After reading today's editorial in today's paper where Kent Walz claims that standardizing guns that officers carry is a sign of serious "reform", I'm convinced we are in an asylum and where the lunatics are running the city. To call this "reform" is just insane.
So let me talk about this issue with the guns. I didn't carry a department issued weapon because that's what worked for me. But to think that because a department lets others carry different guns somehow creates a status symbol out of the gun is ridiculous. First, in order to carry a different gun you had to complete a transition class, complete and pass the necessary shooting quals, be approved by the rangemaster, and then get the weapon approved by your entire chain of command. So there was oversight and red tape everywhere which suppressed any notion of a status symbol if anything.
Then there are the little hypocritical details in this new "policy." Eden was seen carrying a 1911 style pistol. Bob Huntsman carried an oversized revolver. And the Journal and Walz's favorite chief, Ray Schultz carried a 1911 style pistol.
So if there are "reforms" being done, if we are to be serious about this then start by asking these people about this policy since they didn't seem to care about it.
Then there's the reality which puts this new policy to shame. Some officers are in assignments where they need specialized guns for concealed carry. Or secondary weapons. Then there's the fact that the department issued weapon carries 18 rounds plus one in the chamber whereas a 1911 carries 7 rounds plus one in the chamber. 9mm rounds are also much more likely to overpenetrate their target and go through walls where .45 ACP is a big fat slow round that does not have the same issues as 9mm.
So folks, this is all window dressing and nothing but more of the same by Walz, Eden, Perry, and Berry. Except I don't think Walz even knows what he's talking about. The reality is the new weapon is actually a much more deadly weapon. And really to call it "reform?" Isn't that like calling Ray Schultz ethical?
The bottom line is, our officers need to be allowed to carry whatever best suits them for their protection. The challenges facing APD and the city have nothing to do with officers carrying Kimber 1911 pistols or Sig Sauers or Nighthawks. The challenges have everything to do with a lack of leadership and lack of ownership by the city's executives and the main paper in this town"
P.S. In my haste to get this letter written, I meant I did not carry a department issued Glock. I carried a Glock 23.