Should Law Enforcement be armed with rifles & arms other than pistols? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Should Law Enforcement be armed with rifles & arms other than pistols?


Pages : [1] 2 3

PlayboyPenguin
01-24-2011, 22:12
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I have concerns with the current trends of militarizing law enforcement agencies. I do not feel law enforcement agencies should be made into small armies. SWAT teams and special response units are one thing, but turning every Joe Squadcar into a highly armed mercenary carrying rifles and other heavier arms is not a good idea IMHO.

TBO
01-24-2011, 22:15
Why? :dunno:

PlayboyPenguin
01-24-2011, 22:25
Why? :dunno:
The purpose of law enforcement is to enforce the law, not to wage war on the populace. Militarized police forces and free societies have a bad historical record of coexisting. With what little oversight that exists inside of most agencies, allowing militarization tends to lead to miltant behavior. It is a direct danger to freedom and liberty of the average citizen.

RussP
01-24-2011, 22:28
I moved this here from a thread in Carry Issues. And, no, I did not ask the OP if he wanted it moved.

It seems a timely topic considering the events of January.

Warp
01-24-2011, 22:30
LEOs should have access to rifles.

Speaking specifically to my state and it's laws...if I can drive around with a rifle in my car there is no good reason a LEO shouldn't be able to do the same.

TBO
01-24-2011, 22:33
I have concerns with the current trends of militarizing law enforcement agencies. I do not feel law enforcement agencies should be made into small armies. SWAT teams and special response units are one thing, but turning every Joe Squadcar into a highly armed mercenary carrying rifles and other heavier arms is not a good idea IMHO.
Why? :dunno:
The purpose of law enforcement is to enforce the law, not to wage war on the populace. Militarized police forces and free societies have a bad historical record of coexisting. With what little oversight that exists inside of most agencies, allowing militarization tends to lead to miltant behavior. It is a direct danger to freedom and liberty of the average citizen.
Are "black rifles" evil?

Hack
01-24-2011, 22:33
Although you may have concerns about that appearance, perhaps you should be more concerned with armed thugs having the same or similar access to targeting you with said weaponry and you yourself being unprepared for a response to people who would target you with such weaponry, eh?

Thugs do not care about appearances except that they intimidate people, and are better armed than their opposition, which for them includes law enforcement.

The-Fly
01-24-2011, 22:34
Non copper here.

My 2 cents - Why would I want to restrict LE from carrying the most effective firearms possible during an incident?

Hell I'd love to keep my AR in the car if it wasn't for theft concerns.

PlayboyPenguin
01-24-2011, 22:35
Are "black rifles" evil?
No more so than pink ones or green ones. It is not the rifles that are the issue. It is the miltarization of organizations that have few oversights and tend to be very closed in their internal operations.

I m in no way anti-LEO. My history here clearly backs up the fact I am not a disgruntled ex-cop. I am very supportive of the entire field. I just am very aware of possible abuses and historical reference.

How did this become a thread started by me? I did not start this thread. Did I hit a wrong button or something. I was responding to a post in another thread.

PlayboyPenguin
01-24-2011, 22:36
I moved this here from a thread in Carry Issues. And, no, I did not ask the OP if he wanted it moved.

It seems a timely topic considering the events of January.
Taa Daa...I have my answer. :)

Hack
01-24-2011, 22:37
No more so than pink ones or green ones. It is not the rifles that are the issue. It is the miltarization of organizations that have few oversights and tend to be very closed in their internal operations.

How did this become a thread started by me? I did not start this thread. Did I hit a wrong button or something. I was responding to a post in another thread.

See post #4.

Happy Hunting
01-24-2011, 22:38
After some of the shady characters I saw leaving a gun show with SKS's and Mini-14's under their arms I absolutely want the cops to have AR's or shotguns, or better yet both, in their squad cars.

jnc36rcpd
01-24-2011, 22:39
What is your concern about rifles? Rifles would seem to make LEO's more accurate in shooting and have less over-penetration than many pistol rounds. What "heavier arms" than rifles are patrol officers carrying?

"Mercenary"? That's a provocative term. Do you have some objection to former U.S. military and law enforcement personnel who now work for private military companies? I've spent thirty years being paid and treated...well, by people like you...who hate me and hold me in contempt. What is your issue with those who have had the good judgement to seek employment elsewhere? They are still defending...well, again, people like you...and are now being well-compensated for their service. If you find that objectionable, it is unfortunate you cannot invent a time machine to transport yourself back in time to sound the warning before cutbacks in the military that require "mercenaries".

Thank you for your comment and have a good day.

Hack
01-24-2011, 22:41
After some of the shady characters I saw leaving a gun show with SKS's and Mini-14's under their arms I absolutely want the cops to have AR's or shotguns, or better yet both, in their squad cars.

If I had my way every cop would be armed routinely with side arms and at least have the M16 A2 in their squad, along with a Remington 870 loaded with at minimum 00 Buck back by slugs.

RussP
01-24-2011, 22:44
...It is the miltarization of organizations that have few oversights and tend to be very closed in their internal operations.

I m in no way anti-LEO. My history here clearly backs up the fact I am not a disgruntled ex-cop. I am very supportive of the entire field. I just am very aware of possible abuses and historical reference...So in your mind it is okay for bad guys and criminals to be armed with rifles, but not law enforcement.

RussP
01-24-2011, 22:45
If I had my way every cop would be armed routinely with side arms and at least have the M16 A2 in their squad, along with a Remington 870 loaded with at minimum 00 Buck back by slugs.:thumbsup:

PlayboyPenguin
01-24-2011, 22:46
So in your mind it is okay for bad guys and criminals to be armed with rifles, but not law enforcement.
Are you actually seeing a great deal of crimes committed with rifles? Are you seeing bands of criminals armed with AR's roaming the streets? Are we actually seeing common occurences of law enforcement out gunned by perps armed with semi-auto rifles or is that pretty much just played up by the media?

TBO
01-24-2011, 22:47
No more so than pink ones or green ones. It is not the rifles that are the issue. It is the miltarization of organizations that have few oversights and tend to be very closed in their internal operations.

I m in no way anti-LEO. My history here clearly backs up the fact I am not a disgruntled ex-cop. I am very supportive of the entire field. I just am very aware of possible abuses and historical reference.

How did this become a thread started by me? I did not start this thread. Did I hit a wrong button or something. I was responding to a post in another thread.
Perhaps you could list specifics, instead of generalizations.

RussP
01-24-2011, 22:48
Are you actually seeing a great deal of crimes committed with rifles? Are you seeing bands of criminals armed with AR's roaming the streets? Are we actually seeing common occurences of law enforcement out gunned by perps armed with semi-auto rifles or is that pretty much just played up by the media?Oh, and PlayboyPenguin, see my avatar? Those two patches represent two cops killed this morning by a criminal with a rifle.

Just FYI...

OFCJIM40
01-24-2011, 22:49
Playboy, to be quite honest, I couldn't car less about your concern, and your "concern" quite frankly is asinine. There are heavily armed bad guys out there, and the Patrol Officer is the first on scene, and the myth of SWAT teams falling from the sky to save the day is a myth. The first Officers on scene to an active situation IS the "SWAT Team" at that moment. A badguy doesn't have to be armed with a rifle for me to take out a rifle. If badguy has a handgun, then with a rifle I have time, opportunity and distance to my advantage. Not to mention accuracy is far superior using a rifle instead of handgun. I'm allowed to bring out bigger "toys" than the badguy might have. I'm under no obligation to go tit-for-tat and only pull out the level of weapon the badguy has. I am going home safe, I am protecting the public, and I will have superior firepower available if I need it. If someone gets their panty's in a bunch over the "appearance" of it, go pound, you aren't going through the door with me. As I'm rushing into danger, you are running in the other direction. Sorry, not your moment to be comcerned anymore.

PlayboyPenguin
01-24-2011, 22:51
Oh, and PlayboyPenguin, see my avatar? Those two patches represent two cops killed this morning by a criminal with a rifle.

Just FYI...
So should thatrifle be made illegal because of a rare misuse?

Take a look at the history of miltarized police forces in other countries and the corruption that they breed. Then remember the word of B. Franklin about liberty. Allowing yourself to be spooked into allowing any government organization too much power for fear of possible dangers is not the best idea.

The Fist Of Goodness
01-24-2011, 22:53
http://www.odmp.org/officer/19359-sergeant-stephen-liczbinski

You don't need a rifle until you need one badly. Sgt Liczbinski worked in Philadelphia, where patrol officers were not, until very recently, given access to long guns (and those were privately purchased by a concerned citizen).

P.S. I'm not sure if the privately purchased shotguns were ever deployed.

TBO
01-24-2011, 22:56
PlayboyPenguin,
Should "black rifles" be banned because they look menacing?

OFCJIM40
01-24-2011, 22:57
Yeah, an AR will turn the Police Department into a corrupt and militarizing entity. Time for you to go to Costco and buy more tinfoil because you must be running low. Let's wake up, I believe NINE Cops have been shot over the past day. It's a violent world, and the Police need the tools to deal with this violence.

CAcop
01-24-2011, 22:58
Up until the 1980s the officers in my department were forbidden from having long guns in their car.

There was an Lt. with 2 M2 Carbines with 30 round mags duct taped together in the trunk of his car. Literally guns of war. I guess my PD has been miltarized since the 1970s.

Grow up the police need rifles and shotguns. If you can't handle it hold onto your teddy bear just a little tighter tonight.

RussP
01-24-2011, 22:58
So should thatrifle be made illegal because of a rare misuse?Where did you pull that from? It is already illegal to kill somone with a firearm. No, just give LE whatever it takes to level the playing field.Take a look at the history of miltarized police forces in other countries and the corruption that they breed.Which countries are you talking about?Then remember the word of B. Franklin about liberty. Allowing yourself to be spooked into allowing any government organization too much power for fear of possible dangers is not the best idea.How does giving LE adequate weapons to defend themselves ...nevermind.:faint:

ateamer
01-24-2011, 22:59
A militarized police force is one where the police are an arm of the military, answering to the military chain of command. Law enforcement officers wearing pants with leg pockets, having something more than a pistol available and using tactics developed some time past the 1890s does not make them military, especially when they still answer to the local voters via their chiefs and sheriffs. If you really think that clothing or weapons equates membership in the military, there is no point in anyone having further discussions with you.

The Fist Of Goodness
01-24-2011, 22:59
I'll worry about militarization of the Police when they start issuing crew served weapons and grenades.

Sgt127
01-24-2011, 23:01
The irony here is a rather delicious. I am so used to threads where people seem to think the cops have all the cool toys, and, they want what we have. When, in reality, we have much the same that they have. And now, the question is asked if WE should be allowed to have them. Really?

Other than the time I spent on SWAT, about ten years, and was issued an MP5, my Colt AR is no fancier or sexier than the guns you have access to. Since we seem to be getting shot at quite a bit by people with rifles, we think its a pretty good idea to have the same weapon the bad guys have.

Where did the idea get started that we are becoming more militarized anyway? We have a hell of alot less firepower than the guys did back in the 30's when Thompsans and BARS were pretty popular with the cops. I have no desire whatsoever to make any one out there my subject or force them into internment camps.

ateamer
01-24-2011, 23:02
There are military units that use shotguns. The military also has uniforms that incorporate pressed shirts, metal insignia, Class A pants, polished shoes and a hat. I guess that makes every law enforcement in America a member of the military.

Oh, and your insinuation that the American military is corrupt and would serve to oppress the nation is a slap in the face to every member of the military, past and present.

RussP
01-24-2011, 23:02
PlayboyPenguin, read this...http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/24/authorities-fear-cops-targeted-officers-shot-hours/?test=latestnews

Fernman
01-24-2011, 23:04
So should thatrifle be made illegal because of a rare misuse?

Take a look at the history of miltarized police forces in other countries and the corruption that they breed. Then remember the word of B. Franklin about liberty. Allowing yourself to be spooked into allowing any government organization too much power for fear of possible dangers is not the best idea.

By all means, don't carry one when you come do this job. I will respect your personal decision and commitment to your belief.

I will respect it from behind hard cover, with my long rifle and my 870. I'll let you show me how it's done while you go get the bad guy that's meth-ed out with grand-dad's .270

Or maybe when you are tasked to capture or put-down the very large, very angry bull that escaped a livestock show into an urban area, you can demonstrate how to safely and efficiently do so with your sidearm. I will gladly let you jump in ahead.

The vagueness of your posts (lacking specific examples) and generalization that simply having access to long guns is some how a "militarization", betrays your ignorance to the true nature of law enforcement.

msu_grad_121
01-24-2011, 23:07
Are you actually seeing a great deal of crimes committed with rifles? Are you seeing bands of criminals armed with AR's roaming the streets? Are we actually seeing common occurences of law enforcement out gunned by perps armed with semi-auto rifles or is that pretty much just played up by the media?

Seriously? After what just went down at Detroit's Northwest precinct, you're gonna ask that question?

I don't know about anyone else here, but I know every time I drew my pistol, I had ALL KINDS of garbage I had to fill out as to why I felt threatened enough to deploy possible deadly force, so I can only imagine what would happen if I were to deploy an AR.

I'm just not seeing a problem with street cops deploying long guns at all, seeing as OFCJIM40 pointed out, it's called the one-plus-one theory. He brings a knife, you bring a gun; he brings a pistol, you bring an AR; that's the Chicago way...oh wait... Sorry, Lawman :tongueout:

As for the "militarization" aspect, the AR is the obvious choice seeing as so many people in the LE field have previous military experience, and are intimately familiar with it.

In summation, I think your concerns are completely unfounded. That's just my opinion, tho.

PlayboyPenguin
01-24-2011, 23:08
Yeah, an AR will turn the Police Department into a corrupt and militarizing entity. Time for you to go to Costco and buy more tinfoil because you must be running low. Let's wake up, I believe NINE Cops have been shot over the past day. It's a violent world, and the Police need the tools to deal with this violence.
So you feel it is a good idea to keep playing the "one up" game and arming law enforcement with heavier and heavier weaponry everytime they claim they are outgunned? At what point do you stop?

Also, do you really believe heavily armed criminals are actually a common threat? Is gun violence so out of control that we need to turn law enforcement agencies into armies to deal with the violence? Is the media correct about guns being such a big problem?

Shotguns have been standard in most vehicles since I was on the road. I see no reason to move to military style weapons.

Citing one or two people being killed by a rifle does not consititue a large enough threat to create a possibly bigger threat. Any LEO understands they are far more at risk from the small handgun they do not see than they are being gunned down by thugs with AR's.

RyanNREMTP
01-24-2011, 23:09
I want the police to have the weapons needed to protect my kids' school.


You know Columbine comes to mind.

Sam Spade
01-24-2011, 23:10
Ah, for a return to the Golden Days of Yesteryear....

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2761/4522698375_b0d9acbcbe_z.jpg

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/1B87A149-3D73-4FA8-9791-D04135FD3742/U168281INP.jpg

packsaddle
01-24-2011, 23:11
Try rolling up on a shots fired call in the country at night with just a handgun.

Might as well be a slingshot in your holster.

FM12
01-24-2011, 23:13
What OFCJIM40 has stated. Ask the LAPD after and during the fouled up North Hollywood bank shoot-out and fiasco.

Hack
01-24-2011, 23:14
So you feel it is a good idea to keep playing the "one up" game and arming law enforcement with heavier and heavier weaponry everytime they claim they are outgunned? At what point do you stop?

Also, do you really believe heavily armed criminals are actually a common threat? Is gun violence so out of control that we need to turn law enforcement agencies into armies to deal with the violence? Is the media correct about guns being such a big problem?

Shotguns have been standard in most vehicles since I was on the road. I see no reason to move to military style weapons.

Citing one or two people being killed by a rifle does not consititue a large enough threat to create a possibly bigger threat. Any LEO understands they are far more at risk from the small handgun they do not see than they are being gunned down by thugs with AR's.

Tell us about your law enforcement and military experience, or at least one of them. When you are out gunned and ready for back up let these people on here know about your experiences.

PlayboyPenguin
01-24-2011, 23:17
What OFCJIM40 has stated. Ask the LAPD after and during the fouled up North Hollywood bank shoot-out and fiasco.
So I take most in this thread are taking the position that gun violence is really as out of hand as the media portrays it. You actually think these rare occurences account for a substantial amount of LEO injuries and really are a major problem in this country. And you also feel it is okay to give more power to a government agency to feel safer. Is that correct?

TBO
01-24-2011, 23:18
Does it matter how something/someone looks, or how they conduct themselves?

glockurai
01-24-2011, 23:18
The purpose of law enforcement is to enforce the law, not to wage war on the populace. Militarized police forces and free societies have a bad historical record of coexisting. With what little oversight that exists inside of most agencies, allowing militarization tends to lead to miltant behavior. It is a direct danger to freedom and liberty of the average citizen.

I'm not sure why I'm responding to this since common sense should dictate why police agencies use ARs and shotguns. How can the law be enforced without the adequate tools? :upeyes: Would you go to a rifle fight with a pistol? There's a difference between brave and stupid.
As for the militant behavior please cite a specific example here in the U.S.
The reason some police forces in other countries have had a bad relation with the general population is because of the government backed lack of respect for human rights and corruption at the highest levels.

Sam Spade
01-24-2011, 23:25
Note the list of departments with fully automatic weapons in this 1920s ad:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VsPSgPTQicc/SYs9YhROQ4I/AAAAAAAAAXc/woh2wwrMgpk/s1600/5.jpg

This photo dates to 1918:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3601/3444400840_1a08429280.jpg

groovyash
01-24-2011, 23:25
So you feel it is a good idea to keep playing the "one up" game and arming law enforcement with heavier and heavier weaponry everytime they claim they are outgunned? At what point do you stop?


You are starting out with the flawed assertion that law enforcement is suddenly starting to use "military" weapons.

In 1790 Constables carried around military rifles and pistols

In 1870 Frontier lawmen were using military rifles and handguns

In 1934 Frank Hamer ambushed and killed Bonnie and Clyde using *gasp* BARs OMGThinkoftheChildren!&^@ (P.S. they even used a military tactic)

In the 1960s My department was carrying surplus M2 carbines...guess where we got them.

Your historical view is false, therefore any conclusion you make upon it concerning "change" is inherently false.

But even if we completely ignore the facts, your assertion that somehow equipment constitutes "militarization" is obviously false. Contrary to what you seem to imply police use police tactics, and rules of engagement. We have not become "militarized."

On the contrary current CQB tactics were developed largely by Police first and then adapted by the military in the last 30 years not the other way around. Unless you see many police operations that involve open air infantry movements somewhere I don't.

CAcop
01-24-2011, 23:26
So you feel it is a good idea to keep playing the "one up" game and arming law enforcement with heavier and heavier weaponry everytime they claim they are outgunned? At what point do you stop?When they stop trying to kill us.

Also, do you really believe heavily armed criminals are actually a common threat? Is gun violence so out of control that we need to turn law enforcement agencies into armies to deal with the violence? Is the media correct about guns being such a big problem?So who is going to stop the occaisional suspect with a rifle? You? You couldn't handle being a cop so you got out. It's not my fault you can't do it yourself.

Shotguns have been standard in most vehicles since I was on the road. I see no reason to move to military style weapons.Shotguns have also been used in the military since the Revolutionary War. Washington recommended "buck and ball" loads for his troops. During WWI the US Govt. handed out pump guns loaded with buckshot to clear the trenches. Shotguns were used to blast Japanese in jungle fighting. They were used in Vietnam for the same purpose, often by pointmen first to see the enemy. They are attached to rifles and used to blow doors off in Iraq and Afganistan.
so guess what? SHOTGUNS ARE MILITARY WEAPONS. You can close your ears and go "na-na-na-na-na-na-na" but it is the truth.

Citing one or two people being killed by a rifle does not consititue a large enough threat to create a possibly bigger threat.What's the bigger threat? Any LEO understands they are far more at risk from the small handgun they do not see than they are being gunned down by thugs with AR's.I remember when we had a report of a man blasting shotgun in the middle of the street in a bad hood every single person on my shift pulled out an MP5 which was our issued long gun.

For the record my PD went with ARs because we wanted to pentrate body armor a la North Hollywood. We would be waiting for a SWAT team for at least an hour if we didn't have ARs in cars. That is unacceptable for public safety. I can put a single rifle round through a suspect's chest even when wearing body armor and stop him from shooting up the town.

Also an AR is a hell of a lot less likely to send a stray projectile off into a citizen. I guess you don't really care about that.

Finally, what the hell kind of officer were you? Why did you get out? Or were you pushed out? You seem like "that guy." It's probably best you got out you would have killed yourself or gotten somebody killed.

TBO
01-24-2011, 23:28
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/TheeBadOne/TBO/dfa.jpg

glockurai
01-24-2011, 23:30
So you feel it is a good idea to keep playing the "one up" game and arming law enforcement with heavier and heavier weaponry everytime they claim they are outgunned? At what point do you stop?

Also, do you really believe heavily armed criminals are actually a common threat? Is gun violence so out of control that we need to turn law enforcement agencies into armies to deal with the violence? Is the media correct about guns being such a big problem?

Shotguns have been standard in most vehicles since I was on the road. I see no reason to move to military style weapons.

Citing one or two people being killed by a rifle does not consititue a large enough threat to create a possibly bigger threat. Any LEO understands they are far more at risk from the small handgun they do not see than they are being gunned down by thugs with AR's.

I'm not sure where you live or in what era you were on the road. In any metropolitan area the criminal element has access to AKs and other rifles. I refuse to get into a fair fight if I can avoid it. If I found myself in a fair fight it's because I was surprised or did not plan accordingly.
Statistically, being the victim of a violent crime is unlikely but we still carry...should we stop since the threat is not large enough? I want to be able to confront and overcome any possible threat that I could face and go home at the end of the day. Others may think otherwise.

steveksux
01-24-2011, 23:31
Seriously? After what just went down at Detroit's Northwest precinct, you're gonna ask that question?Beat me to it.

Its not even a +1 thing. Bad guys have access to ARs, AKs, there's no reason for cops to be OUTGUNNED by default when they run into them. We lost a couple of cops in Detroit a few years ago, I believe they were ambushed in their squad by a guy with an AK. An AR in the trunk wouldn't have been ENOUGH in that case, let alone overkill.

When the military is working, do they have ARs in the trunk of their humvee, or do they carry them slung? I think they carry them. So why would having ARs and shotguns IN THE TRUNK, constitute militarizing the police? Its simply giving them access to the tools they need when they run up against criminals who are heavily armed, or where they may need to take longer shots (barricaded gunman, active shooter in school, etc) than can be safely taken with a pistol.

So I think you are doubly wrong. 1) It is not a bad thing for cops to have ARs in the trunk of the squad. 2) Having ARs in the trunk of the squad does NOT mean the police are militarized. BOTH your premise, and your conclusion, are both wrong.

Randy

CAcop
01-24-2011, 23:32
Note the list of departments with fully automatic weapons in this 1920s ad:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VsPSgPTQicc/SYs9YhROQ4I/AAAAAAAAAXc/woh2wwrMgpk/s1600/5.jpg

[/IMG]

My PD had a half a dozen Thompsons and one M2 Carbine left over from the old days. The Thompsons were bought in 1949.

We sold all but one Thompson and the M2 Carbine for MP5s 15 years ago.

Everybody wants to shoot the Tommy Gun but I want to shoot the M2.

Sgt127
01-24-2011, 23:34
Do you plan on committing some kind of horrific crime and want the upper hand on the responding cops?

I don't believe you do. But, why are you so concerned about the cops carrying the exact same guns that you, or any other law abiding citizen, can go out and buy in the morning? Has there been that many cases of cops beating the people down with rifles?

Sam Spade
01-24-2011, 23:37
Sam's point from the ancient photos:

The myth of warm and cuddly police is just that, a myth. The idea that weapons heavier than a pistol correspond with evil and oppression is foolish, quickly dispelled by history.

Whether or not gun violence is out of hand is not the question. The question is whether there is a need to bring the accuracy, power and range of the rifle against criminals in this country. There is. North Hollywood was not an abberation, it was the opening of a trend. Columbine and Trolley Square will happen again. Against these foreseeable crimes, we have an obligation to the community to be trained and equipped. We also have an obligation to the officers making the felony stops or running to home invasion calls to provide access to life-saving gear.

groovyash
01-24-2011, 23:38
but, why are you so concerned about the cops carrying the exact same guns that you, or any other law abiding citizen, can go out and buy in the morning?

the militarization is spreading to everyone!!!!!!!!


Aaaaaaaaahhhhh

CAcop
01-24-2011, 23:39
http://www.odmp.org/officer/736-officer-james-louis-guelff

Officer James Louis Guelff
San Francisco Police Department
California
End of Watch: Monday, November 14, 1994

Biographical Info
Age: 40
Tour of Duty: 10 years
Badge Number: 1461

Incident Details
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Sunday, November 13, 1994
Weapon Used: Rifle; Semi-automatic
Suspect Info: Shot and killed

Officer James Guelff succumbed to gunshot wounds sustained the previous day when he was shot by a carjacking suspect.

The suspect had carjacked a vehicle in Mountain View and drove to San Francisco where he pushed out the car's owner

The suspect then drove to Pine Street where he double parked the vehicle. The man opened fire on Officer Guelff with a semi-automatic rifle as the officer approached the vehicle. Officer Guelff emptied his service weapon at the suspect, and was reloading when he was shot again.

The suspect was wearing a ballistic helmet, a flack jacket, and carrying hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Members of the San Francisco Police Department SWAT Team shot and killed the suspect, but not before another officer, a paramedic, and a civilian were wounded by gunfire from the suspect. Officers found the suspect was also in possession of a police scanner, gunpowder, fuses, and three vials of pain-killer.

Officer Guelff had served with the San Francisco Police Department for 10 years. He is survived by two children.


http://www.odmp.org/officer/17277-police-officer-isaac-anthony-espinoza










Police Officer Isaac Anthony Espinoza
San Francisco Police Department
California
End of Watch: Saturday, April 10, 2004

Biographical Info
Age: 29
Tour of Duty: 8 years
Badge Number: 64

Incident Details
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Saturday, April 10, 2004
Weapon Used: Rifle; AK-47
Suspect Info: Sentenced to life imprisonment

Officer Isaac Espinoza was shot and killed as he and his partner investigated a suspicious person on Newhall Street at approximately 2130 hours.

The two officers, who were in plainclothes, observed the man acting in a suspicious manner and approached him in their vehicle. When they called out to the man, he turned around and opened fire with an AK-47 and then fled. Officer Espinoza was struck multiple times and killed. His partner was struck once in the leg and was treated at a local hospital.

The killer was apprehended, convicted of second degree murder, attempted murder and an allegation of knowingly murdering a peace officer, and sentenced to two consecutive life sentences, one without the possibility of parole.


Officer Espinoza had served with the San Francisco Police Department for 8 years, and was assigned to the Bayview Station. He is survived by his wife, 3-year-old daughter, parents, and sister.

http://www.odmp.org/officer/17539-sergeant-howard-king-(howie)-stevenson

Sergeant Howard King (Howie) Stevenson
Ceres Police Department
California
End of Watch: Sunday, January 9, 2005

Biographical Info
Age: 39
Tour of Duty: 20 years
Badge Number: 143

Incident Details
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Sunday, January 9, 2005
Weapon Used: Rifle; SKS
Suspect Info: Shot and killed

Sergeant Howard Stevenson was shot and killed after responding to a suspicious person call at a liquor store.

Sergeant Stevenson and other officers had responded to a liquor store on North Central Avenue to investigate reports of an armed male who was acting strangely. The first officer on the scene was shot and wounded by the suspect. This officer took cover behind a car and returned fire as Sergeant Stevenson arrived at the scene. Sergeant Stevenson exited his patrol car from the opposite side of the store and immediately engaged the suspect, firing eight shots before being shot himself. Sergeant Stevenson was struck three times in his torso and legs. The suspect then shot him twice in the head as he lay on the ground.

The suspect exchanged shots with responding officers before fleeing the scene. He was shot and killed approximately three hours later during a second shootout. The suspect was believed to be under the influence of cocaine at the time of the incident.

Sergeant Stevenson had served with the Ceres Police Department for 20 years. He is survived by his wife, son, and two daughters.

Sgt127
01-24-2011, 23:41
the militarization is spreading to everyone!!!!!!!!


Aaaaaaaaahhhhh

Excellent point. Perhaps the problem is the militarization of the people!

CAcop
01-24-2011, 23:42
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_shooting_of_Oakland_police_officers

As the SWAT team entered a bedroom in a clear and search operation, Mixon ambushed them, shooting with the SKS rifle through the wall and door of the closet where he was hiding. One member of the SWAT team, Sergeant Romans, was killed immediately, and Sergeant Gonzales was wounded. Sergeant Gonzales, Sergeant Sakai, Alameda County Sheriff's Deputy Derrick Pope, and SWAT team Officer Mike Leite returned fire. Mixon was felled by the barrage of gunfire, yet managed to fatally wound Sergeant Sakai before dying.

CAcop
01-24-2011, 23:43
These are just the ones I can think of where officers were killed with rifles that happened in my area.

I went to Officer Espinosa's funeral.

Peace Frog
01-24-2011, 23:44
In Texas one can carry a long gun or handgun in their vehicle without a permit. Why can't a LEO carry the same or more fire power with them? I don't see it as making the police a "Army".
And considering the asshats out there shooting officers I say arm the officers with freaking claymores and grenade launchers.
Freaking teach those thugs a damn lesson!

cdog533
01-24-2011, 23:55
Again, police should have the powers Peele intended: No more or less than the citizens they protect.

Agent6-3/8
01-24-2011, 23:55
I have concerns with the current trends of militarizing law enforcement agencies. I do not feel law enforcement agencies should be made into small armies. SWAT teams and special response units are one thing, but turning every Joe Squadcar into a highly armed mercenary carrying rifles and other heavier arms is not a good idea IMHO.



4 of the last 5 incidents involving a firearm that I've been in the BG has had a long gun... I'm not talking about robbery reports and BS like that. I'm talking bad domestics and other hot calls where I'm expecting to have to kill someone when I get there.

Until you've set your ass down in a patrol car and been there, done that what you "feel" doesn't really matter. :upeyes:

wprebeck
01-24-2011, 23:57
Couple of things -

Penguin has been a lot of things. Cop, social worker, bar owner...he's also an admitted liberal, who felt (in another thread) that his experience as a gay man (or as someone who read a book on the subject..hard to say which), allowed him to tell parents how to beat raise their kids and teach them about guns. I called him out there, and he didn't bother replying. Just ignored my question, and went on with his tirade. The thread in question was concerning the best way to teach kids about guns, and that "all the gun safety experts" said one thing. I brought up the fact that I have multiple factory certs and am the agency armorer for our special response team, and did that make me an expert....he never responded.

Just like I'm sure he'll not respond to this one. In honor of the once, and fondly remembered pizza delivery guy who claimed to be an officer on GT -

PP - what is your former agency's ORI?

Sam Spade
01-25-2011, 00:17
PP - what is your former agency's ORI?

NOW it was serious. A double-dog-dare. What else was there but a "triple dare you"? And then, the coup de grace of all dares, the sinister triple-dog-dare.

I TRIPLE-dog-dare ya!

Schwartz created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple dare and going right for the throat!

ateamer
01-25-2011, 00:52
Penguin is just another MTPD. A wannabe who never was, professional poser. If he really worked as a LEO anywhere, it couldn't have been for much longer than a cup of coffee.

alaskacop556
01-25-2011, 00:57
Nothing you say to him guys is going to matter, until he walks a mile in our shoes. Its almost the same arguement that people have when they wonder why you have to shoot a guy in the chest instead of shooting the gun out of his hand....people just can't understand because they can only see things through their eyes...

COLOSHOOTR
01-25-2011, 01:10
Are you actually seeing a great deal of crimes committed with rifles? Are you seeing bands of criminals armed with AR's roaming the streets? Are we actually seeing common occurences of law enforcement out gunned by perps armed with semi-auto rifles or is that pretty much just played up by the media?

1)Yes, we had a tripple homicide with a rifle recently. Even more recetly had two suspects light up a apartment with so many .223 and 7.62x39 rounds that I lost count of the number of casings I had found.

2) Kinda... It was a SKS, AK and an AR so not just bands with AR's they like to vary it up with whatever they get their hands on. Seen a lot of robberies lately where suspects have long guns too.

3) Yes, several instances of Officers being shot at by suspects with long guns in my city alone. In 2009 a suspect armed with a rifle killed three Pittsburgh officers. 2006 LVPD officer killed by suspect with SKS. These are just two examples with many more in between.

I don't know if you've been watching the news but it's war on the streets around the country. . Four Officers Shot inside a Detroit Police station this week. A Oregon officer is in critical condition after being shot in a traffic stop today. Indy officer shot during stop this week. Those are just the examples of Officers who have not died.

Two more Florida Officers were killed today bringing the total LOD deaths for 2011 to 14. Of those 14, gunfire killed 9 of them thats about 65% of the total LOD deaths. I think Officers need to be better equiped and better prepared. Maybe if we looked like small armies out there we could take back the streets. It sure worked during the DNC in Denver all those cops downtown with BDU's and Riot gear kept anything from happening. I don't see why well armed cops scare you... It's whats needed in our current world!

To all the officers out there 14 in 25 days... Be safe, watch your backs and your partners backs and go home safe. Stay frosty boys and girls!

Cav
01-25-2011, 01:34
I have concerns with the current trends of militarizing law enforcement agencies. I do not feel law enforcement agencies should be made into small armies. SWAT teams and special response units are one thing, but turning every Joe Squadcar into a highly armed mercenary carrying rifles and other heavier arms is not a good idea IMHO.

I agree 100%. Police should just carry pistols and take reports. If there is a violent criminal, school shooting, sniper, then the people of that community need to get together and solve that problem how they can, dont expect the police to respond and risk their life.

Now in Texas and other states that might not be a huge issue, but in CA, MA, IL, etc... it might take a while to some brave well armed people to respond, if they even care or decided to anything.

msu_grad_121
01-25-2011, 01:42
NOW it was serious. A double-dog-dare. What else was there but a "triple dare you"? And then, the coup de grace of all dares, the sinister triple-dog-dare.

I TRIPLE-dog-dare ya!

Schwartz created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple dare and going right for the throat!

At least give him the option of the "physical challenge." (Oh yeah, I went Nickelodean Double Dare on ya!)

Penguin, here is your challenge: You have 60 seconds to pound as much sand up your ass as you can. Aaaaaaaaand GO! :supergrin:

Steve in PA
01-25-2011, 01:52
Damn.....I missed the troll feeding!!

G27Chief
01-25-2011, 02:26
Simple answer yes. Issued a rifle, shotgun, and of course a handgun, with as much training as possible. They also need to be trained to use all weapons in the departments arsenal. In a SHTF situation and they guy lying there is a spealized team member, the weapon they have may provide the firepower needed in the situation. The officer should know how fire the weapon confidently.

Marlowe
01-25-2011, 02:35
Actually, police today operate under greater restaint then their counterparts from years past.

Police use of deadly force is closely scrutinized by a media that WANTS to find fault...if for no other reason then controversy raises ratings.

Police Departments impose deadly force guidelines typically stricter than those set forth in Tennessee vs. Garner...a landmark, and relatively recent, US Supreme Court case which changed the police rules of engagement. For example, prior to this case, in many jurisdictions, it was an accepted practice to shoot fleeing felons, with no other justification.

Not anymore.

No officer uses force lightly...especially deadly force.

Yes, they wear body armor. Yes, they have semi automatic pistols, and ARs, and shotguns...that goes to a defensive posture, not an offensive one.

The myth is that police are trigger happy. The truth is, most fully understand the heavy consequences of using deadly force and do their utmost to avoid it. Sometimes, their restraint costs them their lives.

The contemporary American law enforcement officer may be certain that his or her actions will be second guessed by a public and media that seems to think it is qualified to do so.

opelwasp
01-25-2011, 02:50
I agree 100%. Police should just carry pistols and take reports. If there is a violent criminal, school shooting, sniper, then the people of that community need to get together and solve that problem how they can, dont expect the police to respond and risk their life.

Now in Texas and other states that might not be a huge issue, but in CA, MA, IL, etc... it might take a while to some brave well armed people to respond, if they even care or decided to anything.

That is an awesome policy! I think CA should adopt it till the populace gets their heads out of there asses.

Cochese
01-25-2011, 03:26
ESAD, Penguin.

:wavey:

m2hmghb
01-25-2011, 03:47
ESAD, Penguin.

:wavey:


Well I guess we don't have to ask how you "feel" now do we Cochese?:whistling:

jenrick
01-25-2011, 04:03
If we're getting all militant, I want an M2 on a roof pintle mount, and an M-14 rather then my AR-15. Let's do this right.

-Jenrick

articulate
01-25-2011, 04:18
Are you guys seriously responding to this tool?

I mean, really?

REALLY?

How many times does Ted Kennedy have to go to an A.A. meeting before people realize "This just ain't gonna work"?

This guy has been orbiting out in Alpha Retardi for so long that he doesn't even remember what gravity feels like.

Cochese
01-25-2011, 05:13
Well I guess we don't have to ask how you "feel" now do we Cochese?:whistling:

Good morning.


In light of the obvious onslaught of violent encounters we've been subjected to recently, I find the Penguin's thoughts, inquiries, and insinuations that our carrying of PATROL rifles is in anyway inappropriate, to be deplorable, especially with his claims oprior service as a policeman or serviceman.

I have no doubts as to why he would no longer serve in either capacity.

A complete disgrace, in my opinion... or extremely stupid. :dunno:

pac201
01-25-2011, 05:57
Never argue with an idiot...

m2hmghb
01-25-2011, 06:37
Good morning.


In light of the obvious onslaught of violent encounters we've been subjected to recently, I find the Penguin's thoughts, inquiries, and insinuations that our carrying of PATROL rifles is in anyway inappropriate, to be deplorable, especially with his claims oprior service as a policeman or serviceman.

I have no doubts as to why he would no longer serve in either capacity.

A complete disgrace, in my opinion... or extremely stupid. :dunno:


I know exactly what you mean. Every department in my area has patrol rifles or carbines. It's a damned shame it's gotten to this extent, but it seems like the police are the ones playing catch up most of the time. The crooks got body armor and rifles while the police were armed with handguns and no vests, or light weight vests.

It's starting to equalize a bit, but the one thing about police work is that it's typically more reactive then active. The other side has the advantage when they act, and the officer typically has to respond to the actions of the opponent, instead of initiating the action.

To be sure it seems the most prevalent issue is the criminal element being released on parole, probation, or bond.

Stay safe out there everyone.

golls17
01-25-2011, 07:42
The purpose of law enforcement is to enforce the law, not to wage war on the populace..

Seems to me that lately it's the populace that's been waging war on the police...

BamaTrooper
01-25-2011, 07:50
So should thatrifle be made illegal because of a rare misuse?

Take a look at the history of miltarized police forces in other countries and the corruption that they breed. Then remember the word of B. Franklin about liberty. Allowing yourself to be spooked into allowing any government organization too much power for fear of possible dangers is not the best idea.

Were those democratic countries? Hell, if a car chase ends in a crash, pursuit policies get changed. If there is a fight during an arrest and someone gets hurt, policies get reviewed, and often, changed.

The rifle is a tool as is the pistol. Neither are frequently used.

US PDs are so common, with so little coordination, that they don't act or function as one unit. Add to that the people from which the agencies are formed, their varied beliefs and the fact that the VAST majority of them are there to serve the community and potect their fellow citizens and your fear of some police state seems to lose some of its boogiemanishness.

To answer a question you posed earlier, yes there is an increase in long arm armed criminals committing crimes.

razdog76
01-25-2011, 08:06
I have concerns with the current trends of militarizing law enforcement agencies. I do not feel law enforcement agencies should be made into small armies. SWAT teams and special response units are one thing, but turning every Joe Squadcar into a highly armed mercenary carrying rifles and other heavier arms is not a good idea IMHO.

I agree 100%. Police should just carry pistols and take reports. If there is a violent criminal, school shooting, sniper, then the people of that community need to get together and solve that problem how they can, dont expect the police to respond and risk their life.

Now in Texas and other states that might not be a huge issue, but in CA, MA, IL, etc... it might take a while to some brave well armed people to respond, if they even care or decided to anything.

...and then we can sue the community, regardless if if it goes bad, or ends well!:tbo:

The concept of "economy of force" seems to apply here , but there is no sense in having a lecture about it if you (not directed towards Cav) are not already familiar.

Pepper45
01-25-2011, 08:07
The Penguin asks if there is really an increased threat, or if we face all that many people armed with long guns. I submit, that really doesn't matter. How many cops should have to die by a certain method before we can take steps to minimize that threat? The OP seems to believe that appearances are more important than lives, so I'll ask again, how many must die before appearances are less important than loss of life? If we cannot appear to be "militarized", is there a more happy warm fuzzy solution you've got in mind?

I for one, am quite frankly tired of people who suggest that we need to suffer as members of a profession, because our appearance makes them uncomfortable. No matter how uncomfortable my appearance might be for you, it's much more comfortable than the pine box that some of my brothers and sisters in blue are inhabiting, all because their leadership believed, or was swayed by civic leaders who believed, that appearances were more important than people's lives.

I may only deploy my patrol rifle a few times a year, and I may never fire outside of the range. But if it saves a life, I'll be quite comfortable with it's appearance.

A6Gator
01-25-2011, 08:08
Ask the guys in West Memphis.

MeefZah
01-25-2011, 09:06
This is a pretty ignorant series of posts from a guy whose signature reads:

"Laugh all you want, but when the zombies come we both know whose house you will be running to for protection."

MeefZah
01-25-2011, 09:06
Side note, cool old timey pics. I'm stealing some of them...

Ship A'Hoy
01-25-2011, 09:10
So I take most in this thread are taking the position that gun violence is really as out of hand as the media portrays it. You actually think these rare occurences account for a substantial amount of LEO injuries and really are a major problem in this country. And you also feel it is okay to give more power to a government agency to feel safer. Is that correct?

In the last two years, four police officers and one state trooper have been killed by shotguns and longguns here in western PA. That's more than enough reason for every officer to have access to a long gun.

If you are so upset with police having access to long guns, why aren't you upset with private Joe Citizen carrying handguns? Armed confrontations against private citizens isn't common either is it?

RussP
01-25-2011, 09:18
This is a pretty ignorant series of posts from a guy whose signature reads:

"Laugh all you want, but when the zombies come we both know whose house you will be running to for protection."I wondered the same thing when I read the first post.

HoldHard
01-25-2011, 09:55
Simple answer yes. Issued a rifle, shotgun, and of course a handgun, with as much training as possible. They also need to be trained to use all weapons in the departments arsenal. In a SHTF situation and they guy lying there is a spealized team member, the weapon they have may provide the firepower needed in the situation. The officer should know how fire the weapon confidently.THIS!!!

Plinking from a bench at a stationary paper target is not enough. Far from it. Real life scenarios that involve the patrol vehicle have to be included in this type of training. There are certain departments that use the range at my gun club and when they are doing patrol rifle drills, they are deployed from where they ride in the vehicles. Some are in the trunk, some are locked down inside the cruiser. It takes practice to retreive, load and accurately deploy this type of firearm. For those that are non-LEO, carefully try firing a long gun from inside a car. It ain't like the movies....
Seems to me that lately it's the populace that's been waging war on the police...It's a sad sign of the economic times, big city cutbacks, city police departments being disbanded (Pontiac, MI) and the patrol responsibilities forced on the county sherriff department. Fewer LEO to patrol wider and wider areas. You don't think the scumbags notice this? They know all about response time.

Bottom line, police should have access, training, ammunition and the backing of management all the way to the Chief and District Attorney for the use of any type of weaponry to stop criminals. If that means a .50 BMG to take out a truck motor, I'm all for it. Get the training so you can place a round exactly where you want it when it has to count!

HH

Hack
01-25-2011, 10:07
THIS!!!

Plinking from a bench at a stationary paper target is not enough. Far from it. Real life scenarios that involve the patrol vehicle have to be included in this type of training. There are certain departments that use the range at my gun club and when they are doing patrol rifle drills, they are deployed from where they ride in the vehicles. Some are in the trunk, some are locked down inside the cruiser. It takes practice to retreive, load and accurately deploy this type of firearm. For those that are non-LEO, carefully try firing a long gun from inside a car. It ain't like the movies....
It's a sad sign of the economic times, big city cutbacks, city police departments being disbanded (Pontiac, MI) and the patrol responsibilities forced on the county sherriff department. Fewer LEO to partol wider and wider areas. You don't think the scumbags notice this? They know all about response time.

Bottom line, police should have access, training, ammunition and the backing of management all the way to the Chief and District Attorney for the use of any type of weaponry to stop criminals. If that means a .50 BMG to take out a truck motor, I'm all for it. Get the training so you can place a round exactly where you want it when it has to count!

HH

I agree. Unfortunately many departments and agencies do not.

I wish we at least trained on firearms tactics once per quarter.

I say, Penguin did get the place riled up a bit.:rofl:

sargespd
01-25-2011, 10:16
So you feel it is a good idea to keep playing the "one up" game and arming law enforcement with heavier and heavier weaponry everytime they claim they are outgunned? At what point do you stop?

Also, do you really believe heavily armed criminals are actually a common threat? Is gun violence so out of control that we need to turn law enforcement agencies into armies to deal with the violence? Is the media correct about guns being such a big problem?

Shotguns have been standard in most vehicles since I was on the road. I see no reason to move to military style weapons.

Citing one or two people being killed by a rifle does not consititue a large enough threat to create a possibly bigger threat. Any LEO understands they are far more at risk from the small handgun they do not see than they are being gunned down by thugs with AR's.

You, sir, appear to be reasonably intelligent and educated, but either sadly misinformed or willfully obtuse. Every weapon ever wielded by a cop was at some point either a military arm or a derivative of one. Remember the Smith and Wesson Military and Police .38 special that was the predominant sidearm of cops for decades? You keep referring to police agencies becoming "armies" by virtue of their firearms. When was the last time you saw a company of heavily armed patrol officers roll up? The patrol officer is most often a single officer, maybe backed up by a cover car. We are the first on scene at every call, whether a cat in a tree, or a take-over bank robbery. Yes, I absolutely do feel that the shotgun is a great tool, as is the .223 or .308 rifle, the semi-auto pistol, taser, baton, pepper spray, etc, etc. I tell people that my duty belt and gear are like a tool box. Different situations call for different tools. I worked for many years in a suburban city that had a large shopping mall. Take a look at the next mall parking lot you are in. If a bad guy is behind a parked car, and you are the responding officer, how close do you want to get? I would prefer to keep enough distance to make his likelihood of hitting me with a pistol shot slim. This means a long gun makes a better option for me. Shotgun? Not nearly as accurate at such distances as a rifle/carbine. I am responsible for every projectile that leaves my weapon. Do I want 8 or 9 buck pellets spreading out as they cross the distance, or one single, accurate .223 round? Your arguments are specious at best, based on emotion and unsubstantiated opinions that you have failed to support with documentation of police engaging in military action.

volsbear
01-25-2011, 10:22
To the OP -

In the most pefect of worlds, I think that most if not all police officers would be perfectly happy with saying "you're under arrest" and having the bad-guy instantly comply and not needing guns at all. I know I would. But we don't live in that pefect world. We live in a world where criminals started using bats, and then knives, and then pistols, and then shotguns, and now rifles. In this same world, criminals now target the police AND their families. Proportionately, police have had to RESPOND to crime trends and equip themselves with the training and tools that are necessary to bring extremely violent encounters to end quickly and with the greatest possible probability of preventing injury or death to innocent people and themselves.

Only a man with a death wish shows up to a knife fight unarmed. Only a man with a death wish shows up to a gun fight with a knife. And only a fool would willingly engage a man armed with a rifle with only a pistol.

It is not the endeavor of the police to kill someone. Rather, the police spend far more time striving to keep the public safe than to take lives. For as many times as the police are forced into an armed conflict, there are probably 4-5 times as many examples of the police dealing with a potentially deadly situation without responding with justifiable deadly force.

I think that it is of great importance to remember that the police have families, lives, ambitions, and a desire to live their lives just like anybody else. And if arming themselves with rifles in a proportional response to the crime that we are seeing right now accomplishes those goals, then so be it.

Hollywood D
01-25-2011, 10:30
Are you actually seeing a great deal of crimes committed with rifles? Are you seeing bands of criminals armed with AR's roaming the streets? Are we actually seeing common occurences of law enforcement out gunned by perps armed with semi-auto rifles or is that pretty much just played up by the media?

I haven't read all the posts in here, but...yes I have. Many of the bank robberies in my area are "take over" style. Like the stuff you see in movies. No joke.

Law enforcement is reactive (unfortunately). We neither have the man power or resources or time to be very proactive. A good example is the North Hollywood shootout in LA years back. The bad guys had awesome firepower. The cops mostly had pistols.

I pulled up on a shots fired call one night and heard more shots go off as I got out of my car. We cleared the area and found 7.62 casings in the alley. That was a pretty crappy feeling. I had my rifle out, but still a 7.62 is a far superior round to a .223.

The things law enforcement do are a direct reaction to what the public does.

mesteve2
01-25-2011, 10:30
A small short light weight machine gun in .45 gap with a telescoping stock like an UZI.

Hack
01-25-2011, 10:35
A small short light weight machine gun in .45 gap with a telescoping stock like an UZI.

That sounds like a fun one. I want one.

CGMK
01-25-2011, 10:53
Any LEO understands they are far more at risk from the small handgun they do not see than they are being gunned down by thugs with AR's.

Tell that to a deputy or game warden that works alone in the sticks... Just 6 months ago we had an "ambush style" officer involved shooting [suspect was armed with an AK], three of my brothers would not be alive if they did not have their long rifles.

Mayhem like Me
01-25-2011, 11:03
I think I speak for all of us active duty LEO's when we say thank you OP for retiring.

wash72
01-25-2011, 11:22
Perhaps you are not familiar with the North Hollywood shootout? If the first responding officers had the militarized weaponry you dislike, this event could have been handled quickly and put fewer lives at risk. Sidearms were all but useless against thugs with AK-47's, body armor and under the influence of muscle relaxers.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm1PEY8F4xE&feature=related

MeefZah
01-25-2011, 11:24
I think I speak for all of us active duty LEO's when we say thank you OP for retiring.

I doubt he was a cop, and if he was, he ain't "retired", more like quit because he couldn't hack it or was fired.

Other posts of his leave me wondering about his employment, family life, and general sanity.

1936
01-25-2011, 11:45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjqQOK6wojM&feature=related
Initial car stop


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqbEPkxuW-s&feature=related
Fish and game officer with M4 firing through ws

http://naweoa.org/joomla15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90:arkansas-fish-and-game-officer-involved-in-west-memphis-shootout&catid=4:us-news&Itemid=82 Aftermath

A fish and game officer armed with a m4 (firing from a tactically incorrect position) ended a really bad situation.

Playboy....If he had not, what do you think would have been the outcome?
Look at the video. Nearly all of those responding officers were armed with handguns.

glockurai
01-25-2011, 12:02
I agree 100%. Police should just carry pistols and take reports. If there is a violent criminal, school shooting, sniper, then the people of that community need to get together and solve that problem how they can, dont expect the police to respond and risk their life.

Now in Texas and other states that might not be a huge issue, but in CA, MA, IL, etc... it might take a while to some brave well armed people to respond, if they even care or decided to anything.

I wonder how long it would take to muster the troops? The response time to a massacre would be ridiculous, might as well wait for the guy to run out of ammo. I wonder how many would volunteer to go into harms way leaving their loved ones behind. We are not in Sparta. Most people will not get into a firefight and risk their lives at a moments notice. Hell, most people will not kill another unless it is absolutely necessary to protect their own lives (many studies have shown this, just look at the firing rates for infantrymen in WW2)....and you want them to go hunt an armed suspect? Good luck. Maybe if we trained our society to be citizen soldiers your theory would work. This of course is not possible either in today's liberal society.

lwt210
01-25-2011, 12:37
I think I speak for all of us active duty LEO's when we say thank you OP for retiring.

Had to be an administrator.

If he wasn't, he missed his calling.

GackMan
01-25-2011, 12:38
I'll probably regret jumpping in here responding to page 1 w/ out reading all 4 pages...

Are you actually seeing a great deal of crimes committed with rifles? Are you seeing bands of criminals armed with AR's roaming the streets? Are we actually seeing common occurences of law enforcement out gunned by perps armed with semi-auto rifles or is that pretty much just played up by the media?

Forget semi-auto evil black rifles.

It isn't armed gangs with AR15s and AKs.

It is anyone with a rifle... that will punch right through a car and/or body armor that necessitates the need for a tool that will incapacitate an adversary more effectively than a hand gun.

Jethro and Bubba armed with .30-06s instantly out-gun the police with any form of hand gun.

The best way to fight a rifle, is with another rifle.

Of the last 10 or so shootings around here that I can think of off the top of my head – 1/2 of them, the bad guys had a long guns. SKS, a 30-30 lever, a .30-06, one guy had a house full... even shot a .375 H&H out the back slider of his house... 2 with shotguns (doesn’t count as a rifle... but I don't want to bring a pistol to that gun fight either). A couple were unarmed – suicide by cop w/ the finger gun in the pocket or “armed” with vehicles. 2 had knives. Only 1 shooting I can think of where the bad-guy had a hand-gun.

For cops, hand guns aren't effective, they're just convenient. They go in a holster on your belt and you don't forget them in the car. That's their only advantage.

BleedNOrange
01-25-2011, 12:45
It's obvious turdtastic playboy bailed. I don't think he really meant for this thread to get moved to cop talk. I'm sure you all know he has a history of bashing cops.

BleedNOrange
01-25-2011, 12:47
"Laugh all you want, but when the zombies come we both know whose house you will be running to for protection."
- My response to friends that laugh at me for collecting firearms


Pretty ironic isnt it. That's his signature line. Evidentally it's ok to stock up on weapons to fend off the ever increasing zombie hordes but arming a police officer is just baaaaad.

Dragoon44
01-25-2011, 12:48
No more so than pink ones or green ones. It is not the rifles that are the issue. It is the miltarization of organizations that have few oversights and tend to be very closed in their internal operations.

Honestly it sounds to me like you have been drinking the Libertarian kool aid. "militarization of the police" is a common phrase and belief among libertarians.

But in this case as in the rest of their beliefs they are FOS.

Historically speaking well up into the 20th century civilian LE was usually better armed (Small arms wise) than their military counterpart. Civilian LE were first to adopt new technologies. Civilian LE were quick to adopt the six shooter and the lever action rifle while the military stayed with single shot rifles.

Police armories of the 20's and thirties were stocked with Thompson sub machine guns and BAR's and body armor.

The idea that Police using military style hardware is a recent development is just nonsense.

mixflip
01-25-2011, 13:09
I have concerns with the current trends of militarizing law enforcement agencies. I do not feel law enforcement agencies should be made into small armies. SWAT teams and special response units are one thing, but turning every Joe Squadcar into a highly armed mercenary carrying rifles and other heavier arms is not a good idea IMHO.

Should they carry an M4 on them at all times? No not the average cop. But they should have quick access to them.

The Virginia Tech active shooter massacred 32 people in 12 minutes. Every second you waste not making armed contact with a killer who doesnt want to negotiate, you allow for more innocent citizens to die. (high body counts are what they want) Its not a good idea to go in alone of course, but even a lone officer could have changed the body count that day if he had a rifle and a shield to go in and make contact. Statistically active shooters kill themselves at firm armed contact.

With a rifle you get range to stop the threat at a distance (which is good for the officer obviously) and accuracy to not shoot any of the by standers that are also down range. (which is good for the victims obviously) A ballistic shield is a no brainier for the officer. Rifles, optics and shields arent just for SWAT anymore.

Rifles and ballistic shields etc etc are not mercenary gear or para military wanabees....they are simply tools for a job. Police work is a dirty job nowadays. I dont know about the OP but I dont live in 1960's Maybury.

Just last year a crazy man walked into the Federal Court House here in Vegas and blew away an officer with a shotgun. The responding officers chased him out into the streets (at about 11am mind you) and had a full on gun battle. Their handgun were barely effective against the shotgun and it took over 60 handgun rounds to stop him. Thats alot of bullets or should I say alot of liability because those bullets werent going into the bad guy. 1 rifle could have stopped him in seconds. But I guess that would have demonized the police on duty to have access to a military style weapon that is a symbol of oppressing the populous? C'mon. Really???

Con43
01-25-2011, 13:28
Grow up the police need rifles and shotguns. If you can't handle it hold onto your teddy bear just a little tighter tonight.

+10, LEO's should have whatever it takes to get the job done and one up the POS they normally deal with. If you are a law abiding citizen I doubt you will ever see these nasty evil things.

Delon
01-25-2011, 14:02
I guess I will jump in here, and make a couple of points;

1. If we only encounter one guy every year with a long gun, that is enough reason for the patrol staff to have long guns. And the number per year is way above one.

2. While I am worried about some gang banger with a AR or SKS, to be honest, since I work in the county, I am much more afraid of Scooter not wanting to go to jail for beating up his wife while drunk and using his 300 Win Mag or other massive caliber to snipe at us as we drive up his long open drive way. Or Bubba stepping out of his house and letting loose with his old 45/70 lever gun or Shotgun.

3. As Grossman says, people are Sheep, and they will never like the Sheep Dog, period. So the Sheep Dog should do what is needed and not worry about it.

If I had my way, not only would we have ARs, but also M1s or some other 308 or large caliber.

And the idea of a militarized police force being an issue would require a couple of things.
1. A nationalized police force with a single chain of command
2. No overlapping oversight like we have now.
3. No ability to fix issues via a democratic process.

Since we have none of above issues, the OP has no case and no understanding of history if he thinks police having long guns is an issue.

Just my two cents,

FM12
01-25-2011, 15:06
There were times I worked for weeks by myself, with no one else knowing where I was doing fire investigations in the rural areas of SW Alabama. I would not only carry an AR-15 but also my Remmy 30-06 semi-auto for real power, if needed, Never needed either, but they were there, just the same.

Goldendog Redux
01-25-2011, 15:46
Should they carry an M4 on them at all times? No not the average cop. But they should have quick access to them.



I wish policy said I was required to take my M4 anytime I stepped out of the car. Of course I can access it and blow the windshield out of my car without too much contorting.

It blows my friggin mind when some of my partners respond to ANY nature of weapons calls without a long gun. Of course they probably wonder why I don't carry OC and/or a Taser.

MF

Next training we are qualifying with the M14.

The Fist Of Goodness
01-25-2011, 15:50
So you feel it is a good idea to keep playing the "one up" game and arming law enforcement with heavier and heavier weaponry everytime they claim they are outgunned? At what point do you stop?

Also, do you really believe heavily armed criminals are actually a common threat? Is gun violence so out of control that we need to turn law enforcement agencies into armies to deal with the violence? Is the media correct about guns being such a big problem?

Shotguns have been standard in most vehicles since I was on the road. I see no reason to move to military style weapons.

Citing one or two people being killed by a rifle does not consititue a large enough threat to create a possibly bigger threat. Any LEO understands they are far more at risk from the small handgun they do not see than they are being gunned down by thugs with AR's.

As was mentioned earlier, there has not been a "move" towards military style weapons. Law enforcement has been using long guns comparable to the military since ther has been organized law enforcement. From frontier sheriffs carrying the same carbines as the US Cavalry, to the Thompsons and BARs in the 30's, 40's and beyond, police have been using "military" style weapons. A shotgun has it's uses, but there are times when something different is needed.

The Fist Of Goodness
01-25-2011, 15:54
Should they carry an M4 on them at all times? No not the average cop. But they should have quick access to them.

The Virginia Tech active shooter massacred 32 people in 12 minutes. Every second you waste not making armed contact with a killer who doesnt want to negotiate, you allow for more innocent citizens to die. (high body counts are what they want) Its not a good idea to go in alone of course, but even a lone officer could have changed the body count that day if he had a rifle and a shield to go in and make contact. Statistically active shooters kill themselves at firm armed contact.

With a rifle you get range to stop the threat at a distance (which is good for the officer obviously) and accuracy to not shoot any of the by standers that are also down range. (which is good for the victims obviously) A ballistic shield is a no brainier for the officer. Rifles, optics and shields arent just for SWAT anymore.

Rifles and ballistic shields etc etc are not mercenary gear or para military wanabees....they are simply tools for a job. Police work is a dirty job nowadays. I dont know about the OP but I dont live in 1960's Maybury.

Just last year a crazy man walked into the Federal Court House here in Vegas and blew away an officer with a shotgun. The responding officers chased him out into the streets (at about 11am mind you) and had a full on gun battle. Their handgun were barely effective against the shotgun and it took over 60 handgun rounds to stop him. Thats alot of bullets or should I say alot of liability because those bullets werent going into the bad guy. 1 rifle could have stopped him in seconds. But I guess that would have demonized the police on duty to have access to a military style weapon that is a symbol of oppressing the populous? C'mon. Really???

If anything, this post illustrates that the problem lies in the other direction: Many departments are under-equipped to deal with the heavily armed suspect.

DonGlock26
01-25-2011, 17:16
After some of the shady characters I saw leaving a gun show with SKS's and Mini-14's under their arms I absolutely want the cops to have AR's or shotguns, or better yet both, in their squad cars.

Civilians are militarizing more than the police. Should something be done?

oldsoldier
01-25-2011, 17:34
They should be armed with whatever they need to protect their lives. I also think it's time to reconsider having only one officer in a car. Looks to me like it's time to double up.

Straight Pipe
01-25-2011, 17:35
I'm guessing the real topic of this thread is trying to figure out what kind of troll PP is.

X-cop? I highly doupt it. Anyone with any real world experience wouldn't even have started such in insipid post.

Tacti-cool mall-ninja? Fortunately most of them I've delt with are of a higher calibre than that.

So, PP, what kind of troll are you really?

Seriously.

PS: I carry what I feel I need and I don't begrudge anyone who carries what they feel they may need.

Straight Pipe
01-25-2011, 17:43
PP,

If it makes you feel any better the wife just bought me an AR because she thinks I NEED one.

In my book, that makes her a hell of a lot smarted than you.

dorkweed
01-25-2011, 18:07
PP didn't even start this thread. It was started for him, with his name, without his knowledge, by Russ, the omnipotent moderator. Some of y'all need to re-read the first page here. I think PP should be holding Russ by the shorthairs for this stunt!!!!

That said, and it's a rarity for me, but I agree with most of the blue boys here with what they've had to say except when they've gotten personal with PP..............because they though HE started this thread!!!! Cops do need powerful firepower when needed. The militarization of police units/squads can be argued in another post.

Dragoon44
01-25-2011, 18:11
PP didn't even start this thread. It was started for him, with his name, without his knowledge, by Russ, the omnipotent moderator. Some of y'all need to re-read the first page here. I think PP should be holding Russ by the shorthairs for this stunt!!!!

That said, and it's a rarity for me, but I agree with most of the blue boys here with what they've had to say except when they've gotten personal with PP..............because they though HE started this thread!!!! Cops do need powerful firepower when needed. The militarization of police units/squads can be argued in another post.

For the most part the responses have been directed to his expressed beliefs so it does not matter if he started the thread or not. The words posted were his own.

MeefZah
01-25-2011, 18:16
PP didn't even start this thread. It was started for him, with his name, without his knowledge, by Russ, the omnipotent moderator. Some of y'all need to re-read the first page here. I think PP should be holding Russ by the shorthairs for this stunt!!!!

That said, and it's a rarity for me, but I agree with most of the blue boys here with what they've had to say except when they've gotten personal with PP..............because they though HE started this thread!!!! Cops do need powerful firepower when needed. The militarization of police units/squads can be argued in another post.

He did say it, just not in this forum. All the words are his.

Edited -

The words posted were his own.

Dang it, I hate it when I take a few minutes to read over a page and compose a reply and someone else says the exact same thing in that time span.

Dragoon44
01-25-2011, 18:21
He did say it, just not in this forum. All the words are his.

Edited -



Dang it, I hate it when I take a few minutes to read over a page and compose a reply and someone else says the exact same thing in that time span.

Stop moving your lips you'll read faster!

:tongueout::rofl:

Peace Frog
01-25-2011, 18:24
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3495/3222031366_b30dabc89f.jpg

janice6
01-25-2011, 18:27
I see no reason to limit the tools available to a cop to do his job.

If he thinks a mortar will be necessary, ---- get him one!



ADDED LATER: I am talking the local or county police force. I don't trust Homeland Security for anything!

Goldendog Redux
01-25-2011, 18:40
Civilians are militarizing more than the police. Should something be done?

This post should have been post number two in the thread and then locked because it is the perfect retort.

OmniscientX
01-25-2011, 18:43
I think I speak for all of us active duty LEO's when we say thank you OP for retiring.

This +1

alba666
01-25-2011, 18:47
No issue with whatever LEO's want - as long as the general public has the SAME access to obtain, possess, carry and obtain same ammo in the same timeframe as LEO's.

RussP
01-25-2011, 19:00
PP didn't even start this thread. It was started for him, with his name, without his knowledge, by Russ, the omnipotent moderator. Some of y'all need to re-read the first page here. I think PP should be holding Russ by the shorthairs for this stunt!!!!As always when I move a post from Carry Issues to a more appropriate forum, I disclose that fact at the time the new thread is created.

The post is indeed PlayboyPenguin's made in a Carry Issues thread. His post was totally unrelated to the original thread's topic.That said, and it's a rarity for me, but I agree with most of the blue boys here with what they've had to say except when they've gotten personal with PP..............because they though HE started this thread!!!! Cops do need powerful firepower when needed. The militarization of police units/squads can be argued in another post.Well, dorkweed, everyone is welcome to come here and discuss the militarization of police units/squads with those directly involved - law enforcement officers of just about every type from small towns, cities, counties, state, and federal agencies.

I was reading through some of your posts and found an interesting one:I've learned that I'm a malcontent. Not to mention I have anti-authority, cop-hating tendencies!!! So all in all, nothing has changed.:wavey:

Panzergrenadier1979
01-25-2011, 19:26
PP, I will continue to patrol with an M4 in my vehicle. I will do so regardless of your opinion.

:wavey:

Gulfcop
01-26-2011, 01:22
This thread is to funny with PP bashing. The AR is like the american express card, don't leave home without it!

BlackPaladin
01-26-2011, 01:46
Might as well add him as just another guy who effed up, got a ticket, and is losing more than money over it.

mixflip
01-26-2011, 02:20
PP reminds me of a few cops I know that dont wear body armor, dont carry with a round in the chamber and refuse to carry a weapon off duty because off duty means they wont work unless they are getting paid. These types exist in our profession sadly. For you guys about to go to the academy and all the new cops...take note of this and avoid these guys please.

lawman800
01-26-2011, 02:34
I think cops should carry everything they need to do their jobs, be it rifles and shotguns. Heck, in some areas I patrol, I wouldn't mind an Abrams tank and a Ma Deuce on top along with a fireteam or two of experienced riflemen.

Why should LE not be able to arm themselves with whatever works? The criminals sure are. The civilians that live there sure are. Why are we not supposed to do so because it might offend your sensibilities of what a cop is?

BTW, we are not mercenaries. Mercenaries get paid the big bucks.:whistling:

Calling us mercenaries is insulting. We do this because we believe in the job, not because we're in it for the money and want to be an occupying army. I can't wait to get out of the hood when I am done with work. I have no desire to stick around to occupy it. Get your facts straight and use the right terms, you idiot.

I don't get off on having shoulder weapons. I need it for work, that is all. I have way better personal weaponry if I wanted to get my jollies off that way. I actually am way less armed when working. The only difference is that I wear soft body armor at work to compensate for my loss of firepower.

chickenwing
01-26-2011, 04:02
I think PP wont touch cop talk with a ten-foot pole after his post was moved into this den of wolves. :tongueout:


Just to be clear, I have no problem with police having access to long guns or tactics that give them an edge when confronting situations that involve a high degree of danger. In fact it is just common sense.


I'm not defending PP or speaking for him. I'm trying to figure out his point, which might have to do with the use of said tools/tactics that don't call for it I guess. :dunno: He seemed more interested in what kind of guns police should have access to.


As a libertarian, the kind that Dragoon accuses PP of being. Dragoon and Sam are right. The police have been using seemingly militarized tools/tactics for a while now.

I think the argument is more to the point of 'how' often and how much of a increase in police actions that give the perception of militarization. Which stem from policies not usually created by the alphabet soup of agencies that enforce said policies.


Here are a couple of thoughts from libertarians that are on the "kool-aid" when it comes to the militarization of police in America.

http://reason.com/archives/2007/07/02/our-militarized-police-departm/1

800 times per week in this country, a SWAT team breaks open an American’s door, and invades his home. Few turn up any weapons at all, much less high-power weapons. Less than half end with felony charges for the suspects. And only a small percentage end up doing significant time in prison.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Congress consider ending the federal incentives that are driving this trend, and that the Congress reign in the copious use of SWAT teams and among federal police agencies.
There are appropriate uses for these kinds of tactics. But the bulk of the dramatic rise in paramilitary police operations is attributable to inappropriate use of SWAT teams for routine warrant service.
It’s time we stopped the war talk, the military tactics, and the military gear. America’s domestic police departments should be populated by peace officers, not the troops of an occupying military force.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476

These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they're sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers.Agree or disagree, I think the majority of libertarians views on the militarization of the police have to do with how they are used when it comes to serving warrants for non violent crimes like possession of narcotics.

Not what types of tools the police use.

But to say a SWAT team is not a para-militarized unit is a stretch. I would not call beat cops para-militarized just because they have a AR or shotgun however.


Just MHO.

Walkin' Boss
01-26-2011, 04:35
I have to say that I have no problem with the implementation of military tactics in situations where they are required. And the reality is, those situations do exist.

The frequency of such incidents has no bearing on the need for the equipment and training. The potential alone is justification for maintaining every level of preparedness.

As to "routine warrant service", the moment you adopt the mindset that an action - any action - is "routine", you compromise not only your own safety, but that of your fellow officers.

JSandi
01-26-2011, 05:43
The frequency of such incidents has no bearing on the need for the equipment and training. The potential alone is justification for maintaining every level of preparedness.


Same can be said regarding Civilian CCW, EBR ownership etc... yet all too often far too many police unions, police chiefs and elected Sheriffs are against such things.

chickenwing
01-26-2011, 05:49
Same can be said regarding Civilian CCW, EBR ownership etc... yet all too often far too many police unions, police chiefs and elected Sheriffs are against such things.


Say it ain't so...


My only question is, did the police get their tax stamp?

DonGlock26
01-26-2011, 05:55
I recall a guy named PP at "The High Road" firearms forum who would talk about his "action figure" collection......:whistling:

Out there, but not "Gun Kid" out there.......

Sometimes having a cop memory can be a curse.

Patchman
01-26-2011, 06:12
What's funny is that many of those who are loudest against police carrying rifles are also those loudest in exercising their own right to own and use same rifles.

And those proclaiming SWAT guys as meanies also proclaim their own right to organize and drill.

Bill Lumberg
01-26-2011, 06:40
They're not mercenaries, they're cops. And yes, it is a great idea. Shotguns were standard in the past, now, more versatile and effective rifles are used. The rifle has greater range, greater penetration, and allows the officer to be more effective at targeting a specific threat, even if that threat is in close proximity to innocent people. No brainer.
And what heavier arms than rifles are you referring to?

I have concerns with the current trends of militarizing law enforcement agencies. I do not feel law enforcement agencies should be made into small armies. SWAT teams and special response units are one thing, but turning every Joe Squadcar into a highly armed mercenary carrying rifles and other heavier arms is not a good idea IMHO.

lawandorder
01-26-2011, 06:50
The agency I work for is a State Park system that employs slightly over 100 commissioned Officers.

We are currently early in the process of obtaining and issuing rifles to our Officers

Two recent incidents have expedited the decision and the process.

One was the horrible chain of events in West Memphis in which a very brave Officer from one of our other Conservation Agencies, the Game & Fish, was able to end the event with his Department issued rifle.

The second involved several of our Officers walking in on a Marijuana grow op on public lands and jumping an attendant, who thankfully fled, leaving behind a camp with several long arms.

As stated above Rifles and other non handguns weapons have been in the Law Enforcement arsenal for long periods of the history of crime fighting. They are nothing new in the overall process.

Simply another tool or item of technology, in the ever complex and dangerous effort at enforcing laws and protecting life and property.

Over 19,000 Officers have given their lives in service to the citizens of this country and anyone who would deny them any item that might enhance their safety is just wrong.

HoldHard
01-26-2011, 07:31
Traffic Enforcement..... :whistling:

You guys need this to find the idiot that was doing 30 in the 45 MPH zone in front of me on my way to work this morning...

HH

http://twistedsifter.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/predator-b-drone-mq-9-reaper.jpg

merlynusn
01-26-2011, 08:31
Agree or disagree, I think the majority of libertarians views on the militarization of the police have to do with how they are used when it comes to serving warrants for non violent crimes like possession of narcotics.

Not what types of tools the police use.

But to say a SWAT team is not a para-militarized unit is a stretch. I would not call beat cops para-militarized just because they have a AR or shotgun however.


Just MHO.

Just a couple of quick points. If I recall the St. Petersburg officers went to go serve an assault warrant and find a location of the suspect. They didn't know he would be hiding in the attic with a long gun. Two officers were killed and a DUSM wounded. There is nothing routine about this job.

Secondly, most drug dealers have weapons. So for you, a non-violent crime of narcotics possession means there is no gun. Police officers aren't serving search warrants on the guy who has personal use of anything. They are serving search warrants on the guy who is dealing the drugs. So since drug dealers are concerned with other drug dealers (and robbers) coming to their house to knock them off, they are armed, hence the SWAT team.

And I work for a department where the only people with rifles are the SWAT team. Do I like getting the calls "crazy guy with an AK47 (or shotgun) threatening his family" ? Hell no, but we don't really have any choice in the matter either, we still have to respond. In those instances, a rifle would be a welcome option. I know the guy with the 7.62 could easily open fire on us before we're even in range to hit him.

Hack
01-26-2011, 09:23
Civilians are militarizing more than the police. Should something be done?

Yes. Make sure they are old enough/young enough to call on for a posse/help when needed. They may come in handy.

Recruit them to become law enforcement since they are already part of the way equipped.

Have a fun raiser at your shooting range. That will take care of budget deficiencies.

wprebeck
01-26-2011, 10:27
Still waiting for the ORI. Fortunately, I'm not holding my breath.

Stupid drive by posters. The mods ought to consider restricting this guy's forum access. Zero sounds like a good number - fricking idiot troll.

Hack
01-26-2011, 11:01
Still waiting for the ORI. Fortunately, I'm not holding my breath.

Stupid drive by posters. The mods ought to consider restricting this guy's forum access. Zero sounds like a good number - fricking idiot troll.

Not happening. Heck I would not be allowed to give mine out to my knowledge, but consider the type of agency that I work for. There used to be a big list of them, IIRC.

S.O.Interceptor
01-26-2011, 14:06
This guy better pray that I never get elected as sheriff or appointed as a police chief because part of the standard uniform will be an AR15 or M14 on a 1-point sling. Traffic, alarm calls, domestics, whatever. All calls will be completed with the rifle as the primary firearm and the handgun as the back-up, as it should be.

groovyash
01-26-2011, 14:06
But to say a SWAT team is not a para-militarized unit is a stretch. I would not call beat cops para-militarized just because they have a AR or shotgun however.


Just MHO.

Fair enough but how do you justify this opinion when the tactics being used were developed by police then later implemented by the military? Not the other way around. Would you call it the Policization of the Military? The way warrants are served, entry is made, and buildings are cleared is all a product of police development based on experience where things have gone wrong. These same techniques were then later taken by the military and adapted when battlefield fighting became rarer and rarer and CQB became commonplace. Although in 2011 our troops have been using these techniques daily for almost a decade police units across the country have been using them daily for half a century.

The rules of engagement are not the same, in fact over the course of 50 years Police operate on much tighter use of force requirements than ever before in history. The opposite would be true if were were adopting rules of engagement from a combat arena. While SWAT may be conducting more entries they are doing so under greater limitations as a result we in fact adopt many of the techniques you've raised as troubling to you. These techniques have shown that they minimize the necessary force used and increase the safety of all parties involved.

The last argument used is that the equipment is the same. It is equipment used to confront armed and dangerous people, it will of course be similar as it serves a similar purpose. You'll see that those pesky rules of engagement still apply regardless of what equipment is used though.

Your reply in this thread was polite and articulate so I am responding with genuine interest. I also do entries on at least a weekly basis and find your assertion that we are being over used, or used on "non-violent" crimes to be flawed. I suspect if you were given fact based information for every instance SWAT is used along with a little background as to why things are done a certain way your opinion would change as you seem like a rational person.

volsbear
01-26-2011, 14:22
The rules of engagement are not the same, in fact over the course of 50 years Police operate on much tighter use of force requirements than ever before in history.

Yet violent criminals are taking more extreme, quick, and vigilant steps to murder police during their criminal behavior. I think this needs to change.

Warp
01-26-2011, 14:39
PP didn't even start this thread. It was started for him, with his name, without his knowledge, by Russ, the omnipotent moderator. Some of y'all need to re-read the first page here. I think PP should be holding Russ by the shorthairs for this stunt!!!!


His post was moved from somewhere off topic and out of place to somewhere else where it could be the topic of conversation.

oh noes!

Warp
01-26-2011, 14:41
This guy better pray that I never get elected as sheriff or appointed as a police chief because part of the standard uniform will be an AR15 or M14 on a 1-point sling. Traffic, alarm calls, domestics, whatever. All calls will be completed with the rifle as the primary firearm and the handgun as the back-up, as it should be.

That would be something.

Around here they can't/don't even wear BDUs as a standard duty pant.

OmniscientX
01-26-2011, 15:06
This guy better pray that I never get elected as sheriff or appointed as a police chief because part of the standard uniform will be an AR15 or M14 on a 1-point sling. Traffic, alarm calls, domestics, whatever. All calls will be completed with the rifle as the primary firearm and the handgun as the back-up, as it should be.

I'm not experienced yet, but I would think the cover officer(s) would have the long guns, since in thought it would be hard to use hands/intermediate weapons/cuffs while wearing a long gun. Just a thought.

Roadkill_751
01-26-2011, 15:07
[quote]Originally Posted by S.O.Interceptor
This guy better pray that I never get elected as sheriff or appointed as a police chief because part of the standard uniform will be an AR15 or M14 on a 1-point sling. Traffic, alarm calls, domestics, whatever. All calls will be completed with the rifle as the primary firearm and the handgun as the back-up, as it should be.[quote]

Hey, if elected can I join your agency. I have a M4 and a shorty 590?:whistling:

actionshooter10
01-26-2011, 15:13
I'm not experienced yet, but I would think the cover officer(s) would have the long guns, since in thought it would be hard to use hands/intermediate weapons/cuffs while wearing a long gun. Just a thought.

Don't know where you work but I don't always have the benefit of a "cover officer". That is the benefit of the long gun. It can even the odds a bit.

ElectricZombie
01-26-2011, 15:16
The police should have the same access to firearms as I do. Semi-auto pistols and rifles.

If I can't have it, the cops shouldn't have it either.

Cubdriver
01-26-2011, 16:10
Heck yeah the cops should have rifles! They're outgunned to often as it is now!

Goldendog Redux
01-26-2011, 16:35
If I can't have it, the cops shouldn't have it either.

False logic. Realistically, you can have whatever you want weapon-wise. You may need piles of money or be outside the law but you can have it. Remember cops don't make laws. You would punish the wrong people.

MF

obxemt
01-26-2011, 17:07
I have concerns with the current trends of militarizing law enforcement agencies. I do not feel law enforcement agencies should be made into small armies. SWAT teams and special response units are one thing, but turning every Joe Squadcar into a highly armed mercenary carrying rifles and other heavier arms is not a good idea IMHO.

You've got to effing be kidding me. SERIOUSLY? This stupidity really exists? :steamed:

I got to page two before realizing that PP's posts were becoming even more asinine than the original.

I'm glad you boys were able lay out the arguments and address this, because this one is just too ridiculous for me to even consider seriously entertaining an articulate response.

obxemt
01-26-2011, 17:20
The police should have the same access to firearms as I do. Semi-auto pistols and rifles.

If I can't have it, the cops shouldn't have it either.

Citizens should have access to the same equipment the police do. Blue lights and sirens.

If I can't have it, the cops shouldn't have it either.

Doesn't really work, does it?

Dragoon44
01-26-2011, 17:55
I worked with a few that I didn't think should even have been allowed to have pistols.

:rofl::rofl:

doneroman
01-26-2011, 18:01
Your perception of LEOs being a..." highly armed mercenary..." is pretty off base.

One squad generally carries one LEO, one shotgun, one long rifle. If you think that's over-the-top you have not been in Milwaukee lately.





I have concerns with the current trends of militarizing law enforcement agencies. I do not feel law enforcement agencies should be made into small armies. SWAT teams and special response units are one thing, but turning every Joe Squadcar into a highly armed mercenary carrying rifles and other heavier arms is not a good idea IMHO.

Dragoon44
01-26-2011, 18:17
Apparently some think that instead of "One riot one ranger", it should have been one ranger one pistol.

TBO
01-26-2011, 18:35
Apparently some think say that instead of "One riot one ranger", it should have been one ranger one pistol.
:cool:

Mayhem like Me
01-26-2011, 19:24
Apparently some thinkfeel that instead of "One riot one ranger", it should have been one ranger one pistol.

:tongueout:

txleapd
01-26-2011, 20:39
I'm glad you boys were able lay out the arguments and address this...

I'm in total agreement. Knowing a lot of you guys for as long as I have, I'm impressed the OP didn't get dogpiled. I haven't responded yet, because I've been afraid I might say something inappropriate..... Especially considering the amount of stupid that I've read in this thread.

Sharky7
01-26-2011, 20:52
A lot of the cops on this board are sometimes the ONLY cop in a 20-30 minute area. I have the luxury of being in a pretty populated area, but a decent size city around me of 150,000 population and a daytime population close to 250k+ only has only 150 sworn police officers, with only about 100 of those being assigned to uniform patrol.

Allowing police officers the necessary equipment to protect themselves and the good citizens who employ us is the right and ethical thing to do. I would venture to say the majority of citizens would look directly to local law enforcement in the event of major disasters/attacks, etc. Officers need the right tools to protect their citizens. Rifles as well as AED's are now almost common place in Police vehicles - both save citizen's lives.

Just because officers wear cargo pants doesn't mean they are going invade the next town over....Simmer down spunky.

obxemt
01-26-2011, 20:55
I'm in total agreement. Knowing a lot of you guys for as long as I have, I'm impressed the OP didn't get dogpiled. I haven't responded yet, because I've been afraid I might say something inappropriate..... Especially considering the amount of stupid that I've read in this thread.

Exactly! :miff: :rofl:

ElectricZombie
01-26-2011, 21:04
False logic. Realistically, you can have whatever you want weapon-wise. You may need piles of money or be outside the law but you can have it. Remember cops don't make laws. You would punish the wrong people.

MF

Not really.

I'm pretty sure the police don't need piles of money if they wanted to order a full auto rifle. They could likely purchase a full auto for what I pay for a semi auto.

It's not punishing them, it's having everyone play by the same rules.

ElectricZombie
01-26-2011, 21:11
Citizens should have access to the same equipment the police do. Blue lights and sirens.

If I can't have it, the cops shouldn't have it either.

Doesn't really work, does it?

I can go purchase blue lights and sirens. I can go purchase the vast majority of the equipment common to police work.

I am specifically referring to the police being armed with full auto rifles.

I can't go purchase (legally) a brand new full auto rifle for the same price a LE agency would pay.

I have no problem with every police officer having a rifle in the trunk. However, if I can't have a full auto rifle, they certainly shouldn't either.

TunaFisherman
01-26-2011, 21:12
Leo should carry on duty any firearm that is legal for the citizens to own in that state/county/city.
I don't like a military style police force,but I do like a properly armed police force.

Patchman
01-26-2011, 21:18
Agencies that have full auto weapons have to keep same paperwork as any citizen or private entity.

As for $$$ paid for the weapon, that's up to the vendor/manufacturer to charge.

Sharky7
01-26-2011, 21:25
I can go purchase blue lights and sirens. I can go purchase the vast majority of the equipment common to police work.

I am specifically referring to the police being armed with full auto rifles.

I can't go purchase (legally) a brand new full auto rifle for the same price a LE agency would pay.

I have no problem with every police officer having a rifle in the trunk. However, if I can't have a full auto rifle, they certainly shouldn't either.

Why shouldn't they?

obxemt
01-26-2011, 21:27
I can go purchase blue lights and sirens. I can go purchase the vast majority of the equipment common to police work.

Actually, no you can't. It's illegal in your state to even possess a blue light, and that is why I used that example.

Your argumentation is ridiculous and has absolutely no base in either logic or reality.

What you as a civilian would like to purchase or possess for fun or for defense has no bearing whatsoever on what law enforcement officers need or can legally possess and use in the performance of their duties. As already pointed out, you can possess a full-auto rifle if you have the money to do it. Law enforcement agencies are exempt from those requirements by statute. Individual officers cannot own full-auto rifles, just like you can't.

groovyash
01-26-2011, 21:38
I have no problem with every police officer having a rifle in the trunk. However, if I can't have a full auto rifle, they certainly shouldn't either.

There's lot's of things police can do as a function of the nature of their work that you cannot do.

Police can:

Take a person's freedom away based on their belief a crime has occurred
Seize a person's property based on their belief it was used in a crime
Violate most traffic laws as needed for the purposes of their job
Ignore certain wishes of property owners when conducting official business
Force entry into places based on the circumstances presented
Use force to affect any of the above if necessary

People not acting in an official capacity cannot generally do these things. Police get these powers from the general public whom they represent. The same public who recognizes that these same allowances should not be granted to themselves collectively to ensure order. It's not because we get a kick out of this stuff that we decided we should be able to do it and you shouldn't rather you (collectively) determined these things were necessary for what you value (order, life, property etc.) and that to best achieve these things a small number of people should be tasked with and trained for protecting them. Society also feels that if everyone were granted these allowances it would also have a detrimental affect on the preservation of the same. Although you may feel differently being the square peg in the round hole of society does not change that the will of society is what governs us all. I promise you from the bottom of my heart, I don't get satisfaction out of doing things you can't, I do them out of necessity to do the job I am tasked.

Do I feel you should be able to buy a new F/A weapon? Yep. Because you cannot does that mean that the same justification as for the above things is automatically null and void? Nope.

ElectricZombie
01-26-2011, 21:39
Why shouldn't they?

Why should they?

razdog76
01-26-2011, 21:43
Not really.

I'm pretty sure the police don't need piles of money if they wanted to order a full auto rifle. They could likely purchase a full auto for what I pay for a semi auto.

It's not punishing them, it's having everyone play by the same rules.

Pay for your bATF tax, and rock and roll.

I'll bite,

1. What obligation do you have to engage a threat to society?

2. Do you also think that we should wear only white hats, let the bad guy punch/draw/shoot first, and that fights should only be "fair?"

groovyash
01-26-2011, 21:45
Why should they?

see my above post

obxemt
01-26-2011, 21:45
Do I feel you should be able to buy a new F/A weapon? Yep. Because you cannot does that mean that the same justification as for the above things is automatically null and void? Nope.

:goodpost:

glockandme
01-26-2011, 21:51
next topic please. . .

ElectricZombie
01-26-2011, 21:53
There's lot's of things police can do as a function of the nature of their work that you cannot do.

Police can:

Take a person's freedom away based on their belief a crime has occurred
Seize a person's property based on their belief it was used in a crime
Violate most traffic laws as needed for the purposes of their job
Ignore certain wishes of property owners when conducting official business
Force entry into places based on the circumstances presented
Use force to affect any of the above if necessary

People not acting in an official capacity cannot generally do these things. Police get these powers from the general public whom they represent. The same public who recognizes that these same allowances should not be granted to themselves collectively to ensure order. It's not because we get a kick out of this stuff that we decided we should be able to do it and you shouldn't rather you (collectively) determined these things were necessary for what you value (order, life, property etc.) and that to best achieve these things a small number of people should be tasked with and trained for protecting them. Society also feels that if everyone were granted these allowances it would also have a detrimental affect on the preservation of the same. Although you may feel differently being the square peg in the round hole of society does not change that the will of society is what governs us all. I promise you from the bottom of my heart, I don't get a kick out of doing things you can't, I do them out of necessity to do the job I am tasked.

Do I feel you should be able to buy a new F/A weapon? Yep. Because you cannot does that mean that the same justification as for the above things is automatically null and void? Nope.

This isn't an argument in regards to privileges afforded to police officers in the course of their job. I think everyone understands that these are necessary. They are supposed to do the things you mentioned; that's what we pay them for! :cool:

I am only referring to the full auto weapons issue; nothing else.

razdog76
01-26-2011, 22:03
This isn't an argument in regards to privileges afforded to police officers in the course of their job. I think everyone understands that these are necessary. They are supposed to do the things you mentioned; that's what we pay them for! :cool:

I am only referring to the full auto weapons issue; nothing else.

:dunno:
il·log·i·cal
   
–adjective
not logical; contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic; unreasoning: an illogical reply.

Sam Spade
01-26-2011, 22:11
This isn't an argument in regards to privileges afforded to police officers in the course of their job. I think everyone understands that these are necessary. They are supposed to do the things you mentioned; that's what we pay them for! :cool:

I am only referring to the full auto weapons issue; nothing else.

Since FA is a subset of the privileges afforded in the course of the job, the argument that you aren't making, yet you are, makes no sense.

TBO
01-26-2011, 22:16
http://stevencreech.com/images/posters/Ignorance.jpg

groovyash
01-26-2011, 22:18
This isn't an argument in regards to privileges afforded to police officers in the course of their job. I think everyone understands that these are necessary. They are supposed to do the things you mentioned; that's what we pay them for! :cool:

I am only referring to the full auto weapons issue; nothing else.

The justification is the same however. The value of F/A in LE can be argued either way, there are certain aspects of LE where F/A may be very practical, others where it may not. We had a situation where controlled suppressive fire was absolutely necessary but you'll find proponents of both semis and F/A for this purpose. Let's for a moment substitute SBRs instead. Let's say you lived in a non SBR friendly state. Although I would very much personally like you to be able to have them for your own enjoyment the laws passed by the officials elected by the public say otherwise. At the end of the day the impact on the average person is very minimal. Now let's say the tactical team for the PD in this area is a reasonably busy one. If you are averaging clearing a building every third day on a call out the value of an SBR becomes apparent. The impact of having this tool on this group of people, who are tasked by the public to do this is very pronounced and it is logically useful in their completing what society is commanding them to do.

If you and 99.99% of everyone else can't go through a red light the impact on you is very minimal (and the result is a much safer world) If the Police can't go through a red light the impact on the police's ability to best do their job is great (and the safety concerns are minimized by the small number of people allowed to do this, as well as with additional training and equipment) In short the risk is the "lesser of two evils"

If you can't have that SBR the impact is very minimal on you (and in the eyes of the elected lawmakers the result is increased safety) If that tactical team who is using them on a near daily basis can't the impact is great direct and not only affects them but the general public who they are using this tool for.

Again, I really need to point out I'm on your side, I wish you could have go out and purchase a brand spanking new F/A for 1980 prices, I disagree with the law and I disagree with the idea that it somehow increased safety and if it were repealed I'd be out tomorrow buying some cool toys in line behind you. But I recognize that in spite of that there are reasons why it can be justified that law enforcement should not be subject to the same regulation as the tool may be necessary for them to best complete the job society requires of them.

ElectricZombie
01-26-2011, 22:18
Since FA is a subset of the privileges afforded in the course of the job, the argument that you aren't making, yet you are, makes no sense.

I was specifically referencing the privileges "groovyash" mentioned in his post.

I don't believe that access to FA should be among those privileges. (Unless the laws are changed so that ordinary citizens can buy them easily.)

Obviously, many of you disagree. No problem.

ElectricZombie
01-26-2011, 22:34
The justification is the same however. The value of F/A in LE can be argued either way, there are certain aspects of LE where F/A may be very practical, others where it may not. We had a situation where controlled suppressive fire was absolutely necessary but you'll find proponents of both semis and F/A for this purpose. Let's for a moment substitute SBRs instead. Let's say you lived in a non SBR friendly state. Although I would very much personally like you to be able to have them for your own enjoyment the laws passed by the officials elected by the public say otherwise. At the end of the day the impact on the average person is very minimal. Now let's say the tactical team for the PD in this area is a reasonably busy one. If you are averaging clearing a building every third day on a call out the value of an SBR becomes apparent. The impact of having this tool on this group of people, who are tasked by the public to do this is very pronounced and it is logically useful in their completing what society is commanding them to do.

If you and 99.99% of everyone else can't go through a red light the impact on you is very minimal (and the result is a much safer world) If the Police can't go through a red light the impact on the police's ability to best do their job is great (and the safety concerns are minimized by the small number of people allowed to do this, as well as with additional training and equipment) In short the risk is the "lesser of two evils"

If you can't have that SBR the impact is very minimal on you (and in the eyes of the elected lawmakers the result is increased safety) If that tactical team who is using them on a near daily basis can't the impact is great direct and not only affects them but the general public who they are using this tool for.

Again, I really need to point out I'm on your side, I wish you could have go out and purchase a brand spanking new F/A for 1980 prices, I disagree with the law and I disagree with the idea that it somehow increased safety and if it were repealed I'd be out tomorrow buying some cool toys in line behind you. But I recognize that in spite of that there are reasons why it can be justified that law enforcement should not be subject to the same regulation as the tool may be necessary for them to best complete the job society requires of them.

I understand what you are saying in regards to using the right tool for the job. No argument here. Your reference to a SBR is a great example.

Even so, I don't like the idea of police officers being armed with FA firearms when they are essentially impossible for the average law abiding citizen to own. It seems hypocritical.

To me, it's a gun rights issue.

The law is what it is. That does not mean that it is right.

Rohniss
01-26-2011, 22:45
I understand what you are saying in regards to using the right tool for the job. No argument here. Your reference to a SBR is a great example.

Even so, I don't like the idea of police officers being armed with FA firearms when they are essentially impossible for the average law abiding citizen to own. It seems hypocritical.

To me, it's a gun rights issue.

The law is what it is. That does not mean that it is right.

http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/?db=nfafirearms&category=All+Items+in+this+Category&query=category&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=headlines&website=&language=&session_key=

ETA:

Oh yeah, I'm firmly in the "Who gives a **** about what some civilian thinks" group.

ElectricZombie
01-26-2011, 22:49
http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/?db=nfafirearms&category=All+Items+in+this+Category&query=category&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=headlines&website=&language=&session_key=

You and I both know that police departments don't pay those prices for FA weapons.

Hack
01-26-2011, 22:51
You and I both know that police departments don't pay those prices for FA weapons.

Source? Since you mentioned it.

ElectricZombie
01-26-2011, 22:58
Source? Since you mentioned it.

Years ago, it was $586 for quantity government purchases.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m16.htm

So, adjusting for inflation and a smaller pool of orders, I imagine $1200 would be accurate.

groovyash
01-26-2011, 23:04
Ok, let's try this...

I would love to go out tomorrow and pick up some DET cord or another commercial explosive and blow some stumps out of my yard and just generally have fun with it. I do however recognize why the legislation is in place to make this a difficult task for me to do. I also can recognize why a mining company for instance can possess and use these much easier than I can without finding it hypocritical, there's a much greater need.

I suspect the issue that you have with the prohibition in the first place (which I agree with you concerning) inclines you to object to having any exception to the prohibition regardless of how justified it may be.

A double standard isn't necessarily a bad thing, it may be necessary in all sorts of aspects of life

Something that is hypocritical however is a double standard without justification or with arbitrary justification, these are usually bad things.

I don't think in the case of F/A either of these are present.

RussP
01-26-2011, 23:04
You and I both know that police departments don't pay those prices for FA weapons.So do you also object to LE pricing for Glocks?

Rohniss
01-26-2011, 23:08
You and I both know that police departments don't pay those prices for FA weapons.

Your right, but I don't care. But theres several reasons why the "evil government" doesn't pay the prices civilians do for, well anything: Bulk Purchases, and Bid-Contracts. The purchase relationship is completely different.

Civilian: I want X.

Government: I want X with these features, for under Y total, and I want to buy Z of them at that price.

Even if the Registry is open, you'd never pay what the Government does.

ElectricZombie
01-26-2011, 23:09
So do you also object to LE pricing for Glocks?

No! I can buy a Glock! ;)

MeefZah
01-26-2011, 23:16
You and I both know that police departments don't pay those prices for FA weapons.

My stepdaughter, when she was 7, used to whine in this falsetto voice: "It's not fair...." when her older sister got something that she couldn't have. She had some wierd speech impediment so it came out: "It's nawt faiwwww....". Man, am I glad she outgrew that **** by the time she was 8.

Rohniss
01-26-2011, 23:18
No! I can buy a Glock! ;)

And you can buy (ETA: most kinds of) F/A too.

ElectricZombie
01-26-2011, 23:27
I suspect the issue that you have with the prohibition in the first place (which I agree with you concerning) inclines you to object to having any exception to the prohibition regardless of how justified it may be.

That pretty much sums it up although I don't think that the prohibition is justified.

I don't see any justification for law abiding people (LE or civilians) to be denied FA weapons. FA guns could be made legal tomorrow, and I don't think anything would change. Law abiding gun owners will be no less responsible with FA weapons.


A double standard isn't necessarily a bad thing, it may be necessary in all sorts of aspects of life

Something that is hypocritical however is a double standard without justification or with arbitrary justification, these are usually bad things.


Perhaps, but I don't think the FA issue is something that requires a double standard. It's just a FA firearm; not a nuke. Most firearm restrictions are arbitrary.

ElectricZombie
01-26-2011, 23:33
And you can buy (ETA: most kinds of) F/A too.

If you can find a legal FA M4 that I can purchase for anywhere near the government/LE price, I'll take 10.

denn1911
01-26-2011, 23:33
I'll be honest. I read the first 3 pages and was getting steamed. So I jumped to the last page and here I am. If I am speaking out of term, I apologize in advance. I am 110% in favor of arming law enforcment officers with the best long guns (Rifles and Shotguns) and the best support equipment (Less Lethal, etc.). Add in the best training available and I say yes, yes, yes. I am bias because I have been a LEO for the last 14 years. January is still here, and we've lost too many officers to gunfire already! Don't even get me started on that tangent. To the narrow minded people who believe that LEO's shouldn't have rifles, think about this. What if an active shooter incident occurs at your child's school with your child inside? When the patrol arrives to stop the threat, wouldn't you want the police officer(s) to have the tools needed to quickly stop the threat?

Sam Spade
01-26-2011, 23:37
I was specifically referencing the privileges "groovyash" mentioned in his post.

I don't believe that access to FA should be among those privileges. (Unless the laws are changed so that ordinary citizens can buy them easily.)

Obviously, many of you disagree. No problem.

mmm...You're really unclear to me. It seems that you aren't drawing a distinction between officers as individuals and officers as agents of the state.

As an individual, I can do no more with Class III than you can. Stamp costs the same, availabilty/cost of pre-86 guns is the same and so on. As an agent of the state, the government lends me tools they think I might need, while I'm working. The government gets post-86 guns and follows a bit different rule book.

And FWIW, I have no problem with people in general having access to FA and wish the registery would open up again.

So if you're objecting to the .gov having access that the citizenry doesn't, I'm with you. If you're objecting to the posters on the thread having that stuff as a tool of their work, I can't agree.

OLY-M4gery
01-26-2011, 23:45
I wonder how the N Hollywood shooting would have gone, if LAPD patrol officers had AR15's?

I wonder how the N Hollywood shooting would go, with LEO's armed with handguns only, in a city or village that only has a few, 10 or less, LEO's on duty at any time.

Until SWAT came into being, and long arms were concentrated into the hands of a few officers, patrol officers had SMG's, rifles, and shotguns avaiable to them in plenty of departments.

ElectricZombie
01-26-2011, 23:52
mmm...You're really unclear to me. It seems that you aren't drawing a distinction between officers as individuals and officers as agents of the state.

Every law abiding individual, LE or not, should have FA access. Need it for work? Want it for fun? No problem. Fill out the paperwork and pay a normal price.

As an individual, I can do no more with Class III than you can. Stamp costs the same, availabilty/cost of pre-86 guns is the same and so on. As an agent of the state, the government lends me tools they think I might need, while I'm working. The government gets post-86 guns and follows a bit different rule book.

I understand that you may need FA for work; I get it. There does not need to be a separate rule book. There is no reason to restrict FA ownership.

And FWIW, I have no problem with people in general having access to FA and wish the registery would open up again.

Same here.
So if you're objecting to the .gov having access that the citizenry doesn't, I'm with you.
My point exactly. If the government has access to FA, so should we.

If you're objecting to the posters on the thread having that stuff as a tool of their work, I can't agree.

I'm all for LE having access to FA; so long as ordinary citizens have the same access.

ICARRY2
01-26-2011, 23:53
Every police officer should be given a primary gun, back-up gun and a rifle.

This whole militarization of the police thing is a bunch of liberal anti-gun non-sense.

Sam Spade
01-27-2011, 00:02
I'm all for LE having access to FA; so long as ordinary citizens have the same access.

And I think this is where you're running into the issues on this thread. I'll bet most cops here are with you in thinking that the registry should reopen, that the 86 ban should go the way of the dodo. I've already said as much.

But what the guys doing the work are objecting to is your idea that men on the line should be handicapped in their tools because you can't easily have toys. The other poster was right on---you can't even own a blue light in your state, so must LE lose theirs? You can't buy det cord and C4; do we now need to give up breaching charges? The analogy is spot on.

Reforming the system is great; punishing the guys who have to actually work within the system isn't.

ElectricZombie
01-27-2011, 00:40
If LE might be handicapped/punished by restricted access to FA, then the average law abiding citizen has been handicapped/punished for quite some time.

lawman800
01-27-2011, 01:04
If LE might be handicapped/punished by restricted access to FA, then the average law abiding citizen has been handicapped/punished for quite some time.

What does that have to do with anything? We are not handicapped in many ways in the line of duty... as you put it. In CA, we arrest on probable cause and have protections when doing so... civilians who make a citizen's arrest do not have that same discretion and protection.

We can also disobey traffic laws when operating at code 3 levels of response as long as we are prudent in its exercise. We have access to many sources of information which are restricted to LE like DMV, DOJ, NCIC, etc.

Should all that be taken away because a citizen is "handicapped" in his daily life because he can't have that?

As a matter of fact, we don't have those things for "FUN". We have them for WORK. You might want a FA for fun, we have it for WORK. That is why it is issued and owned by the agency, not the individual officer. We only have these things for WORK. What duty or obligation do you have compared to a LEO?

I agree as a civilian, we should not be burdened with these assinine gun laws in this land but to say that LEO's need to be in the same boat is just ludicrous. LEO's, as agents of the state, are not, and cannot be subject to the rules everywhere when carrying out their duties.

To do so would make the state powerless to enforce law and order. Because to do otherwise, would mean, when taken to the logical extreme, would mean that any law the state wants to enforce by any means it wants to enforce it can be counteracted by the citizen because the state has no more of an advantage or power over anyone and needs to be subject to the same restrictions.

Therefore, if a state can fine you, you should be able to fine the state. If a state can incarcerate you, you should be able to incarcerate the state. Now if you say that is not so, then why are you submitting to that power but yet, say the state cannot arm its officers with things you cannot access?

Truth be told, most cops out there do not have access to FA weapons and I can tell you, more cops than not, have not ever even touched a FA weapon in their careers. There are cops that probably have played with more privately owned FA arms than they have in the line of duty.

Heck, I have not come into contact with FA arms for duty other than a few times when we got to play with some SWAT guns on the range but by no means would I be issued one.

Semi-auto carbines is all I ask for patrol duty and I have no need for FA on patrol.

ElectricZombie
01-27-2011, 01:28
A previous poster referred to LE as being "handicapped" if they did not have FA access. I don't buy it. As you stated, many never come into contact with FA weapons.

I'm only referring to the FA issue, not the various powers granted to LE that you mentioned.

My "need" for FA is no different than an LEO's "need" for FA; potentially shooting at threats or other objects. Since LE is not obligated nor capable of protecting me, my family or my property, my "need" for FA seems quite valid.

I'm actually not that crazy about FA guns, but don't see any reason why LE/Gov should be the only ones with them.

As you stated, most people have never fired a FA and have no "need" for it.

The police would be no less effective in enforcing the law if the FA ban was lifted, and the citizens had "equal" firepower.

Sam Spade
01-27-2011, 01:32
Dog in the manger.

lawman800
01-27-2011, 01:43
A previous poster referred to LE as being "handicapped" if they did not have FA access. I don't buy it. As you stated, many never come into contact with FA weapons.

I'm only referring to the FA issue, not the various powers granted to LE that you mentioned.

My "need" for FA is no different than an LEO's "need" for FA; potentially shooting at threats or other objects. Since LE is not obligated nor capable of protecting me, my family or my property, my "need" for FA seems quite valid.

I'm actually not that crazy about FA guns, but don't see any reason why LE/Gov should be the only ones with them.

As you stated, most people have never fired a FA and have no "need" for it.

The police would be no less effective in enforcing the law if the FA ban was lifted, and the citizens had "equal" firepower.

Ah yes... isolate the issue and ignore the rest of the logical conclusions that are drawn accordingly. Focus on the single pet issue, damn the rest, FA makes all the difference.

Okay... when you ban FA from LE hands because you, the citizen doesn't have them, guess who will have them? Criminals... just like with everything else.

LE doesn't use FA for fun. Only special teams have them and for special purposes. Necessary purposes to do their job safely.

No police administrator will issue FA for fun. Too much liability. It is an issue that weighs heavily before being implemented, that much is sure.

Your argument may only matter to you for FA purposes, but it goes to bigger picture altogether. If you can't see that, then you need to take a step back from your own positions to see the bigger picture of what you are pushing.

ElectricZombie
01-27-2011, 01:52
Okay... when you ban FA from LE hands because you, the citizen doesn't have them, guess who will have them? Criminals... just like with everything else.

How will criminals magically acquire FA weapons as a result of LE no longer using them? It's not like we're having FA massacres. I don't think that we should ban LE from having FA; we need to extend this right to citizens.

LE doesn't use FA for fun. Only special teams have them and for special purposes. Necessary purposes to do their job safely.

No police administrator will issue FA for fun. Too much liability. It is an issue that weighs heavily before being implemented, that much is sure.

Agreed.


Your argument may only matter to you for FA purposes, but it goes to bigger picture altogether. If you can't see that, then you need to take a step back from your own positions to see the bigger picture of what you are pushing.
Not pushing anything. The law isn't likely to change, so it does not really matter. The point is that LE and law abiding citizenry should have FA access. Nothing more.

GackMan
01-27-2011, 02:01
I am only referring to the full auto weapons issue; nothing else.

We have a bunch of full autos... they've all been modified to be semi-autos.

Semi-auto SBRs on form 10s... oooh... the militancy.

Goldendog Redux
01-27-2011, 02:14
People certainly have been led to believe cops have significantly more firepower at their disposal that they actually do. Like is is some kind of F.A./SBR orgy free for all. Realistically, in a lot of States a regular guy can essentially outfit themselves and their car with a full compliment of weapons far more impressive than the local beat cop and be within the law while doing it.

MF

Pfunk
01-27-2011, 02:48
I understand what you are saying in regards to using the right tool for the job. No argument here. Your reference to a SBR is a great example.

Even so, I don't like the idea of police officers being armed with FA firearms when they are essentially impossible for the average law abiding citizen to own. It seems hypocritical.

To me, it's a gun rights issue.

The law is what it is. That does not mean that it is right.

I think the whole discussion boils down to this statement. Obviously the Electric Zombie doesn't like the idea of LE being equipped with Automatic weapons... oh wait that's not it, he doesn't like the idea of LE having guns he can't have. :crying:

earthworm
01-27-2011, 04:01
Not just yeah but h**l-yeah! Every car ought to have a semi-auto (full auto for those trained & qualled with it),a 12 gauge,a Level 4 or better over-the-uniform vest,a throughly equipped trama kit (again for those trained & qualled),heavy-duty fire extinguishers & the best communications gear available.
If the agency won't buy rifles let the officers buy,quall & carry their own be it AR,AK,lever or bolt gun.

chickenwing
01-27-2011, 04:41
Just a couple of quick points. If I recall the St. Petersburg officers went to go serve an assault warrant and find a location of the suspect. They didn't know he would be hiding in the attic with a long gun. Two officers were killed and a DUSM wounded. There is nothing routine about this job.

Secondly, most drug dealers have weapons. So for you, a non-violent crime of narcotics possession means there is no gun. Police officers aren't serving search warrants on the guy who has personal use of anything. They are serving search warrants on the guy who is dealing the drugs. So since drug dealers are concerned with other drug dealers (and robbers) coming to their house to knock them off, they are armed, hence the SWAT team.

And I work for a department where the only people with rifles are the SWAT team. Do I like getting the calls "crazy guy with an AK47 (or shotgun) threatening his family" ? Hell no, but we don't really have any choice in the matter either, we still have to respond. In those instances, a rifle would be a welcome option. I know the guy with the 7.62 could easily open fire on us before we're even in range to hit him.


I agree to a certain point. And understand why a SWAT team would be used in that kind of situation.

But I'm looking at the head not the tail of the snake. Why are the police even busting down the armed drug dealers door? Why is he dealing drugs? Where did he get his money to buy arms?

Plainly put, the gang banger drug dealer can do this because the state has decided to enforce vice laws against consensual adults using a drug of choice. Who for what ever reason and faults of their own decide to use the massive black market to acquire their goods. Regardless of the dangers of having to face the violence of the drug dealers or the state. For the crime of damaging themselves. While the whole time the state benefits from the sale of other drugs that it deems ok.

It just seems hypocritical to me.


Sorry to hear that. Myself I am in agreement with you. Police should have easy access to long guns or shotguns.

A officer with a rifle/shotgun/pistol doesn't bother me on bit. America is an armed society. Period.

That doesn't mean you should have M2's mounted on patrol cars though. :tongueout:

Kahr_Glockman
01-27-2011, 05:43
Do you know why drugs are illegal?

It ain't about revenue. How many illegal drug addicts have you met?

I meet them on an almost daily basis. Most are so non-functional that they have to steal, whore themselves out, or many other things to get thier next fix. They don't even really care about surviving just that drug.

Heroin users can't function for long without the DTs. Heroin users resuse needles and get ugly infections from the injection sites. I threw away a set of handcuffs from a heroin addict that had an abscess rupture and get puss on the locking mechanism. He was arrested for stealing $50 dollars in cigarettes and $75 in alchohol. This was not the first time he had been handled and it won't be the last.

The issue is that illegal drugs cause other crimes when people become addicted. This is about protection of society in general. The fact is that meth, crack/cocaine, heroin, LSD, and others can cause physical addiction and or death, the very first time of use.

Marijuana is a different argument all together and I will leave it out except to state that people trafficking marijuana typically traffic the others as well.

As to the government benefiting form the sale of drugs. There are many drugs that are safe to use in certain circumstances that are dangerous to use in an uncontrolled fashion.

For example, Ativan, Morphine (or any of the opiates), any of the anti-psycotics. These drugs are extremely effective but can be highly addictive but are safer than meth, cocaine, heroin, ect... Heroin was used but was found to far more addictive than morphine and was deemed unsafe for human use.

My point is, that there are reasons that these drugs are illegal. Far more than just to seize property and arrest people.

chickenwing
01-27-2011, 05:59
Fair enough but how do you justify this opinion when the tactics being used were developed by police then later implemented by the military? Not the other way around. Would you call it the Policization of the Military? The way warrants are served, entry is made, and buildings are cleared is all a product of police development based on experience where things have gone wrong. These same techniques were then later taken by the military and adapted when battlefield fighting became rarer and rarer and CQB became commonplace. Although in 2011 our troops have been using these techniques daily for almost a decade police units across the country have been using them daily for half a century.

The rules of engagement are not the same, in fact over the course of 50 years Police operate on much tighter use of force requirements than ever before in history. The opposite would be true if were were adopting rules of engagement from a combat arena. While SWAT may be conducting more entries they are doing so under greater limitations as a result we in fact adopt many of the techniques you've raised as troubling to you. These techniques have shown that they minimize the necessary force used and increase the safety of all parties involved.

The last argument used is that the equipment is the same. It is equipment used to confront armed and dangerous people, it will of course be similar as it serves a similar purpose. You'll see that those pesky rules of engagement still apply regardless of what equipment is used though.

Your reply in this thread was polite and articulate so I am responding with genuine interest. I also do entries on at least a weekly basis and find your assertion that we are being over used, or used on "non-violent" crimes to be flawed. I suspect if you were given fact based information for every instance SWAT is used along with a little background as to why things are done a certain way your opinion would change as you seem like a rational person.

First the definition of paramilitary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paramilitary

While not fitting every absolute definition of a paramilitary force. SWAT and police have some parallels with the definition. Like structure of said domestic force. So I can see where the perception comes from.

You make great points. And I will acknowledge the fact that I have no scholarly knowledge or experience of who has traded tactics with who when it comes to shared techniques between the police or military. I will concede this point.


I am not arguing against the techniques or equipment that police use. Just the use of those techniques when it comes to serving warrants that involve consenting adults using a commodity like drugs, that through sheer demand and history of humans have never been stopped by even the most strictest laws and oppression by the state. MHO is the state should focus on the crimes committed by said individuals, not what drug they might be on.


The "war on drugs" however is a war against America's own citizens. Which is the governments own terminology. Using techniques and teams normally used for special situations to crack down down on people for benefiting on the black market buy selling and the people who are being used by the black market at the same time. The same black market for commodities the government itself creates and profits from by enforcing laws against drugs it doesn't make legal, while profiting from drugs it makes legal is a bit silly to me.

So when the government commits a "war" on its own citizens the perception is magnified even more.


Never been accused of that before. So thank you. I find that civil debates while not the norm make the most progress.

I try to be rational and I think I have a grasp on why such techniques are used. Officer safety.

If you have numbers I would gladly have a look. I think the media sensationalizes certain events. Which again adds to the perception of a militarized police. But I would be curious to the true number of no knocks and other types of search warrants that have gone wrong, busted the wrong house or resulted in the death of someone for narcotics.

My beef is with the bureaucrats, politicians and politicos that use disingenuous propaganda based on racism and false stereotypes that put the populace and police in danger in their efforts to control an economic law: Supply and demand.

Panzergrenadier1979
01-27-2011, 06:21
I understand what you are saying in regards to using the right tool for the job. No argument here. Your reference to a SBR is a great example.

Even so, I don't like the idea of police officers being armed with FA firearms when they are essentially impossible for the average law abiding citizen to own. It seems hypocritical.

To me, it's a gun rights issue.

The law is what it is. That does not mean that it is right.

It sounds like you and I would probably agree on pretty much everything about gun control.

Regarding the average law abiding citizens owning FA; I am the legal owner of a FA sub-machine gun. I purchased the weapon several years before I became a police officer i.e. when I was a "civilian". I didn't "need" it, but I wanted it. That's all that mattered. (Currently I use this weapon to suck up to my supervisors buy letting them have some rock 'n roll fun during our department's weapons qualifications. :cool: )

The biggest roadblock to FA ownership isn't the feds but the state governments. Irregardless, a beat cop can't effect the law either way.

That being said, arming the police with weapons that are not available to joe-avarage citizen is not that hard of a stretch. Think about it, a police officer has the authority to detain and/or arrest another person - in other words, they seize their freedom. That's a pretty big step if you ask me and it's not something that I take lightly. Should we forbid a cop from doing this and take away their handcuffs? I mean, if cops can do it, everyone should be able to do it....right? That's not a realistic viewpoint. We as a people HAVE to allow law enforcement to do certain things that the average tax-payer can't do. It is what it is.

Remember, FA for a civilian is a toy, for a police officer it is a tool. One that comes with a huge responsability and liability.

chickenwing
01-27-2011, 06:36
Do you know why drugs are illegal?

It ain't about revenue. How many illegal drug addicts have you met?

I meet them on an almost daily basis. Most are so non-functional that they have to steal, whore themselves out, or many other things to get thier next fix. They don't even really care about surviving just that drug.

Heroin users can't function for long without the DTs. Heroin users resuse needles and get ugly infections from the injection sites. I threw away a set of handcuffs from a heroin addict that had an abscess rupture and get puss on the locking mechanism. He was arrested for stealing $50 dollars in cigarettes and $75 in alchohol. This was not the first time he had been handled and it won't be the last.

The issue is that illegal drugs cause other crimes when people become addicted. This is about protection of society in general. The fact is that meth, crack/cocaine, heroin, LSD, and others can cause physical addiction and or death, the very first time of use.

Marijuana is a different argument all together and I will leave it out except to state that people trafficking marijuana typically traffic the others as well.

As to the government benefiting form the sale of drugs. There are many drugs that are safe to use in certain circumstances that are dangerous to use in an uncontrolled fashion.

For example, Ativan, Morphine (or any of the opiates), any of the anti-psycotics. These drugs are extremely effective but can be highly addictive but are safer than meth, cocaine, heroin, ect... Heroin was used but was found to far more addictive than morphine and was deemed unsafe for human use.

My point is, that there are reasons that these drugs are illegal. Far more than just to seize property and arrest people.


You need to look up the Harrison narcotics tax act. The beginning of the war on drugs has more to do with propaganda and racism then losers who use drugs. Who would more then likely be losers whether they used drugs or not.

Sober people commit crimes too. So should the government outlaw being sober??

OFCJIM40
01-27-2011, 06:44
Why the CRAP are we even having two pages of discussion about FA weapons. The VAST majority of PD's don't have them. For the most part FA in a Police role is useless anyway. Yes, my current and last PD got some mil surplus M16's, you know what happened, they were all converted to semi-auto for lability reasons. I'm issued a rifle, you know what it is, a piece of crap DPMS. We aren't allowed to carry personally owned rifles, again for "liability". But I have a perfectly superior RRA that I bought as a regular ol' citizen, not using my LEO status.

And really, you are so concerned that some PD's might get a price break. News flash!!! PD's also get Crown Vics for less than retail. Oh the horror!!! Oh but wait, the CV isn't sold on the civilian market anymore. Using your idiotic logic, the Police shouldn't have access to CV's anymore.

I'm usually calm in discussions, but I'm just so damn sick of people wanting to sidetrack an argument, then use their own skewed arguments for why they are right and everyone else is wrong. I swear some would argue if the sky is blue or not just to argue.

Oh my god, I just learned a Contractor got a break on a pneumatic hammer at Home Depot I had my eye on. If he got that price break, so should I. Guess what crap I just learned, I can't buy Cyanide because I don't have the proper Licenses, if I can't have it, neither should Pest Exterminators or Pharmaceutical Researchers.

Patchman
01-27-2011, 07:27
Why the CRAP are we even having two pages of discussion about FA weapons. The VAST majority of PD's don't have them. For the most part FA in a Police role is useless anyway. Yes, my current and last PD got some mil surplus M16's, you know what happened, they were all converted to semi-auto for lability reasons. I'm issued a rifle, you know what it is, a piece of crap DPMS. We aren't allowed to carry personally owned rifles, again for "liability". But I have a perfectly superior RRA that I bought as a regular ol' citizen, not using my LEO status.

And really, you are so concerned that some PD's might get a price break. News flash!!! PD's also get Crown Vics for less than retail. Oh the horror!!! Oh but wait, the CV isn't sold on the civilian market anymore. Using your idiotic logic, the Police shouldn't have access to CV's anymore.

I'm usually calm in discussions, but I'm just so damn sick of people wanting to sidetrack an argument, then use their own skewed arguments for why they are right and everyone else is wrong. I swear some would argue if the sky is blue or not just to argue.

Oh my god, I just learned a Contractor got a break on a pneumatic hammer at Home Depot I had my eye on. If he got that price break, so should I. Guess what crap I just learned, I can't buy Cyanide because I don't have the proper Licenses, if I can't have it, neither should Pest Exterminators or Pharmaceutical Researchers.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

He also resents the fact that MDs can prescribe narcotics while he can't. Or priests can give last rites and forgive people for their sins on behalf of The Big Guy while he can't.

And why are senior citizens entitled to discounts?

RussP
01-27-2011, 07:59
And why are senior citizens entitled to discounts?It is compensation for putting up with spoiled, gotta have it now, I want it my way, that's not fair, why can't I children of various ages, THAT'S why!:steamed:

RussP
01-27-2011, 08:06
Hey guys, wouldn't it be better to save the war on drugs discussion for another thread... please.

Stay focused on rifles for LEOs and police militarization.

:cool:

merlynusn
01-27-2011, 08:25
Chickenwing,

I wasn't trying to get into a drug debate with you. Law enforcement enforces the law, we don't make them. Do I think certain drugs like Oxycontin should be illegal? Absolutely. Do I think doctors prescribe medications they shouldn't? Absolutely. The problem is the dependence that is created and then when people can't function because they spend all their money on the drug, they start committing crimes to fund their habit. If you have a problem with drug laws, etc, it needs to be taken up with the Legislature.

You were asking why SWAT teams were used to serve warrants on "non-violent" drug possessors. Again, people dealing drugs are usually violent, which is why a search warrant is served with a SWAT team. They are busting down the armed drug dealer's door because currently it is illegal to deal drugs. The drug dealer is getting his money by selling drugs, and getting his weapons with the profits of selling drugs.

Even if the government made all drugs completely legal to possess and use, the government would still want the piece of the pie and anyone EXCEPT the government dealing would be committing a crime and the government would want those laws enforced. You can't cheat The Man out of his taxes and his money.

Drug dealers have weapons because drug dealing is very profitable. If it wasn't, no one would do it. And since it is an entirely cash business, obviously, they have a lot of cash on hand and desperate people want that money so they'll try to rob him for it.

A devil's advocate point... Who do you think is more in danger of being robbed? A drug dealer or some average joe on the street? So theoretically, who has the greater need for a gun to protect themselves?

ETA: Sorry for the digression Russ. I guess you could say the use of SWAT teams is mostly used in drug search warrants and arrest warrants on violent offenders (to keep it on topic).

RussP
01-27-2011, 08:30
...I don't think that we should ban LE from having FA; we need to extend this right to citizens.Where is it written that LE has the right to have full auto weapons?...The point is that LE and law abiding citizenry should have FA access. Nothing more.Law abiding citizens do have access to FA weapons.

FiremanMike
01-27-2011, 08:35
The purpose of law enforcement is to enforce the law, not to wage war on the populace. Militarized police forces and free societies have a bad historical record of coexisting. With what little oversight that exists inside of most agencies, allowing militarization tends to lead to miltant behavior. It is a direct danger to freedom and liberty of the average citizen.

The populace and liberal media have waged war against the police dude, not the other way around. So the cops have 2 options, defend ourselves and overcome the evil, or quit and let America become an anarchist society. While I think if the trend continues, the 2nd option might not be as far off as you think, for now we're still trying to fight back.

I'm certain this issue was already addressed, but I chose not tread through this whole thread.

lawman800
01-27-2011, 09:30
I dont believe the police have ever waged any kind of war against anyone or anything.

Mayhem like Me
01-27-2011, 09:33
No! I can buy a Glock! ;)

And you can buy a FA if you have the means.
if not get a better job!

lawman800
01-27-2011, 09:34
You can get a Glock but not at agency or officer prices.

Warp
01-27-2011, 10:32
Every police officer should be given a primary gun, back-up gun and a rifle.

I would vote for this.

Along with quarterly marksmanship quals and a department policy specifying that the officer must have all three while on patrol

Sharky7
01-27-2011, 11:57
Now I know what football players feel like the day after a big game. A bunch of a people who have never been on the field telling you how things are and what you should have done better.

The people who want to limit the tools available to police have never done a felony stop on a car you know contains a load of gang bangers, at least 3 guns, and they just killed someone minutes prior in a drive by. The same people aren't the ones who will have to bust through the door of the next school/business/government building that is attacked by the next active shooter(s) who spent the last few weeks/months planning that attack - but they expect you to go in with your handgun and 2 additional magazines, good luck officer friendly. They are tools NOT toys....Police need this equipment to do their job (protecting the community!) just as the Army needs tanks to fight for our country.

Some of these people need to spend less time on the internet and more time in the real world.

volsbear
01-27-2011, 12:01
Okay I'm just catching up here, but let me see if I've got this right...

By all accounts, the OP is just......... flat out off the page.

And user ElectricZombie is still pissed as an adult that a neighbor kid had a glow-in-the-dark frisbee and his parents would only pop for the regular frisbee, so now he's pissed because the police can afford fully automatic rifles and he can't.

Does that about sum it up?

HoldHard
01-27-2011, 12:13
No police administrator will issue FA for fun. Too much liability. It is an issue that weighs heavily before being implemented, that much is sure.There is a reason for this.... wait for it.....

We have a bunch of full autos... they've all been modified to be semi-autos.There is part of it.... but there's more....

The VAST majority of PD's don't have them. For the most part FA in a Police role is useless anyway. Yes, my current and last PD got some mil surplus M16's, you know what happened, they were all converted to semi-auto for lability reasons.DING DING DING...... We have a winner....

And you can buy a FA if you have the means.
if not get a better job! swatbwana has a tendancy to hit it out of the park with the fewest words....

I like to ask ElectricZombie a question or two (maybe you're ex-Marine LRRP, I don't know):

Have you every fired a FA weapon?
If so, please describe the weapon, include manufacturer, model and caliber.
What was the target?
What was the distance to the target?
How many rounds were fired?
How many rounds hit the target where you wanted them to hit?

Firing a FA weapon accurately is a learned skill that takes time to master. All of the LE officers on this board will undoubtedly tell you that they have to account for every round that they fire from their duty weapons. That is why so many agencies converted their FA weapons to semi-auto. Bottom line, it's three things: Accuracy. Liability. Training cost.

So do you also object to LE pricing for Glocks?
No! I can buy a Glock! ;)
You can get a Glock but not at agency or officer prices.If you want a discount on a Glock, join the Glock Sport Shooting Foundation (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf) for $35 and you are entitled to purchase one weapon per year at significantly discounted (read agency or officer) prices.

Picked up a G17 Gen4 last night.... over $100 off the price tag.

HH

Kadetklapp
01-27-2011, 12:32
ZOMG! It's gotten completely out of hand! Soldiers are....*gasp* handcuffing people in Assbucketstan!
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQcr41cB2FwFYerujgZiJT1t0BG8dFDvqhcg5xzEVRguWOXbDXxyg&t=1
Is this the Policization of the military???

Peace Frog
01-27-2011, 13:43
How will criminals magically acquire FA weapons as a result of LE no longer using them? It's not like we're having FA massacres. I don't think that we should ban LE from having FA; we need to extend this right to citizens.

Agreed.


Not pushing anything. The law isn't likely to change, so it does not really matter. The point is that LE and law abiding citizenry should have FA access. Nothing more.

You can own FA in NC correct?
I know in Texas we can,I have more then I "need" but I'm always in the hunt for more.I make some money on them also,I bought 3 Vector Uzi's years ago NIB and one is for fun and HD and the other two are still NIB waiting on somebody to make me a offer I can not refuse.Last offer was $4000 each which is more then twice what I paid but I'll hold out for more.
You as a law abiding citizen do have the right to buy FA for any legal reason you wish.

As far as LEO having them...I say arm them to the teeth!Whatever keeps them safe!

Bill Lumberg
01-27-2011, 14:45
I am not a GSSF member, but reported GSSF prices are not officer ($398.20 base gun) or agency ($398 or lower) prices. Perhaps the prices I've been able to google for GSSF were inflated or had tax already added. GSSF is a great deal for sport shooters either way.


If you want a discount on a Glock, join the Glock Sport Shooting Foundation (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf) for $35 and you are entitled to purchase one weapon per year at significantly discounted (read agency or officer) prices.

Picked up a G17 Gen4 last night.... over $100 off the price tag.

HH

chickenwing
01-27-2011, 14:52
Hey guys, wouldn't it be better to save the war on drugs discussion for another thread... please.

Stay focused on rifles for LEOs and police militarization.

:cool:


Apologies for ranting and taking the thread off topic.

boomhower
01-27-2011, 15:22
This thread is just full of fail. I work in a relatively small town of less than 15,000 and we are pulling AK's off the street almost weekly. We have a few surplus M16's but a lot of guys have started buying their own. If you think Glock vs. AK47 is good for officer safety you need to be put into some of the situations we have found ourselves in. Take the tin foil hat off and join the rest of us in the real world.

captdreifus
01-27-2011, 15:38
I have not read through this entire thread. But the first few stories that comes to mind off the top of my head:

North Hollywood shootout (older incident)

Father and son shoot at patrol officers with AK47's, kills officers, Game Warden rams truck into the fleeing suspects van at a Wal-Mart (More recent)

Numerous border crimes involving rifles (more of a Federal LE matter, since were talking about "Joe Schmo" patrol officers

The list goes on Penguin.....................

Like what Cheese said,

GESAD.

Happy Day,
Capt

OFCJIM40
01-27-2011, 16:06
Be ready to be outraged guys! I just learned the 20 year old sandwich artist that makes my sandwich at Subway is in the National Guard, and the Government just paid for him to have a year vacation in Iraq. While over there he got to play with M240's, grenades and was issued night vision goggles that I'm not allowed to buy as a citizen. My Sandwich Artists shouldn't be allowed to have that much fun playing with toys I don't have access too. Plus around here you have to be 21 to own a rifle, he should have only been issued a pistol.

BlackPaladin
01-27-2011, 19:43
The people on this thread that think that LE should not have access to a few types of firearms and other items not easily obtained, can jump off a tall building. We have these tools for a good reason, are thankful for such, and gasp, your opinions don't matter. Shootings like the St Petersburg incident easily justify this.

timetrial-pro
01-27-2011, 19:54
So, Playboy. Does this picture bother you or something? And if so why?

obxemt
01-27-2011, 20:00
So, Playboy. Does this picture bother you or something? And if so why?

Dear God, the militarization of the police. Frig! That photo scared me almost as much as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsgK5yzrWWk

RocPO
01-27-2011, 21:42
I was specifically referencing the privileges "groovyash" mentioned in his post.

I don't believe that access to FA should be among those privileges. (Unless the laws are changed so that ordinary citizens can buy them easily.)

Obviously, many of you disagree. No problem.

That's where you still fail to comprehend. They're not "privilages". They're responsibilities that come with the job that we have chosen. I don't see you next to me as I'm entering a building on a shots fired call, or any other hot job that comes over. You chose to not become a cop, and that's fine. As such, you don't have the same responsibilities we have to enforce the law and run into dicey situations.

Those are tools for me to do my job safely and properly. For you, they're just entertainment.

golls17
01-27-2011, 21:50
I just browsed through the whole thread, and the OP hasn't answered in at least the last 5 pages. Yes, others have on their side.

I vote this:

End of discussion, cop will be arme with what they have.

End of story. Close thread.

razdog76
01-27-2011, 21:59
I just browsed through the whole thread, and the OP hasn't answered in at least the last 5 pages. Yes, others have on their side.

I vote this:

End of discussion, cop will be arme with what they have.

End of story. Close thread.

No, no,no, no, no.

We have not even touched on the legality of tactically following a hot wife for 7 miles.:tongueout:

Hack
01-27-2011, 22:35
No, no,no, no, no.

We have not even touched on the legality of tactically following a hot wife for 7 miles.:tongueout:

Since the thread is quickly devolving I will throw in, "Making an appointment, wearing the hat", and for a good finish, "Don't you have some real criminals to harass, CO?":supergrin:

Rohniss
01-27-2011, 23:06
The Mindset of the kinds of "Civilian Sheepdogs" who contributed to this thread:

THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT THING I CARRY EVERY SINGLE DAY IS MY GUN, BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN A TERRORIST NAZI COMMUNIST MIGHT TRY TO RAPE/MUG/KILL ME!
THE SECOND IS MY CELL PHONE SO THAT I CAN ALWAYS CHECK FOR TEXT AND PHONE MESSAGES THAT I NEVER GET
THE NEXT IS MY MP3 PLAYER, EVEN THOUGH MY PHONE ALSO HAS MP3 CAPABILITY, BUT IT LOOKS COOL!
THE NEXT IS MY PDA, BECAUSE WITH MY BUSY SCHEDULE OF BROWSING GLOCKTALK AND LOOKING AT PORN IT'S HARD TO KEEP TRACK OF ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT NEED TO GET DONE
THE THIRD IS MY LIGHTER, EVEN THOUGH I USUALLY DON'T HAVE ANY CIGARETTES IN THE PICTURE. I TRY TO DO TRICKS WITH IT TO IMPRESS PEOPLE BUT I USUALLY END UP FAILING, AND PEOPLE LAUGH AWKWARDLY WHILE TRYING TO SAY THAT I DID OK.
NEXT I CARRY ANOTHER LIGHTER, JUST IN CASE MY OTHER ONE IS DAMAGED IN MY SHOOTOUT WITH THE ENEMY!
NEXT I CARRY A WATCH WITH 200 DIFFERENT FEATURES, 197 OF WHICH I NEVER USE.
NEXT I CARRY A BUNCH OF KEYS. A BUNCH. MOST ARE TO PADLOCKS I BOUGHT AND HAVE IN A TRUNK THAT'S LOCKED WITH A PADLOCK. IT MAKES ME LOOK IMPORTANT TO HAVE A LOT OF KEYS, THOUGH.
NEXT IS MY 50 MILLION CANDLEPOWER ELITE TACTICAL TOTALLY USED BY THE SEALS TACTICAL OPERATIONS FLASHLIGHT, FOR PLAYING WITH MY CAT.
NEXT IS MY WALLET, WHICH CONTAINS MORE MONEY THAN I ACTUALLY NEED IN CASH, BUT IT LOOKS COOL WHEN I HAVE ALL DAT PAPER. ALSO, LOOK I JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE MY ID SHOWING. I'M SO COOL TO HAVE "ACCIDENTALLY" PUT MY PICTURE ON THE INTERNET.
NEXT IS MY FOLDING TACTICAL 2.5" KNIFE, JUST IN CASE I RUN OUT OF AMMO OR AM ATTACKED BY A VICIOUS GANG OF CARDBOARD BOXES THAT NEED TO BE OPENED.
NEXT IS MY OTHER TACTICAL FOLDING KNIFE JUST IN CASE I HAVE TO LODGE THE OTHER ONE IN THE HEART OF AN ATTACKER!
NEXT IS MY MULTI-TOOL, JUST IN CASE I NEED TO REPAIR A JET OR SOMETHING.
LAST IS ANY SORT OF DECORATIONAL ITEM THAT I DON'T REALLY WEAR, BUT CARRY AROUND JUST IN CASE I'M ALONE SO THAT I CAN LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND THINK I LOOK COOL WITHOUT PEOPLE JUDGING ME.

Copypasted and Edited from a Dark Corner of the Internet.

razdog76
01-27-2011, 23:20
Since the thread is quickly devolving I will throw in, "Making an appointment, wearing the hat", and for a good finish, "Don't you have some real criminals to harass, CO?":supergrin:

:laughabove:

ateamer
01-28-2011, 00:53
Three guys who have never gotten laid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5oHKFexM4k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdu4rOrhhSM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMtctZUlWyg&feature=related

Peace Frog
01-28-2011, 13:45
Three guys who have never gotten laid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5oHKFexM4k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdu4rOrhhSM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMtctZUlWyg&feature=related

Good Lord,do people really carry that much crap around daily?

Amazing!:wow:

Dragoon44
01-28-2011, 15:18
Three guys who have never gotten laid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5oHKFexM4k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdu4rOrhhSM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMtctZUlWyg&feature=related

Sometime a while back someone posted a pic of the founder of the VCDL. At first glance I thought it was a pic of Batman unmasked. The guy looked like he had a utility belt on he had so much stuff he was wearing around his waist.

volsbear
01-28-2011, 17:57
Three guys who have never gotten laid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5oHKFexM4k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdu4rOrhhSM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMtctZUlWyg&feature=related

Don't be ridiculous. These guys all have at least 2 blow-up dolls plus a back up.

Do these freaks actually carry around all this crap all day just to pump gas at the Stop'n'Rob?