirements loosened up, etc.,--that is, for the bait and switch to become apparent. Then it just progresses from there, because usually just tossing one requirement (height, say) doesn't get them as many women as they wanted. The premise in the back of the minds of the social engineers was that if they just got rid of "discrimination" things would start working out at rough proportional equality. But that was all hogwash, and when that comes to light, they have to massage things, because whatever is getting in the way of equality of outcome is treated as pretty much _by definition_ "discrimination."

At this point, in Scotland Yard's elite unit, previously normal gun size is just the next thing in line to go.

You forgot that it's not just women-- it's any group they've decided are victims.

Baseline philosophy difference. I think all folks are morally equal. They seem to think all folks are the same.

(You do know that word is totally made up, right? Well, except for when it's a last name.... I can use "frell" if you prefer.)

"previously normal gun size is just the next thing in line to go."

There is no such thing as "normal" gun size just as there is no normal hammer size or normal wrench size. A firearm is a tool and one uses the one that fits the job and the user. Acting as if expanding the range of options to the Model 26 is a big deal is silly. Question - does the Yard already allow the use of the Model 19? I don't know and likely neither do you but if the 19 is already allowed along with the 17 then adding the 26 is really no big deal. BTW the USAF allows the M19 to be used. If only the M17 is allowed what is your evidence against that decision being arbitrary?

Patrick, read closer. I in no way suggested that women should have to use the smaller gun. It should be obvious from what I wrote that the gun should be matched to the person and the job. Some things are individual - a former girlfriend used to like to shoot my .44 mag. James Bond fought the Evil Empire with a .380.

There should be about a 5% velocity drop from the M17 - no big deal - the bullet needs to stop inside anyway.

Here's what they're talking about, I think:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:43gGWN6r53Td_M:http://www.cffb.net/images/2650101.jpg

The miniglock has a stubby grip, where your finger will be off the bottom. Never could stand that in a pistol, even for CCW. I always had either a 1911 or compact 9milli if the weather was too hot.

I would think that the shorter grip would be a disadvantage for women who would be more comfortable with a full, solid grip.

Foxfier, sure I know it's made up, but it's a made up euphemism for a particularly bad word that should be ditched, not replaced. I'm happy for you to use "dickens" or "heck" as in "leave things the dickens alone." :-)

I can't imagine why anyone would want a femme bodyguard, especially one that can't handle a normal sized pistol. It isn't inconceivable that a bodyguard might have to get physical at some point.

It isn't inconceivable that a bodyguard might have to get physical at some point.

Eh, this is the UK we're talking about. A VIP is more likely to get bombed by the local jihad factory than anything else. Size of gun matters little in that case, I suppose.

Which brings up a question: Is this whole thing moot when, one day, the Vizier of the Home Office bans women from all police work in accordance with sharia law?

The Masked Rhymster opined,

"And one little round went up in the air,
And the bad guy didn't fall down..."

Rhymster, are you asserting that one can take multiple hits with 9mm HPs? Please explain how using the same cartridge in a different gun would produce a different result. You are aware that both guns fire the same cartridge?

So I stood there and faced the bad guy, and I said to him, "Look out. I'm holding a _bullet_ in my hand. And it's the _same caliber bullet_ that they use in a Glock. And if you don't stop right there, I'm going to _throw it at you_." So the bad guy didn't stop, and I threw it at him and missed, and I said, as I went down for the count, "I can't understand it. I was firing the same cartridge."

"'I can't understand it. I was firing the same cartridge.'"

Lydia, precision can be useful. I don't know about you, but I would differentiate between "throw" and "fire".

I assumed your poet was either writing about the effects of firing the same cartridge in two different pistols or the whole "baby" thing led him to assume a difference in cartridges (e.g. a weapon firing .25 ACP ammo which, assuming the target had a heavy coat, would likely just anger him). Your poet isn't clear.

Also it seems to me that if you are now discussing throwing as opposed to actually using a firearm, you are clearly lacking much of a case.

I believe the poet was referring to the accuracy issue. Your "good enough for government work" and "hey, it isn't a marksmanship match" response on that was less than overpoweringly convincing.

I count eight shots from our poem and so our agent still has three left (M26 = 11 rounds, standard mag) but that is besides the point as anyone scoring eight straight misses at any likely range wouldn't have been there as she wouldn't have qualified on the range (you are aware that these folks do have to practice and qualify regularly?).

No one expects MOA shooting in a firefight and it isn't necessary anyway as the vital area on an adult human isn't small. Also, given that the M17, 19, and 26 are quality arms, individual skill levels as opposed to the minor differences (within the parameters of any likely firefight) in sight line would be the controlling factor. Accuracy is a moot point as I have already pointed out because our agent wouldn't have qualified with the M26 and she wouldn't be there.

Then it should be discriminatory if male officers aren't given the opportunity to use the compacts.

A firefight is an intense and chaotic situation. That goes without saying. If it were as easy as paper targets set to choreography, perhaps things might be different. Let me state however, that a "baby" 9mm has less accuracy, less capacity, and greater recoil. Yes, I said recoil, that thing that can harm accuracy in a firefight more than calibrated MOA. When the lives of those a police officer protects, including his or her own, and the prospect of increasing the chance of shooting air, or worse the wrong person is increased, how does the police win in this?

Yes, al's former girlfriend fired a .44, and that's great. I've seen women and youth also use a .454 and a .50 respectively - it can be done. Heck, I'm partial to revolvers, as they tend to be more accurate and are far less likely to jam. That, however, is another topic entirely. It is also another topic entirely why Britain's best would so much as touch a Glock in cold blood. This is also not about fitting the handgun to the officer - as I doubt Scotland Yard is willing to bend to the desires of a revolver or the use of a .40 S&W (I guess they are that set on global warming).

What is central in this issue is whether the opportunity cost of a reduction in size, mass, and capacity of a firearm is a worthy sacrifice compared to the hypothetical draw of women who are considering joining the police. The answer is no. Any woman who is worth putting on the force is more than capable of passing the very low hurdle of grasping onto and firing competently a ...ahem... full sized 9mm handgun. Any women, if they even exist, who would like to join the police, yet are intimidated by the fearsome size of a 9mm, are either mad or lack the confidence to leave home in the first place.

Seriously, you don't need piano hands to properly operate the darn thing, it's not that difficult.

What is central in this issue is whether the opportunity cost of a reduction in size, mass, and capacity of a firearm is a worthy sacrifice compared to the hypothetical draw of women who are considering joining the police. The answer is no.

Very well put.

Thank you Lydia.

I suppose that if I must be subjected to the chthonic horrors of "Lean Manufacturing" for eleven hours a day, six days a week, I may as well use it against itself. I suppose the verbal jujitsu carried on to here. I think it's time for a retreat....

"What is central in this issue is whether the opportunity cost of a reduction in size, mass, and capacity of a firearm is a worthy sacrifice compared to the hypothetical draw of women who are considering joining the police. The answer is no."

All of this is relative, of course, as your bringing the .40 SW into the discussion demonstrates. Recall the .40 SW exists because the FBI decided the 10mm was too powerful and requires too large a frame (Glock also manufactures three sizes in their ,40

You have asserted opportunity cost not demonstrated it. Even if you have quantified things, F = ma is hardly dispositive. The ability to properly grip a handgun is far more important to control than marginal differences in recoil and muzzle blast. That is why there is a large after-market in grips, stocks, and sights.

I would hope that the Brits train security personnel well beyond the mere punching of holes in paper.

BTW, from the story.

"The self-loading pistol has a magazine that is double-stacked in a zigzag formation and requires a wide gun butt."

"The replacement weapon for women officers and those with smaller hands is believed to be the "sub-compact" version, the Glock 26."

"Marketed by its Austrian manufacturer as the "Baby Glock", the gun has a single magazine with 10 bullets and therefore requires a smaller butt."

This is a strange statement as the width of the butt is the same - 30mm and Glock magazines are downwards interchangeable (i.e. M17 & M19 mags can be used in a M26).

As the story also noted SY doesn't discuss weapons in detail, the "believed" could well include the mid-sized M19, which as I have already pointed out, is used by the USAF.

Again, taking anything from a News Corp source at face value is risky. The story clearly focused on the M26 and the "baby" term in order to stoke the culture wars so beloved by social conservatives.

I do recall the origin of the .40 S&W, and the irony was not lost to me when I mentioned it, however the satire was lost to you it seems. As explaining the joke is its final death, I'll let you ponder it for a while longer.

Women, on average, have smaller hands, yet they somehow manage to survive in this cruel world as well as the boys. The 9mm is hardly a Procrustean bed that you make it out to be. The logic that you use to require a smaller handgun for those with smaller hands, there is no mention of improvements for those with larger hands. Sure, there are custom grips, but that only goes so far. Are these tragically large-handed people exiled into the darkness, away from police work and urology?

News Corp is not some magic taint of bad reporting, at least any more so than the Sulzberger family.

As for stoking the culture wars, conservatives are far from alone in this. It but a few posts ago that you were nearly waxing poetic with images of female hordes crushing the foul stereotypes of old by once again handicapping in the name of equality.

Ponder, ponder...sorry I don't get it.

"The 9mm is hardly a Procrustean bed that you make it out to be."

??? Its the NATO round and the .455 is obsolete.

"The logic that you use to require a smaller handgun for those with smaller hands..."

Again, I assume and would advocate that the agent can use the model that fits best. No requirement. I'm for choice, remember.

"Are these tragically large-handed people exiled into the darkness, away from police work and urology?"

Awww, let them use .45s (or10mm).

After Raines and Judith Miller as well as Brooks and Kristol I would agree. Krugman does redeem things somewhat. The WP has also slid downhill. News Corp is still in a class of its own.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.