[critter]

I have noticed on various 'news' outlet programs the emphasis on the attacks in London and the ramping up of security over here in lots of places. Often, you see pictured an officer of some type carrying at the ready an MP5 or some sort of short M16 clone. They are usually it an airport terminal, a subway terminal or some other such place absolutely filled with people going about their business.

I can see some over-eager officer opening up with some of these FA firearms in a crowded place. There would be more casualties than the terrorists could even imagine-and without them having done anything. I have a hard time imagining a less well suited firearm for the purpose at hand. I don't think they will see a batallion of Arabs riding down the street on their camels in full charge. IF (and that is a BIG if) they do see some terrorist about to blow somebody up, it is likely just one or perhaps two and they will be mingled in the crowd.

Is it just me or do these arms seem to be poor choices for such duty? They do look COOL-BAD though, don't they! And what a fun way for a chief of police to spend his anti-terror funds!

Looks like to me a good ole 94 Win in 30-30 would be much better suited or perhaps a Win M70 with a scope on it.

[Alex45ACP]

Never mind that, the MP5s are cool looking. Why actually spend time preventing terrorism when we can implement a pointless feel-good measure instead?

[lunaslide]

Looks like to me a good ole 94 Win in 30-30 would be much better suited or perhaps a Win M70 with a scope on it.
Perhaps, except for the over penetration and collateral damage you would cause with a powerful rifle round. BTW, what the heck good is a scope going to do you in a subway station? Are you high?

Besides being a pistol caliber weapon which is far more suitable for this kind of application, an MP5 or pistol caliber M16 variant will always have a semi-auto setting, which is likely what they are using. So you get the better accuracy and power of a rifle (pistol caliber out of a rifle have more velocity by virtue of the longer barrel), you limit the possibility of overpenetration with pistol caliber rounds and you have the manueverability in close quarters of a short carbine or commando length rifle.

I can see some over-eager officer opening up with some of these FA firearms in a crowded place. There would be more casualties than the terrorists could even imagine-and without them having done anything. I have a hard time imagining a less well suited firearm for the purpose at hand.
Thats about as ignorant as an anti argument. Why do you think these people train so much? Just because you don't trust yourself under the circumstances doesn't mean we shouldn't trust them not to wildly shoot at people. They train specifically for these types of situation.

Now, if you want to make the argument that all that firepower standing around the scene of a crime the criminals have already left does no good in catching or deterring terrorism, I might agree. I believe the security forces there are more for the public's benefit than anything else. But considering a situation where they might actually encounter terrorists in such an area, the choice of weapon couldn't be better.

[JohnBT]

"1985 December 27th. - Italy, Rome, Leonardo da Vinci Airport: 4 terrorists enter the check in area of EL-AL, TWA, and PanAm and start firing with submachine guns and throwing grenades into the crowd; 14 people were killed (including 3 attackers) and 70 injured."

[P95Carry]

I forget exact details but IIRC there have been instances where these MP5's were not even loaded - or whether the cops even had ammo!! Would have to check. Sure a FA running as such is NOT IMO the weapon/mode of choice in such environments. Selective semi would make sense tho.

This thread slant really has more gun flavor than anything else so seems logical it could better live in General Guns now. Hope local mod's will not object.

[Standing Wolf]

Why actually spend time preventing terrorism when we can implement a pointless feel-good measure instead?

We could have solved the entire Islamic terrorist savagry problem in September, 2001. We'd much rather talk and squander than actually do, apparently.

[NeverAgain26]

I personally don't have a lot of confidence in LEO marksmanship. I'm not saying they are all bad shots, but I get the feeling that your average LEO (unless he/she is a THR member and therefore a fellow gun-nut) might not spend a lot of time practicing.

I see our range after LEO Qualification and it's all shot up. I am friends with some of the LEO's in my area and I know the few who shoot well. The others do not spend a lot of time practicing beyond prepping for qualification.

As for trigger-happiness, anyone on high alert under a lot of tension might 'put the pedal to the metal' in a sense if something goes down. We've seen that in numerous cases, both LEO and Military. Any one of us might be capable of that, training or not.

I know we need the armed presence as it is better than nothing, but I agree that the chances of stopping a bombing with a firearm are pretty slim. I also agree with lunaslide's rationale on choice of firearm.

Saul Levy

[QuickDraw]

I'm no expert on the subject,but....
I would think that any leo thats toting a mp5
or the like is probably not your average traffic cop.
Probably SWAT,HRT or something.
Just my thoughts.

QuickDraw

[Hypnogator]

Both the MP-5 and M-16 clones generally used by LE are capable of semi-auto fire. Some are not capable of full auto fire or are semi and 3-rd burst only.

It would be hard to beat either for precision shooting in crowded environments, plus either would have the capability of laying down suppressing fire on a full-scale terrorist assault.

Hopefully the LEOs carrying them will be more inclined to use them safely in the semi mode than most of our troops were in 'Nam. :rolleyes: "Spray & Pray" has no place in a crowded airport or train station! :eek:

[Chipperman]

They are merely props for the Sheeple.

[GRB]

Is it just me or do these arms seem to be poor choices for such duty? They do look COOL-BAD though, don't they! And what a fun way for a chief of police to spend his anti-terror funds!I have a rather simple solution for you if you really want to find an answer to your questions. Contact the departments you have seen with these weapons and ask them why they are used. I currently have an issue Glock 19, a Remington 870 and a MP5. They all have there places, and sometimes being armed with them in a crowded area serves a purpose other than and much more important than impressing the masses.

For example if such a weapon is utilized in Grand Central Staion, Penn Station, the Financial District (Wall Street) in NYC maybe there is good reason that you have not fathomed. Hmm lets see now: snipers would be one reason, a man shooting from an isolated location into the crowds (another sort of a sniper), a group of terrorists spraying and literally praying would be another, a more precise distance shot yet another, an armed attack on an airport another (lots of space there - such as the guy who drove onto the tarmac earlier this week - could just have easily been a terrorist). The list goes on...

As far as spraying the crowds, you seem to forget that these weapons have SELECT fire mechanisms. A single shot from a 9mm carbine (or machime pistol such as an MP5) or from a rifle in .223 quite possibly would be much more effective at a range of let's say as little as 50 to 75 yards than would a 9mm from a pistol. These ranges are easily found within the subways or streets of our cities. Ranges out to 150 yards are also easily imaginable in a city situation, therefore these firearms certainly do have their places. As far as a 30-30 goes, you must be kidding. Any 30-30 firearm I have seen lately is not equipped for police work and cannot be equipped in the way each department wants them as could be something like an M-16. The ballistics also leaves something to be desired compared to a .223.

You also seem to group all LEOs together regarding shooting skills. The truth is that the officers who are assigned such advanced weapons receive lots of advanced training in their use and when to use them too, at least in the more responsible departments such as those in larger cities. You also fail to mnention all those officers who are assigned .308 sniper rifles. Oh thats right they are not usually seen in the news shots nor are they as easy to critisize.

By the way, just because you do not expect a large group of well armed terrorists to run (or ride camels as i believe you put it) down the streets does not mean such will not happen. It is much better to be well prepared for them than to be ill prepared. Likewise it is also wiser to be well prepared for a lone terrorist who may be at a distance further than that of the usual in close pitol shot. A "good ole 94 Win in 30-30" is not the weapon of choice in any of these regards, heck it maybe for deer but not for combat in modern times.

All the best,
Glenn B

[chaim]

You know, after the attacks and here in the US they ramped up security I got to thinking. These were timed bomb in the London attack. A few DC cops on subways with submachine guns won't do a heck of a lot of good. I'd feel more comfortable that they were actually doing something practical and useful if they'd position EMTs and medical equipment in all the subway stations. At least that would prove they cared about doing something useful and not just making a show. But they couldn't do that, the cops with guns make people feel better because it makes it look like the government is looking out for us while the EMTs would probably scare people. :rolleyes:

[psyopspec]

I have a hard time imagining a less well suited firearm for the purpose at hand.

Then what do you suggest?

[dfaugh]

Since I've trained dogs for many years, and know how good/useful they actually are...If I don't see a dog around (they DO have some, at least sometimes at our airport), I don't feel that all appropriate measures have been taken. A few explosive-sniffing dogs in the right places, could probably have prevented at least some of these bombings. I'd rather see one dog than 100 armed guards...

P.S. A few years ago, my stepson's school had a bomb threat...They evacuated then sent the TEACHERS (and a very small number of local LEOs) into the school to search for bombs. He called me from outside the school, and explained the situation...I told him NOT to re-enter the school unless it had been searched by dogs. He came home,and I dealt with the administration later...

[GRB]

You know, after the attacks and here in the US they ramped up security I got to thinking. These were timed bomb in the London attack. A few DC cops on subways with submachine guns won't do a heck of a lot of good. I'd feel more comfortable that they were actually doing something practical and useful if they'd position EMTs and medical equipment in all the subway stations. At least that would prove they cared about doing something useful and not just making a show. But they couldn't do that, the cops with guns make people feel better because it makes it look like the government is looking out for us while the EMTs would probably scare peopleSo what you seem to be saying is lets put people in there who ONLY react after the fact of a disaster - let's invite disaster and then take care of the wounded. That makes no sense to me, hopefully you are jesting. Armed police have their place as would armed K-9 units with bomb sniffing dogs, as would officers with bomb detection technology. The thing is again that you and others seemingly think law enforcement officers have extremely limited capabilities. You seem to imply that an armed officer is inappropriate because all they are there for is to shoot someone. Don’t you think they are trained in first aide? Don’t you think many are trained in how to handle a situation wherein there is a suspected bomb? If a suspicious package is found, the police who are there - yes even the ones who are armed - should take charge of the situation. They call for the K-9 units and, hopefully they arrive in quicker relative response time than did those in my airport experience.

The things those armed police officers and other armed LEOs are called upon to perform are apparently beyond the scope of what you believe them capable. Not only would LEOs be called upon to secure an area or maybe shoot a bad guy, they may even have to take further action such as first aide, securing a crime scene, evacuating an area, or even moving a suspected bomb to a safer location during extremely exigent circumstances; all not to even mention that their presence may prevent a crime.

All the best,
Glenn B

[CAS700850]

For years and years, long before 9/11 was in our collective consciousness, European LEO's carried subguns on slings in public. Just the way it is over there. Funny, my English sister in law thinks it is barbaric that all American LEO's (myself included) go around with handguns "playing cowboy", and sees no problems with select officers armed with full-auto weapons.

Personally, ever LEO I know qualified on the MP-5/M-4, etc., is the kind of officer I would want armed with that type of weapon if gunfire was ever called for.

[Otherguy Overby]

What about an Israeli solution?

Citizens armed with the same weapons?

Of course it will probably never happen in Blighty.

Here it would be prohibited by NFA rules and DC politicians.

So, what's better? Armed cops standing outside the crowd, or armed citizens in the crowd?

Or both?

[chaim]

Glenn, I'm looking at what happened and all the MP5 armed cops do is make people feel good. How exactly would they have prevented London? The bombs were pre-placed and on timers. These weren't suicide bombers like in Israel where you have a split second to stop them before they blow themselves, and the people around them, up. I have no problem with a few cops around, even with MP5s, but don't fool yourself into thinking that they are for anything other than to make people feel more confident. Personally, I'd feel more comfortable with EMTs who can be quickly on scene providing first aid should (G-d forbid) something occur- they would be much more useful than the MP5 wielding cops because at least they could do something (not that cops aren't first aid trained and useless in treating injury, just that they aren't as good for that part of the job as people who that is all they do).

K-9 units with bomb sniffing dogs are a much different situation. That is probably the most important preventive measure and I'd love for there to be more of them. There should be several K-9 units in every major subway station, and others who periodically ride and check the trains and minor stations.

[TheFederalistWeasel]

While I’m not going to try to excuse away the gun skills of some of my fellow LEO’s as they are for the most part inexcusable, I will say that most of what you see is for one simple principal.

Deterrence.

The hope is that a strong show of force will go along way to prevent all but the most determined of attacks.

I have an M4, which I cannot carry in my present capacity due to my overtly politically correct department, which only allows a super select handful of desk jockeys to be issued long guns.

But these long guns, including my M4 is the same Plain-Jane unit each of you can buy from Bushmaster, no select fire here or anywhere around these parts I know of except the GBI’s regional SRT Team.

[wizard of oz]

They evacuated then sent the TEACHERS (and a very small number of local LEOs) into the school to search for bombs.

I thought that this was standard practice. Only those people familiar with the normal environment can identify things to LEO that shouldn't be there. (ie bombs) Of course that doesn't invalidate your point re dogs.

Of course LEOs are deployed after such an event. In the immediate vicinity after a bomb to protect the crime scene, crowd control, traffic control and to prevent looting etc. In other areas for their skills in observation, deterance (ie in israel suicide bombers have been arrested) and reassurance.

Why actually spend time preventing terrorism when we can implement a pointless feel-good measure instead?
Since terrorism aims to affect the psycology of the target populace, a demonstration of law and order by the government isn't pointless at all. Reassuring the people is a counter to the effects of terrorism.


Now as to the topic at hand ...
For engaging targets in an urban environment in the presence of innocent bystanders, a pistol calibre carbine of some kind seems a good choice to me. Greater accuracy and capacity than a handgun. Of course target selection is paramount so select fire should be used.

[Pawcatch]

What about an Israeli solution?

Citizens armed with the same weapons?

We had an Israeli member who often complained how strict the gun laws there were.I personaly don't consider Israel a gun friendly country either.

www.jpfo.org/israel-firearms.htm

It seems that Israel allows military reservists to carry their issued weapons in public,but private gun ownership isn't common and is severly restricted.According to our Israeli member only about 5% of the population owned a firearm.

Here it would be prohibited by NFA rules and DC politicians.

D.C. would prohibit it,but NFA regulations would not prevent members of the military from carrying FA firearms.

[CrisOR]

A few explosive-sniffing dogs in the right places, could probably have prevented at least some of these bombings.
The adherents of at least one religion (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2326357.stm) consider dogs unclean and have been known to object to being sniffed. I could certainly imagine civil rights complaints.