The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 31, 2009, 01:27 PM   #26
VA9mm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2007
Location: N. VA
Posts: 254
I think officers should have a rifle or some kind of long arm in their cruiser. I sure as hell know I would want one.

A 12ga with slugs would fit the bill in my opinion as well. Slug effective range 35meters buckshot 25meters.
__________________
“The key is to hit them hard, hit them fast, and hit them repeatedly. The one shot stop is a unit of measurement not a tactical philosophy.” Evan Marshall
VA9mm is offline  
Old May 31, 2009, 01:37 PM   #27
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,236
If the cops "need" rifles.....

Why not just give them .30-30s? Winchester (oh, wait, they're gone, OK, Marlin) lever guns are short, handy, accurate to a couple hundred yards (in trained hands), and provide all the power needed to overcome barriers or body armor.

Plus they have the added benefit of NOT holding 20-30 rnds of ammo, and firing only a single shot at a time! One AIMED shot beats the heck out of 30rnds sprayed as fast as the trigger can be pulled.

If a handgun or shotgun isn't enough, and a rifle is needed, a .30-30 will do the job just fine until SWAT gets there with their sniper scopes and long range guns. Sure, it isn't modern and sexy, and it fails the movie image of massive cover fire horribly, but as something able to do the job, if the shooter does theirs, it works. And it isn't military looking.

In the oft repeated N.Hollywood shootout, if just one of those cops had a .30-30, and knew how to use it, odds are it would have turned out differently. The patrol officer should have access to a rifle, for those rare times when it is needed. But I feel that it should be a rifle, not a military style arm, especially one using a small caliber high speed bullet!
If you just gotta have a semi auto, then the M1 Garand is a fine choice. Half a dozen enbloc clips of ball ammo doesn't take up much space in the trunk, and should serve to handle just about anything (at least until the SWAT gets there), without encouraging officers to spray and pray!
Just my opinion, and worth what you pay for it!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 31, 2009, 01:48 PM   #28
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,487
Quote:
But I feel that it should be a rifle, not a military style arm, especially one using a small caliber high speed bullet!
After making some very good points, this summary sounds a lot like Brady talking points. We routinely object to Brady claims revolving around the appearance of weapons ("And it isn't military looking."), as well as ballistic differences between different rounds (.223 with 1282 ft.lbs. at 3240 fps is apparently an objectionalbe "small caliber high speed bullet" but 30-06 with 2976 ft.lbs. at 3020 fps is "a fine choice").

Last edited by gc70; May 31, 2009 at 01:59 PM. Reason: added .223 vs 30-06 ballistic comparison
gc70 is offline  
Old May 31, 2009, 01:53 PM   #29
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Why don't we let police departments decide what firearms they need themselves?

Civilians should not be picking the firearms cops carry. Sure, maybe you carried an M16 back in the Army, have read "The Art of War" and debated tactics with Clausewitz, but you cannot know the needs of every LEO in this country.

How would you like it if "<insert special interest group here>" were allowed to choose what firearm was appropriate for civilian CCW in your state? How many rounds of ammo you could carry? What type of ammo you carry?

Let people make decisions for themselves.

I would rather hear that every cop in the US had an M16 in the trunk than hear even once that cops are "out gunned" by badguys. As we see in this case, the only time cops are out gunned is when politicians restrict their access to firearms.


And yes, I think the '86 machinegun ban totally sucks. No reason to limit the firearms police carry.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old May 31, 2009, 03:17 PM   #30
AZ Med18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 337
I am ok with Peace Officers carrying what I can carry and buy with ease.

SWAT can go all out rocket launchers go for it. They spend ample amount of time trainging or they should.

Patrol officer can have his AR15 or M16 that cannot be readily converted to FA.
__________________
XD 9mm service Ruger LCP
Colt Python .357 magnum AK-47
Mossberg 500 12 gauge
AZ Med18 is offline  
Old May 31, 2009, 09:04 PM   #31
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,169
Quote:
I am ok with Peace Officers carrying what I can carry and buy with ease.
Exactly.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old May 31, 2009, 09:55 PM   #32
armsmaster270
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,943
Superhouse15:
The metal Selector blocks you refer to are made of aluminum and can be snapped off with your thumb, I was an armorer for the N.G. during the Rodney King Riots and had to put one on every M-16 our M.P.'s carried while at the riots, then take them off after we got home..

Also If you are going to use a large cal rifle instead of the small cal I would suggest light expamding bullets instead of Military Ball to prevent overpenetration as much as possible. Actually we should have had soft point ammo at the riots for the same reason we weren't covered by the rules of war.
__________________
http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com
http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/f...aster270/Guns/
Retired LE, M.P., Sr. M.P. Investigator F.B.I. Trained Rangemaster/Firearms Instructor & Armorer, Presently Forensic Document Examiner for D.H.S.

Last edited by armsmaster270; May 31, 2009 at 10:03 PM.
armsmaster270 is offline  
Old May 31, 2009, 11:20 PM   #33
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
Quote:
No offense guys but, this example is getting quite tiresome, if this is the only situation in 13 years that has pitted street cops against an unfair advantage then I would submit that perhaps the need is not that great.
We are taking AKs and shotguns of the street with more and more regularity in Chicago. I can get numbers if someone cares. New Year's Eve sounds like downtown Mosul in my westside district.

Quote:
But, I cannot see the need to issue M-16s to street cops. FA fire should not be that "necessary" for peace officers.
FA fire is something that has very limited to no value in the urban setting so if you can get M-16 with the EVIL FA selector disabled does that pass muster with you, because it would be fine with me.

Isn't the M-16 the same as a AR-15 as a M-9 is the same as a Beretta 92FS?

Outcast what is your beef with having a patrol rifle locked in the car?

Dust Monkey, this militarization thing is getting tiresome.

Last edited by Wagonman; May 31, 2009 at 11:33 PM.
Wagonman is offline  
Old May 31, 2009, 11:44 PM   #34
Michael Anthony
Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2007
Posts: 83
Wagonman:

When people hear "M-16" they normally assume full auto. The article does say "semiautomatic m-16s" but given most news articles gross mislabeling of firearm related items I cannot say what they really mean.

Also you said:

Quote:
Outcast what is your beef with having a patrol rifle locked in the car?
Outcasts posts on the topic started with:

Quote:
I have no problem with officers being issued AR-15s as a trunk gun
His stance was that patrol rifles were a Good Thing (tm) but questioned the validity of full auto weapons for patrol officers.
Michael Anthony is offline  
Old May 31, 2009, 11:50 PM   #35
Dust Monkey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 24, 2007
Posts: 723
Yes I agree. The militarization of police is getting tiresome. I am tired of seeing it and sick of what may be the end result in the future. As far as me stopping from taking or opining on the subject, ain't gonna happen. So either debate me on it or place me on your ignore list.
__________________
Civilian Date: 14 Century
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law.
If you are not subject to the UCMJ, you are a Civilian. I don't care one bit what updated dictionaries say.
Dust Monkey is offline  
Old June 1, 2009, 12:08 AM   #36
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
Quote:
Yes I agree. The militarization of police is getting tiresome. I am tired of seeing it and sick of what may be the end result in the future. As far as me stopping from taking or opining on the subject, ain't gonna happen. So either debate me on it or place me on your ignore list.
I meant the droning about the supposed militarization of the police, but I think you knew that.

I have debated the subject, other people with skin or ahammer in the game have also. Like it or not Law Enforcement is a Para-Military profession and all of your debate points aren't going to change that simple fact


Quote:
When people hear "M-16" they normally assume full auto.

I stipulated that FA has almost no role in urban policing. I don't see the logic in saying M-16 bad Ar-15 good.
Wagonman is offline  
Old June 1, 2009, 01:05 AM   #37
BobbyT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Posts: 266
I have no problem with officers being armed with a rifle that'll let them handle whatever situation they face.

I'm of the opinion that cops should have the choice of being armed up to as well as a civilian.

So that means policy should be the police may choose whatever pistol or rifle your typical civilian can easily and affordably acquire and carry. I respect the job they do but they are human. If any restriction on private citizens applied to the police as well, you'd have a surefire way to make sure the police stayed on our side instead of taking the "Only Ones" attitude in urban hellholes like Chicago, DC, NYC, Philly, etc.
BobbyT is offline  
Old June 1, 2009, 01:08 AM   #38
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,236
I believe I am being misunderstood

Quote:
But I feel that it should be a rifle, not a military style arm, especially one using a small caliber high speed bullet!

After making some very good points, this summary sounds a lot like Brady talking points. We routinely object to Brady claims revolving around the appearance of weapons ("And it isn't military looking."), as well as ballistic differences between different rounds (.223 with 1282 ft.lbs. at 3240 fps is apparently an objectionalbe "small caliber high speed bullet" but 30-06 with 2976 ft.lbs. at 3020 fps is "a fine choice").
I don't object to the appearance of the AR/M16 rifles, as such, but I think the PR people working in MA might. No, the reason I object to the M16 class of carbines is the 5.56mm round used. The small caliber high speed bullet is apparently working well enough in combat (although there are still opinions to the contrary), but other than the fact that shooting people is involved, the police do not engage in combat.

Modern combat is about firepower, throwing large amounts of flying metal in the direction of the enemy. Full auto fire, belt fed weapons, artillery and airstrikes. This is not something our police should be emulating, in whole or part. The military's concept of collateral damage is slightly different that what should be in use on our streets.

A .30-30, .30-06, or even larger caliber round (I like the .45-70) have long proven record of delivering stopping power that the .22 cal lacks. Police shoot to stop, not kill. Or they should. Larger caliber rounds tend to stop determined people better than smaller ones. Its that simple.

While adequate for war, I feel the small bore round (5.56mm) will prove less than optimum for a police (or self defense) situation. This isn't meant to imply that it won't work, just that overall, as my sig line says....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 1, 2009, 01:32 AM   #39
mskdgunman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2008
Posts: 127
I would think by now that we would all know the the MSM can't tell the difference between a full auto M-16 and a semi AR-15 and neither can most politicians. They're all "assault rifles" to them. I think there is some confusion in the article. I agree with everbody who says that FA has limited (if any) value in law enforcement work. A local PD received a few dozen M-16A1's a few years back and they removed the FA FCG and replaced them with SA. The PD had to maintain the FA parts but they are kept in the armory. Not what I'd call readily convertable to FA.

As for some folks who believe that the BOA shootout example is getting tiresome, I'm sure that the anti-gunners feel the same way about some of our arguments regarding our right to have firearms in the first place. I'm a cop and as pro-gun as they come and I find many of the attitudes here towards cops to be less then cordial. I know, I know.....all us cops are part of the conspiracy to overthrow the constitution and turn the US into one big police state....now THAT is getting tiresome.

Look up Norco bank robbery for just another example of BG's with automatic weapons. I'm sure that there are many more if you look hard enought. BOA was just the most publicized.

Also, should I ever need someone to help me out with a 40-50 yard headshot (with a handgun) on a moving BG, behind cover who is spraying full auto suppressive fire with an AK or a HK-91, I'll be sure to call on JMortensen. I do agree that slugs could have possibly ended the situation but, departments being what they are, none were issued or approved for use.

It seems that some here would have all us cops be like Barney fife and that would be fine if we all lived in Mayberry but we don't. Will I ever use my patrol rifle at work? Probably not but I sure as **** don't need a politician telling me I can't carry it. Just like the members on here who would go ballistic should they be forced to give up their (insert favorite firearm here) because of a politician.

It's funny that when you go to France and get off the plane, there are soldiers and gendarmerie standing around with FMAS rifles and no one pays attention but put a soldier or a cop in and American airport with an M-16 or MP-5 and everyone thinks the world is coming to an end. You would think that it would be the French who would be all uptight over the blatant display of firepower instead of Americans with our culture being tied so closely to guns. Go figure.

To steal a quote I've seen on this forum "it's better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it". When you can stop the militarization of the bad guys, we (cops) will gladly follow suit but no one seems to know how to do that. Of course, we could just ban all the guns and that would make it all better (Sarcasam!)
mskdgunman is offline  
Old June 1, 2009, 01:34 AM   #40
bigger hammer
Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
Respectfully Sir, You once again attempt to credit me with statements that I have not made, I do not intend to be baited into a genital waving contest over a topic that has been all but declared "verboten" and not under discussion here. Again, please point to any mention of "militarization" by me, in this thread or kindly refrain from dragging me into the folds of your wadded panties.
This is the same discussion wearing a different hat. It's obviously not necessary that you use the phrase "militarization of the police" for it to be the topic of discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
On topic, I cannot see where fully automatic fire would be needed by anyone other than "specialized" Police units , unless they are going to be available to other civilians as well.
Having been trained in both semi and FA with many weapons systems, I know that you're wrong. The question of effectiveness has nothing to do with the question of such weapons being available to civilians.
bigger hammer is offline  
Old June 1, 2009, 01:35 AM   #41
bigger hammer
Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
Earlier I wrote,
Quote:
I never had the slightest bit of trouble qualifying "with my pistol" or any other weapon I carried or had available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
and most officers are not registered on a firearms forum...
You made this statement,
Quote:
Not bashing on the street cops, but they have a hard enough qualifying with their pistols …
generalizing that "street cops" have problems qualifying with their "pistols." That is simply not a fact. Some have the problem but most do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
This is like the 'I kept my AR running in Iraq, so every grunt can' argument. I don't think MOST officers have trouble with their pistols, but there are some who really should not have pistols in the first place, at least not live ammunition.
This has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. As I've already written, It's a simple matter to allow only those officers who are proficient with a particular weapon, in this case the AR-15/M-16, carry it."

Earlier I wrote,
Quote:
IN FACT most officers find it far easier to shoot a rifle faster and more accurately than they do a handgun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
Probably true, but not many of their handguns have the ballistics of a 223. 9mm doesn't exactly go through frame houses all that well. 223 on the other hand has a lot better chance.
Actually 9mm with the HP ammo commonly carried by police officers goes through many more walls than does a .223 with the right ammunition. The 9mm HP hole fills up with wallboard, making it the near equivalent of hardball ammunition. I built walls on my range to demonstrate this to my brass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
I also agree the west hollywood card is overplayed. I think it is very likely we will not see a similar situation before the zombies/communists/mall ninjas, or even the retired mall ninja communist zombie hoard, take over.
I predict that we'll see similar situations again long before the zombie march. And I predict that we'll see hundreds of situations where a long gun is a better choice than a handgun every year.

Most LE shooting situations happen by surprise and so the officer is forced to use the only weapon at hand, his handgun. But many times the nature of the incident is known before arrival at the scene, making the long gun the weapon of choice before arrival.
bigger hammer is offline  
Old June 1, 2009, 01:36 AM   #42
bigger hammer
Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
And given we are discussing an urban environment,I would think that FA .223 fire would be very cumbersome with respect to controlling overpenetration.
It depends completely on the ammunition selected. If this is a concern, and it often is, simply selecting ammunition that can be stopped by a single layer of wallboard or two, is easily done.
bigger hammer is offline  
Old June 1, 2009, 01:37 AM   #43
bigger hammer
Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarrySchell
Given that "assault weapons" are rarely used to commit crimes, I don't see a com,pelling need for every officer to have a FA weapon.
Boston PD has just over 2,000 officers. Issuing 200 rifles is hardly "every officer." And quite a few news stories have these guns being converted to "semi-auto fire" only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarrySchell
When you consider that the nominal hit rate for police with handguns is about 1 every 6 rounds fired, I don't like the idea of an FA weapon as first response to an incident
Again, you've assumed that these weapons will be FA and that's not the case. You also ignore the fact that most people find it far easier to accurately shoot a rifle than a handgun. Do you have any statistics the for "nominal hit rate for police" using rifles?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarrySchell
However, we are likely closer than before to a Mumbai-type engagement, where M4's or M16's might be crucial. I think that scenario is a long way off but who knows. The drug cartels have brought such violence to our borders.
I think we're getting into a discussion of "far better to have it and not need it, v. not having it and needing it."
bigger hammer is offline  
Old June 1, 2009, 01:39 AM   #44
bigger hammer
Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMortensen
The West Hollywood shootout proved only one thing: cops make horrible choices when it comes to their firearms.
Often such decisions are made by administrators, not the officers themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMortensen
Well, that and they can't take headshots.
I'll agree here. I think with all the officers present that at least a couple of them, at any given moment would have had the time to take a headshot without worry of being shot at themselves. Yet no one did. This may be a hole in the training where such shots are only taken at fairly close ranges and that was not the case here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMortensen
They actually went to a gun store that I used to frequent (B&B) and they got some rifles to "level the playing field". B&B has pretty much any gun you could imagine. What did they choose out of the nearly limitless possibilities? AR-15's. This was about the dumbest choice they could have made, in my opinion. Not because your typical AR isn't accurate enough to make the headshot that was needed, but because these idiot cops didn't seem interested in taking careful aim and ending the deal quickly. It seemed to me that they would rather put lots of bullets on target but none of them accurately enough to get the job done. [Emphasis added]
Aside from the obvious rudeness, do you have any evidence to support this opinion? I'd bet that anyone of them would have preferred to deliver a couple of head shots to end this incident but they weren't capable of doing so with their handguns or it didn't occur to them. But this is way off the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMortensen
All they needed was two headshots to end the whole thing. Remington 700, Ruger 77, Win 70, any decent quality deer rifle could have ended this thing quickly.
It's quite possible that they chose the AR-15 because of its similarities to their military experience with the M-16. I don't know this for a fact but I think it's a pretty good possibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMortensen
Their 12 gauge shotguns aimed at the head feet or hands could have ended it quickly.
Perhaps and perhaps not. The crooks were beyond the effective range of the 00 buck that the officers were carrying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMortensen
I remember watching it at home thinking "I could DRIVE DOWN THERE and pop these guys in the head before these idiot cops will get the job done." [Emphasis added]
MORE rudeness. Somehow I doubt that if you were standing face–to–face with any of the officers involved in this incident that you'd be calling them "idiots."

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMortensen
I know I know, there were officers down everywhere and the guys had automatic weapons and blah blah blah. All of that doesn't change the fact that SOMEWHERE during the confrontation a single shot to the head of either of the robbers would have ended the whole thing.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMortensen
Eventually it did. As I recall they both had HUNDREDS of rounds in their body armor, and when it ended there were only two shots really mattered: one perp was shot in the ankle which finally brought him down where he bled out on the street from other wounds
Emile Matasareanu suffered as many (according to some reports) as 29 wounds. It's little known but both suspects had taken drugs to calm their nerves. That also help them ignore their injuries. The autopsy ruled that the fatal shot was to his thigh. A SWAT officer firing a FA M-16 under his vehicle struck the suspect in the lower legs. That firing continued until Matasareanu fell to the ground and dropped his weapon. Interesting that it was an FA M-16 that finally ended the incident in light of several folks arguing that FA has no place for the street police officer. In this case it was wielded by a SWAT officer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMortensen
and the other one was stopped by a single shot to the head.
He was wounded, having his thumb shot off. His rifle malfunctioned and (possibly because of the thumb injury) he was unable to clear it. He went to his handgun, fired several rounds and then shot himself. This occurred at about the same time that the fatal round, fired by an officer, arrived, severing his spinal cord.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMortensen
After the 45 minute debacle there were awards given and there was a lot of news in SoCal about how traumatized the cops were. Ridiculous...
Bravery under fire, even if mistakes are made is "Ridiculous?" PTSD is "ridiculous?"

It's really a shame that you weren't there. We all know that you would have handled the situation in a few seconds saving us all that time and blood. The quality of your Monday Morning Quarterbacking, made from the comfort and safety of your living room, really is quite extraordinary!
bigger hammer is offline  
Old June 1, 2009, 01:41 AM   #45
bigger hammer
Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Why not just give them .30-30s? Winchester (oh, wait, they're gone, OK, Marlin) lever guns are short, handy, accurate to a couple hundred yards (in trained hands), and provide all the power needed to overcome barriers or body armor.

Plus they have the added benefit of NOT holding 20-30 rnds of ammo, and firing only a single shot at a time!
If you know someone who's donating 200 of them to the police, please let us know. The M-16's are free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
One AIMED shot beats the heck out of 30rnds sprayed as fast as the trigger can be pulled.

If a handgun or shotgun isn't enough, and a rifle is needed, a .30-30 will do the job just fine until SWAT gets there with their sniper scopes and long range guns. Sure, it isn't modern and sexy, and it fails the movie image of massive cover fire horribly, but as something able to do the job, if the shooter does theirs, it works. And it isn't military looking.

In the oft repeated N.Hollywood shootout, if just one of those cops had a .30-30, and knew how to use it, odds are it would have turned out differently. The patrol officer should have access to a rifle, for those rare times when it is needed. But I feel that it should be a rifle, not a military style arm, especially one using a small caliber high speed bullet!

If you just gotta have a semi auto, then the M1 Garand is a fine choice. Half a dozen enbloc clips of ball ammo doesn't take up much space in the trunk, and should serve to handle just about anything (at least until the SWAT gets there), without encouraging officers to spray and pray!
Yaknow this sounds an awful lot like a typical argument of those who would ban "assault weapons." Basically it's the "one kind of gun is OK but those that look like military firearms are not." It doesn’t work for them and it doesn't work here either.
bigger hammer is offline  
Old June 1, 2009, 06:33 AM   #46
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,660
Personally, I am all for anything that exposes more people to the idea that AR15s are not lethal death rays that can kill you just by looking at them. The more police understand that, the better it will be for all black rifle owners - and having the weapon widely used by patrol officers and not just special teams doesn't hurt the "in common use" argument either.

Besides, how I can object to police being as "militarized" as I am? I own a rifle and here in Texas I have the same freedom to carry it around loaded in my vehicle if that suits me. So I can hardly complain about the police doing the same.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old June 1, 2009, 08:16 AM   #47
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
This thread, and many like it, have one thing in common: Many ordinary folks simply don't want the police to have access to the exact same weaponry that they themselves have (or want).

You use the same tired arguments, against arming the police, as the anti-gunners use against you. Rather hypocritical, don't you think?

You're against the police having FA capabilities, in these threads, yet on others, you wail against government FA restrictions on yourself. Again, hypocritical.

Here's the deal. I want my police officers better armed than me, which means they are better armed than the crooks. I want them better trained in both defensive and offensive fire than me, which means they are better trained than the crooks.

I would also like to see more citizens partake of ride-alongs (where available), in order to understand what cops have to do, on a day to day basis (guaranteed, you will be bored out of your minds, for the most part). Most of you have no clue. Most of you won't get involved (with the ride-alongs), as it would break those precious stereotypes, you have built up.

Some of you belabor the "Us v. Them" mentality, that is so often seen (on both sides), yet you fail to see where and when you yourself are perpetuating that very same mentality. Hypocrites!
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 1, 2009, 08:37 AM   #48
ilbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 516
I don't have a major issue with police being issued carbines for their squads.

Not thrilled with FA versions though. Just don't see the need.

And only 200 of them. I would bet a city the size of Boston has a lot more than 200 cops. But 200 is a start I guess.
__________________
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.
ilbob is offline  
Old June 1, 2009, 08:58 AM   #49
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
+1 Antipitas
Wagonman is offline  
Old June 1, 2009, 09:05 AM   #50
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,169
Quote:
Also you said:

Quote:
Outcast what is your beef with having a patrol rifle locked in the car?
Outcasts posts on the topic started with:

Quote:
I have no problem with officers being issued AR-15s as a trunk gun
His stance was that patrol rifles were a Good Thing (tm) but questioned the validity of full auto weapons for patrol officers.

Michael Anthony, That is correct, and thanks for clearing that up.


Bigger Hammer wrote:



Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
Quote:
Quote:
Respectfully Sir, You once again attempt to credit me with statements that I have not made, I do not intend to be baited into a genital waving contest over a topic that has been all but declared "verboten" and not under discussion here. Again, please point to any mention of "militarization" by me, in this thread or kindly refrain from dragging me into the folds of your wadded panties.
This is the same discussion wearing a different hat. It's obviously not necessary that you use the phrase "militarization of the police" for it to be the topic of discussion.

No it is not, you have for the second time characterized statements I have made, and attempted to place your own generalizations on them, and both times you were wrong. And just so we do not have any further mis- characterizations on the subject, I have no problem with patrol officers having the same semi-auto firearms available to them that are available to me. Why ?

Simple, because I do not want a paramilitary force (as described by Wagonman) to be routinely roaming the streets with better weaponry than is available to the public. At some point this "paramilitary organization" may decide that they want to ignore the oaths they took (as they seem to do on a regular basis depending on who is deemed a scumbag, and dregs of society that day) and I want the odds to be even. Now, you may proceed to make arguments against the "tin-foilness" of that comment to your hearts content. I laid my cards on the table, got the cajones to do the same "Big" guy ?


What is hypocritical about that stance ? If full auto becomes available to the public, under different terms than it is now, then by all means, the police should have access to them. I don't want an "army" on my block under the guise of "keeping the peace".
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; June 1, 2009 at 12:31 PM. Reason: Edited for content on moderators advice.
OuTcAsT is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15592 seconds with 7 queries