[deleted]
[]       And as far as fully-automatic weapons, you can be a lot better
[]armed if you want to hit what you aim at.
[]

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
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.

- A revolver also has the advantage that if it misfires you just pull
  the trigger again.
- A double-action revolver (almost all of them) can be hand-cocked first,
  but will fire merely by pulling the trigger.
- A misfire in a revolver merely means you must pull the trigger again
  to rotate to the next round.
- A revolver can be carried with the 6th chamber empty and under the
  hammer for maximum safety, but still can be drawn and fired with an
  easy motion, even one handed.
- Speedloaders for a revolver allow reloads almost as fast as magazines
  on semi-autos. Can be faster depending on users.

- A misfire in a semi-auto will require you to clear a jammed shell
  first, time spent which can be fatal. And a vital second or so is often
  lost as you realize "hey, it's jammed!" before starting to do anything
  about clearing it.
- Most semi-autos must have the slide worked to chamber the first round
  and cock the hammer. Some police carry their semi-autos with the 
  chamber loaded and hammer cocked, but a safety engaged. I do not consider
  this safe however. You must trade-off safety to get the same speed
  of employment as a revolver.
- There are some double-action semi-autos out there, but the complexity of
  operation of many of them requires more training.

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.

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.

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.
