Should LEOs have Full Auto?


PDA






TechBrute
June 11, 2004, 04:05 PM
The title says it all. Typically, full auto is used for fire suppression. Is there a police role ever that needs suppressive fire in that magnitude? I can't really think of a reason. Door Kickers might have a need, but not being knowlegable about that, I can't say that I'd know what that need it. I can certainly say that no town needs any sort of belt-fed weapon (hint-hint, bay area.) It would seem to me that any scenario I can think of is typically better handled by a well placed shot, rather than many shots that may or may not be aimed.

Can I have some input on this? LEOs?

If you enjoyed reading about "Should LEOs have Full Auto?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Cortland
June 11, 2004, 04:13 PM
Only if I can.

wasrjoe
June 11, 2004, 04:14 PM
I don't mind anyone having full auto. It's supposed to be a real nice thing to have for sub guns. I don't even mind it on a full powered rifle if they are trained in how to use it - which means they rarely (if ever) would.

Spot77
June 11, 2004, 04:18 PM
My only concern is that few officers would train regularly with these firearms.

Many departments in my area only train/qualify with their handguns on an annual basis.


Alarming.

Mad Man
June 11, 2004, 04:20 PM
[Deleted by Mad Man]

Telperion
June 11, 2004, 04:20 PM
My understanding is that submachineguns and automatic carbines are not designed for suppressive fire, in the traditional, open-field battle sense. They are used as a force multiplier for CQB situations by entry teams, and in my mind, they are valid for that kind of police work. I'd like to see less door-kicking in general, but that's a different subject. Do the police need crew-served belt-feds to get their job done? Probably not.

TechBrute
June 11, 2004, 04:24 PM
Only if I can. I thought about that, and I agreed for a minute but then changed my mind. Whether or not I can have it is irrelevant to LEOs having it. The citizenry should have it in case the government gets too uppity, but a LEO has a very defined position and it is a job. What in his job neccesitates full auto? True, spraying down a rebellious crowd would be easier with an auto, but I've never talked to a LEO, no matter how elitist they are, that would just let go into a crowd of people with unaimed bullets.

When it comes down to it (and they conveniently forget this), LEOs are public servants. It is a paid position and they have no rights. So, rights being removed from the issue, do they have a NEED for full-auto. I certainly wouldn't ask a firefighter to fight fires without the equipment they need, but they would have to establish a NEED prior to me approving a fire truck for each individual firefighter to drive.

I'm trying to establish a NEED for LEOs to have full-auto. Anyone have one?

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2004, 04:37 PM
The average patrol officer really has no need for a full auto weapon, and as most of you pointed out not many of them would train enough with them after they qualified. I was sick to see how bad shots about 60% of my police academy class was. Half the time I'd have my shots center mass in target and re-holstered before the rest of the line even got the first shot off. Unbelieveably some of them had the nerve to make comments to me that I was taking things too seriously or they were scared cause I "knew too much about guns". I would say to each one of them the same thing......if you got into a shootout on duty who would you want coming to back you up......me......or one of those guys? Then I shook my head and walked away.

That being said there are certain units of officers who could use full auto weapons and WILL train with them enough. SWAT teams who do high risk entries should have the best possible weapons with which to do their jobs. These are highly skilled officers who are definately qualified with the use of full auto and should be given them in case the need arises.

CannibalCrowley
June 11, 2004, 04:38 PM
I'm in the "only if I can" bunch. As much as some hate to admit it, they're still normal citizens who should follow the same laws that we have to. So only by an across the board change should they be granted the ability to have full auto firearms.

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2004, 04:44 PM
I always like to hear how LEOs are just regular citizens and should follow the same rules. How many non LEO's have jobs that involve involving themselves in dangerous situations to help protect people they don't even know? Anybody have to walk around and wonder if you'll run across a murderer or other violent felon that you helped arrest or put in jail while you're out with your family? How many non LEO's have had prices put on their heads by gangs or other criminal elements? I would venture to say that not too many have to worry about any of the above situations.

Does any of that make LEO's better than regular citizens....in my opinion no it doesn't. But it sure as hell does make them different and it irks me when people think they should not be granted extra priviledges to defend themselves or given the best equipment to make their job as safe as it can be.

PUMC_TomG
June 11, 2004, 04:55 PM
Last I checked, law enforcement officers were civilians.

Last I checked most of us are "civilians."

Since I support the principle that everyone should be able to own/carry whatever the heck they want, I voted yes.

It seems hypocritical for people on this forum to advocate the disarming of a certain class of individuals in society - when we say that we advocate equal access to all types of firearms...

Just my .02

Zundfolge
June 11, 2004, 04:56 PM
I say NO!

and I have a two word reason; Collateral Damage


Spraying lead is fine if you don't care if you kill bystanders (like in a war zone) but the liability for police acting in the middle of a crowded city is just too great.

Plus we all know how well the average cop is trained with his semi auto pea shooter ... the though of one of these yahoos with an MP5 gives me chills.


Last I checked, law enforcement officers were civilians.

Last I checked most of us are "civilians."

Since I support the principle that everyone should be able to own/carry whatever the heck they want, I voted yes.

It seems hypocritical for people on this forum to advocate the disarming of a certain class of individuals in society - when we say that we advocate equal access to all types of firearms...
I agree that any cop who wants a full auto gun for his own collection should be allowed to have it just like any other civilian ... but in the line of duty, police work does not have a place for full auto.

Third_Rail
June 11, 2004, 05:01 PM
NO! Private collection, sure, no problem.


In the line of duty, LEOs and SWAT members tend to get a bit edgy, which equals squeezing the trigger. Semi-autos have less of a chance of spray and pray from LEOs, but then again, 60 (or was it 80?) shots to kill a dog...

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2004, 05:11 PM
In the line of duty, LEOs and SWAT members tend to get a bit edgy, which equals squeezing the trigger. Semi-autos have less of a chance of spray and pray from LEOs, but then again, 60 (or was it 80?) shots to kill a dog...

Where are you getting this information?? LEOs and ESPECIALLY SWAT members are by far very restrained in their use of deadly force. You're using the exact same tactics that the gun-grabbers do against us in referring to the police. There are tons and tons of SWAT operations that go on everyday....amazingly you never hear of them. Know why? Cause no one got shot and when a suspect is apprehended it is usually without firing a shot. However, when something goes wrong or there is a shot suspect it's all over the news. Frankly I'm very dissappointed that gun owners, of all people, would be saying such things. :banghead:

Greg L
June 11, 2004, 05:39 PM
Perhaps a 3 round burst option but I don't know about complete full auto for the average trunk gun. After 3-4 shots the muzzle will be going all over the place which is if not ok then at least acceptable out on the battlefield. However in an urban situation there needs to be more control.

That said, I would rather that the police were held to the same gun control laws at the people that they serve. If they want more than 10 rounds in their pistol then fine, work for the repeal of the ban. If they want MP5s then they need to open it up to everyone & not just those who can afford to pay the pre ban prices. Same with M16/M4s as a trunk gun, open the surplus market up to anyone who wants to go through the paperwork. If your state outlaws "assault weapons" or "high capacity magazines" then the police don't get them either. Etc.

Mr. Kook
June 11, 2004, 05:48 PM
I voted no for the reason that LEOs are civilians. If the rest of us can't have them than neither should the LEOs.

To the LEOs out there reading this, I'm sorry. I know you have a dangerous job and that your duties put you in positions where having a sub-gun or an assault rifle would help your chances of survival, but the rest of society is also put in similar situations. If we can't have MP5s or UMP45s for home defense then LEOs should not get these weapons for SWAT work. I know this sucks, but I do not believe in having two standards of law.

I am of the opinion that if LEOs can have them, we should be able to have them. I am also of the opinion we should be able to have them regardless of what LEOs are, per the discretion of their departments, equipped with.

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2004, 05:53 PM
Mr. Kook,

While I will fight as hard as possible for your right to own an MP5 or other machine gun, provided you are a law abiding citizen, do you really think you can compare the danger of someone invading your house to that of SWAT officers who have to go up against armed violent offenders on a semi-regular basis? Sorry to say but your stance seems rather spiteful that just because you can't have one, you really don't care if myself or one of my friends is killed serving a warrant to get a violent and dangerous criminal off the street. Not what I would expect from a gun owner who should be aware of what it's like to have other's opinions forced on you. :(

Jay Kominek
June 11, 2004, 05:53 PM
I always like to hear how LEOs are just regular citizens and should follow the same rules. How many non LEO's have jobs that involve involving themselves in dangerous situations to help protect people they don't even know?
Not many. But then again, they're not getting paid for that, either. That is an unfortunate part of signing up to be a LEO. And they should get paid amazing sums in compensation. Another unfortunate part of LEOness, is that they're not paid those amazing sums. But they shouldn't be made magically special instead.

IMO, full auto shouldn't be department-issue. But since cops are just citizens like the rest of us, they ought to be able to buy and carry full auto if they like. (Just as everyone ought to be able to.)

Combat-wombat
June 11, 2004, 06:23 PM
Only if I can.

I'll have to agree with that.

Hkmp5sd
June 11, 2004, 06:28 PM
Why not approach this topic with the same consideration we always wish the public would approach general gun ownership? Get some facts before reaching a decision.

- How many departments issue their officers full autos?

- What is the primary need for the officers being issued a full auto?

- How many times was a department issued full auto utilized, but not fired, in the line of duty in the past 2 years?

- How many times was a department issed full auto fired in the line of duty in the past 2 years?

- Of these, how many shots were fired on full auto vs. semi auto?

- Of these, how many shots hit the intended suspect, how many shots missed and did any missed shots it another person?

Unless the use of machineguns by law enforcement is resulting in unnecessary injury to other officers or bystanders, why would you not want to allow LEOs the option of using one?

Warbow
June 11, 2004, 07:16 PM
I voted yes. My city PD (mid-sized suburb of Dallas) has eight (maybe more) fully automatic firearms. The only officers who can use them in the line of duty are the ones who have trained at and completed an official Texas Tactical (SWAT) course. I find that a very reasonable policy. I'm not sure where some of the people are getting their ideas that SWAT officers are on the edge and will shoot you just because they're pumped up, or something. Maybe where you live, I don't know. Luckily, Texas certified SWAT officers are highly trained with their weapons. If you ask them to shoot off six rounds on FA in one string, they can. Ask them for nine rounds, they can. And, yes, they hit the target with all rounds fired.

If your local PD has some sort of Citizen's Police Academy, I suggest you sign up. I took the one mine offered and it was very informative (they even demonstrated their FAs and a flashbang for us, and let us shoot some basic drills on P226s). Every officer I interacted with was very professional about their job. I know there are some LEOs out there who are not so good (and some downright bad) and took the job for all of the wrong reasons, but I think some of you believe every LEO is like that. The vast majority are out there to help keep your community safe and aren't out to get you. Really.

sendec
June 11, 2004, 07:17 PM
People seem to be discussing multiple issues that branch from possession, to use, to rights. Just a couple of observations:

Police officers have the same rights as everyone else, regardless of their status as "servants", including the right to the best tools needed to do the job.

Suppressive or surgical fire is not dependent on weapon type. I can dump a thirty round mag into one gaping hole, and I can spray bullets with a bolt gun. Weapon type does not dictate application.

There is little need for ANY full auto fire outside of the military and aerial applications. If it cannot be justified for the police, you'd have a hard time justifying it for hobbyists. "Keeping the mean old government at bay" will not go over well with the legislature.

I cannot think of any realistic scenario that would justify sending full auto fire into a crowd. I have never seen full auto weapons deployed in a crowd control scenario in the U.S. I dont know where that writer is coming from, but not from any civil disorder I have seen.

I can think of scenarios, albeit limited, in domestic LE where the option of FA weapons would be valuable, typically in breaching and possibly in some active shooter scenarios.

I am not a fan of full-auto professionally, but I'd prefer something other than objections based on philosophy and the fact that civilians have (slightly) more hoops to jump thru to get them than agencies. People may not realize it, but typically agencies have to go thru BATFE for approval and licensing. We cannot walk into Buzz-Guns-R-Us and walk out with a SAW. Far more agencies do not have "special" weapons than those who do, largely because of the hassle.

Third_Rail
June 11, 2004, 07:34 PM
I just realized that I voted incorrectly in this...

I used the argument "Only if I can have them!!", which is how people lose their rights.

When you look at the poll, it should have one less no and one more yes.

MaceWindu
June 11, 2004, 07:45 PM
""I always like to hear how LEOs are just regular citizens and should follow the same rules. How many non LEO's have jobs that involve involving themselves in dangerous situations to help protect people they don't even know? Anybody have to walk around and wonder if you'll run across a murderer or other violent felon that you helped arrest or put in jail while you're out with your family? How many non LEO's have had prices put on their heads by gangs or other criminal elements? I would venture to say that not too many have to worry about any of the above situations""


Yeah, but realize this: The job is 100% VOLUNTARY. No one dragged a person off of the street and forced them to become a cop or correctional officer.

I respect the job and it is tough. But, if I hear: ".....well I put my life on the line everyday....." :scrutiny:

In the PDRK LEO's and CO's regularly make over $100K per year. THATS RIGHT FOLKS OVER $100K PER YEAR!!:fire:

Soooo....fully auto?! No....only if the LAWFUL citizens like myself can have'm too.

Should the cops all have semi-auto AR's? Sure in the PDRK they already do and we cannot have those and the other nice toys. If the job is "too dangerous" you can quit anytime, you knew that when you took the job....

In the PDRK the cops are NO JOKE. And yes, they do often have the attitude that "we are BETTER than you"....

MaceWindu

gulogulo1970
June 11, 2004, 07:56 PM
They as civilians should be subjected to the same laws as the rest of us. If we can have them so should they, if we can't then they shouldn't. I will grant that the military should have things the aveage person should not have i.e. tanks, stinger missles, maybe even full-auto weapons. But the police are not the military and that line should never be blurred. They are civilians just like everyone else.

Need should have no bearing. I have quite a few guns I really don't "need". I don't want that logic to apply to anyone.

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2004, 08:05 PM
In the PDRK LEO's and CO's regularly make over $100K per year. THATS RIGHT FOLKS OVER $100K PER YEAR!!

So in one breath you are admitting it's an extremely dangerous job and the next are complaining that they make a good salary? Also let's look at the cost of living in the wonderful state of **********. I would wager that 100K a year adds up to maybe half that anywhere else in the country.

Also what does it being a voluntary profession have to do with denying officers the best tools to do their job in the best way to protect the safety of themselves and fellow officers?? I became a police officer by choice so that means I'm not entitled to certain things I would be had I been drafted? Nonsense.

You people want to have your cake and eat it too by saying police are civilians, yet treating us differently then the rest of the public. Don't try to tell me we're not because we are.....plain and simple. I joined this board because I thought "the high road" meant what it said, but with some of the replies in this thread I'm very saddened that I was mistaken.

Steve in PA
June 11, 2004, 08:08 PM
First, as some of you know I'm a LEO, but I'm also a Firearms Instructor which includes Patrol Rifle.

For the regular patrol officers, I do not think full-auto is warranted. I do not see the need.

Now for the high speed, low drag types (SWAT, SRT, etc) then yeah, I can see them having full-auto.

Can I as a LEO get a full-auto? Yep, I can, and I can keep it until I leave the department. Some people voted "only if I can". My full-auto is dept owned, or will be upon my leaving. Its a piece of equipment for my job. You can't own one, then do something about it instead of crying about it behind a computer.

I know several non-LEO's that have full-auto stuff. So whats the big deal??

Yeah, I volunteered for my job and I don't make half of what the LEO's do in California. Big deal. Whats the cost of living out there? Why don't you talk about Ofc Joe Blow in BFE, Georgia or Alabama making 20k a year! And yeah, I put my life on the line everytime I put on my uniform and walk out the door. Don't want to hear about? Too bad. Its the truth.

I love how this turned into, or maybe it even started out as a "us vs them" thread. Typical.

MaceWindu
June 11, 2004, 08:28 PM
""So in one breath you are admitting it's an extremely dangerous job and the next are complaining that they make a good salary? Also let's look at the cost of living in the wonderful state of **********. I would wager that 100K a year adds up to maybe half that anywhere else in the country.

Also what does it being a voluntary profession have to do with denying officers the best tools to do their job in the best way to protect the safety of themselves and fellow officers?? I became a police officer by choice so that means I'm not entitled to certain things I would be had I been drafted? Nonsense.

You people want to have your cake and eat it too by saying police are civilians, yet treating us differently then the rest of the public. Don't try to tell me we're not because we are.....plain and simple. I joined this board because I thought "the high road" meant what it said, but with some of the replies in this thread I'm very saddened that I was mistaken.""

Please excuse my tone if it seemed offensive. Let me clarify.

#1: I understand wanting the best tools to do the job 100%. But as a private LAW OBEYING citizen, I would like the best tools to protect myself and my family. Fact: The police cannot be everywhere, thats just a fact. And crooks don't seem to commit crimes in front of the police.

#2: Atleast in most FREE states you can have AR's, FALS, etc..NOT in Kali.

#3. Most LE agencies investigate AFTER the crime, so the bad guys who actually commit the crimes are long gone when the PD gets there to INVESTIGATE. BG's have a funny way of IGNORING the AWB in KALI. I atleast would like to be on even ground.

#4. I would rather explain to the officers what happened to the 3 BG's laying on the ground after the incident, with a hot AR barrel, than have the officers express their condolences to me or my FAMILY.

Again, just give ME a fighting chance also. Sorry if I came with such a strong tone....

Don't forget Kali is known for one thing: GANGS (that means more than one BG)

MaceWindu

Chris Rhines
June 11, 2004, 08:32 PM
Count me in the, "Cops should be subject to the same gun laws as us private citizens," camp. That said, as long as a cop is willing/able to go through the same legal rigamarole the rest of us do, I have no problem at all with them owning/carrying/using the machinegun of their choice.

I would hope that a police officer who carried a full-auto in the course of his duties would get the appropriate training with it. But that goes for all guns.

- Chris

RWK
June 11, 2004, 08:36 PM
Most law enforcement officers are NOT firearms-oriented. Their skills (to the level of proper maintenance, mechanical understanding, and safety) and their proficiency leave much to be desired. In fairness – and because I have great respect for law enforcement, coming from an FBI family, and being a career naval officer – some LEOs are excellent, proficient marksmen, but these are in the minority.

Further, documented incidents of “spray and pray” tactics, with “hit rates” approximating ten percent and dozen of rounds missing their targets – BUT IMPERILING INNOCENTS – are far too common. Under these circumstances, I cannot support the average LEO’s use of fully automatic weapons. I would, however, endorse especially trained/skill LEOs having access to fully automatic weapons and I certainly support the idea that ordinary citizens should have similar access.

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2004, 09:02 PM
Mace,

Glad for your clarification and I can agree with just about everything you say. I never said I was against non LEO's having AR's, FALS, HK91's or even sub-machine guns.....provided they are law abiding.

I also agree as I stated in my first post that routine patrol officers do not need a full auto rifle in their vehicle. I DO however believe a semi-auto AR-15 should be standard issue to every officer instead of shotguns.

Like you said most police officers are investigatory and come after the fact. These officers do not need F/A.....HOWEVER the SWAT and SRT officers who are going up against armed criminals and serve high risk warrants DO need full auto weapons and are trained enough to use them. For those people to say those officers should be deprived of these weapons which could be the difference between life and death is horribly spiteful in my opinion and not what I would expect from gun owners.

Snaps
June 11, 2004, 09:09 PM
No. Civilians can't have it without all the hassle neither should cops without having to go through the same hoops. I was active duty Marine infantry and couldn't have gone out and buy a new M-4 and I know i was better trained to handle one than cops.

Along with the fact that I don't trust any law enforcment (yea I know) with the power they have, much less greater firepower.

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2004, 09:16 PM
Along with the fact that I don't trust any law enforcment (yea I know) with the power they have, much less greater firepower

I'm totally blown away at the hipocrosy of this thread. Here is a board of gun owners who complain that the gun-grabbers in the government can't trust them with guns and then I read statements like this.

Unbelieveable :banghead:

Cortland
June 11, 2004, 09:24 PM
The eleveation of law enforcement officers to the level of "super-citizens" is perhaps the primary vehicle through which our Second Amendment rights have been eroded.

As far back as 1934, while campaigning for his National Firearms Act, F.D.R. claimed that "Federal men are constantly facing machine-gun fire in the pursuit of gangsters." We have the proponents of the Assault Weapons Ban, along with many police organizations, urging renewal of the AWB on the basis of the safety of officers (who will, of course, retain their assault weapons). Just recently in the Senate, we saw Ted Kennedy advocating a ban on all high-power rifle ammunition on the grounds that it will save officers' lives.

I can tell from the tone of many of the reactions here that law enforcement officers accept with great pride (and often arrogance) their status as super-citizen, and in this they are complicit in the deconstruction of my Second Amendment rights.

To this end, it is clear that we will not regain our Second Amendment rights so long as there remains a societal elite of super-citizens whose objections with regard to their own personal safety can trump my God-given, constitutional rights. There are those who tell us that in a democracy liberty and security are opposing forces, and that we must seek a balance. This is a modern construction, commensurate with the rise of the super-citizen. Recall the words of Patrick Henry and tell me of the balance between liberty and safety!

I do feel that machine-guns may be necessary for police use, but I strongly stand by my third option: "only if I can." Many law enforcement officers appear to relish their power (as all men do), and are content in the "disparity of equality" that exists between they and we ordinary folk. As they are, by and large, unsympathetic to the denial of my rights, I see no reason that they should not be similarly restricted.

I believe that our Second Amendment rights will not be restored until their is a reckoning, at the ballot box, of the rights of law enforcement (read Government) and the rights of "ordinary" citizens.

TechBrute
June 11, 2004, 09:34 PM
Just think of it this way, Kevin. You have to overcome the last however many year of the police building an adversarial relationship with the public, specifically this public. Acting like a martyr isn't going to do it, either.

These are the same police that enforce the unconstitutional laws that have already been thrust on us. If you saw a guy with an AR15 at the range and you knew from looking at it that it was a postban rifle, but he had put a collapsible stock on it, would you look the other way? If the barrel was less than 16", would you forget you saw him. If someone was carrying an unlicensed pistol, would you tell him to hide it better? When they outlaw guns, are you going to turn in your badge, or go round them up?

So for the most part, yes, it is us v. them. You volunteered to be them.

Greg L
June 11, 2004, 09:36 PM
Just recently in the Senate, we saw Ted Kennedy advocating a ban on all high-power rifle ammunition on the grounds that it will save officers' lives.

Minor point of semantics - Ted essentially advocated a ban on all centerfire ammunition on the grounds that it will save officer's lives.

Those of us here recognise the difference, however it is our friends who hunt & couldn't care less about the EBRs (evil black rifles) who need to be educated (the "friends" who say that they don't care if guns are banned as they will still hunt with a bow need to be dropped into a deep pool with a few dozen pounds of cement around their ankles :fire: ).

Sunray
June 11, 2004, 09:40 PM
Geezuz, no. They unsafe enough with their service piece. Even the so-called elite SWAT types are grossly careless with firearms.

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2004, 09:43 PM
If you saw a guy with an AR15 at the range and you knew from looking at it that it was a postban rifle, but he had put a collapsible stock on it, would you look the other way?

You're damn right I would, and have. You are vilifying police officers the same way many people villify gun owners. A great majority of officers that I know understand that a lot of the gun laws are BS.....especially in this state. But all you ever hear about is the news articles of people being arrested for weapons offenses. Just the same way you never hear of self-defense gun uses.

You talk about the "us vs. them" mentality well the door swings both ways. You talk about police officers grouping together with "us" but then you go right ahead without batting an eye and refer to us as "them" even though you claim we are no different. Like I said before you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2004, 09:44 PM
Geezuz, no. They unsafe enough with their service piece. Even the so-called elite SWAT types are grossly careless with firearms.

Please show me the proof and research that you have done before making this statement, because I'm SURE that any good gun-owner wouldn't go spouting off any kind of blanket statement without proper data. :rolleyes:

TechBrute
June 11, 2004, 09:49 PM
Kevin,

I HONESTLY appreciate your attitude and your beliefs. You, however, are in the minority. The vast majority of LEOs would not hesitate to enforce any gun law, no matter how unconstitutional.

You talk about the "us vs. them" mentality well the door swings both ways. You talk about police officers grouping together with "us" but then you go right ahead without batting an eye and refer to us as "them" even though you claim we are no different. Like I said before you want to have your cake and eat it too. I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2004, 09:52 PM
For the people who STILL insist that police officers are civlians:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary.....
Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
Pronunciation: s&-'vil-y&n also -'vi-y&n
Function: noun
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a : one not on active duty in a military, police, or fire-fighting

Dictionary.com
ci·vil·ian ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-vlyn)
n.
A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police.
A specialist in Roman or civil law.

Cambrige Dictionary:
civilian [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
a person who is not a member of the police or the armed forces:

American Heritage Dictionary:
SYLLABICATION: ci·vil·ian
PRONUNCIATION: s-vlyn
NOUN: 1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police. 2. A specialist in Roman or civil law.

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2004, 09:55 PM
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

What I am trying to say is that some people are criticizing certain officers for having an "us vs. them" philosophy when it comes to dealing with the general public. My point was they say that, but then refer to police as "them" as in "not someone I put my trust in to have full auto" which is paraphrased from many quotes on this thread. They wish to say police are no different yet will say police are a bunch of trigger happy, bumbling idiots that can't be trusted with full auto weapons. Basically it's the pot calling the kettle black.

Edit: thank you for your appreciation.....just trying to get across that we're not all a bunch of jack-booted thugs that seems to be what the perception is.

TechBrute
June 11, 2004, 09:58 PM
Fair enough. So you're in the "Only if I can" camp?

RevDisk
June 11, 2004, 09:59 PM
I might be wrong, but isn't the fundimental difference between citizens and LEO's is the right to deal with misdeamners? Cops can deal with anything minor infractions (traffic tickets, etc) as well as felonies, citizens can only arrest on felony charges.

I'm not a lawyer, but that was the answer given to me by a law professor when I asked him the difference between LEO's and citizens. Over time they were given rights above and beyond the ability to arrest people on minor infractions. This gave rise to the "Super-Citizen" stereotype.

My personal opinion goes back to the original powers of law enforcement officers. I'm having a hard time imagining the sole reason LEO's need an FA is to deal with speeding tickets. No, usage of full auto on minor infractions should be restricted to using on people that ride your bumper when you're going the speed limit! :neener:

I'm for the third option. "Only if I can".

Yes, I understand specialized organizations in law enforcement need FA while the common LEO's usually don't. Personally, if I was a beat cop, I'd rather have a semi rifle than a shotgun. I do not think said specialized departments should be stripped of their tools just because the common LEO do not require them.

No, my belief is that every law abidding person should be allowed to have them. Here is a thought. If all LEO were subject to the NFA in the same way normal citizens are, would the NFA be repealed? :scrutiny:

CannibalCrowley
June 11, 2004, 09:59 PM
Dbl0Kevin
Dictionaries are revised to suit the view of the "general public".

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: assault rifle
Function: noun
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for military use with large capacity magazines

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2004, 10:02 PM
Fair enough. So you're in the "Only if I can" camp?

No I'm in the "Though I believe everyone should be able to I'm not going to deny someone else something just because I can't have it" camp. I will then work in any way possible to change things so that I and the rest can have F/A, but won't say no one else should out of spite.

TechBrute
June 11, 2004, 10:09 PM
If LEOs were denied the same rights we were, we'd get a whole lot more support at the polls. Until then, you have all the popo orgs backing gun control laws because "it saves officers' lives." Yeah, I'm really curious how many lives were saved by banning bayonet lugs on semis.

LeonCarr
June 11, 2004, 10:15 PM
A police officer is responsible for every single round of ammunition he/she fires in the line of duty, from the instant he/she pulls the trigger to when the bullet ceases motion. In a CQB (Close Quarters Battle) situation, a three round burst feature on a submachine gun such as an HK MP5 might be beneficial in certain situations like building entries with multiple bad guys, but in my experience, outside of very specialized situations, full auto is unnecessary for police work.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2004, 10:15 PM
Sadly those groups do not speak for the majority of the rank and file officers and I cringe whenever I see one of their leaders support some stupid gun control law. :cuss: The so called police leaders of these groups are pure politicians and wouldn't know the first thing about what actually happens out on the streets anymore. I urge you not to judge the whole law enforcement community by looking at these groups. But if you want to see a group of law enforcement officers and citizens that I fully support, check out the Law Enforcement Alliance of America.

LEAA (www.leaa.org)

DMF
June 11, 2004, 10:18 PM
If LEOs were denied the same rights we were, we'd get a whole lot more support at the polls. That is the same logic that also opposes national CCW for cops, "all or nothing." It's that kind of thinking that is why the anti-gun crowd is winning. They are fighting small battle-to-small battle, while the pro-2A crowd is always all or nothing. They are winning incrementally, while we are losing monumentally.

They win because of silly narrow minded us v. them divisions in the pro-2A crowd.

TechBrute
June 11, 2004, 10:20 PM
Seems like a good org. To paint a clear picture, what's the membership numbers of LEAA compared to the membership numbers of an anti-gun police org? That would give us an idea of the numbers of LEOs that feel one way or the other.

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2004, 10:23 PM
Not sure on the membership numbers of LEAA, but the problem with the other organizations such as FOP or PBA is that most are not voluntary memberships. They are the police unions such as AFL-CIO or Teamsters are for construction workers and such. Most depts. every officer is forced to be a member of the union and really has no say in how the top officials endorse stupid legislation like gun control. :banghead:

Cortland
June 11, 2004, 10:36 PM
That is the same logic that also opposes national CCW for cops, "all or nothing."

Here in Virginia, for the purposes of reciprocity a police officer's commission is a concealed carry permit (we have a law to this effect). This puts police officers and "ordinary" citizens on the same playing field when negotiating for recognition in other states. A CCW law for police officers only would further serve to create that class of "super-citizens." If LEOs had national CCW, do you really think the Virginia State Police would give two hoots about expanding Virginia's reciprocity agreements? It'd be a dead issue.

Snaps
June 11, 2004, 10:38 PM
Please show me the proof and research that you have done before making this statement, because I'm SURE that any good gun-owner wouldn't go spouting off any kind of blanket statement without proper data.

Well, I've got a video on my computer where a cop covering a suspect while her partner is ontop of him discharges her gun and damn near kills them both. I'm sure y'all have all seen it though.

CannibalCrowley
June 11, 2004, 10:43 PM
DMF That is the same logic that also opposes national CCW for cops, "all or nothing." It's that kind of thinking that is why the anti-gun crowd is winning. I'd attribute a lot of anti-gun victories to the police. Whenever anti-gun legislation is proposed the vocal majority of police are out there supporting it. How would making LEOs into elite citizens change this?

Cortland
June 11, 2004, 10:45 PM
Well, I've got a video on my computer where a cop covering a suspect while her partner is ontop of him discharges her gun and damn near kills them both. I'm sure y'all have all seen it though.
In case you haven't, here it is (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/negligence.mpg).

HSMITH
June 11, 2004, 10:46 PM
To truly control a FA weapon takes practice and most of all training. Police don't get the training and can't or won't practice. Most I shoot with really are not very good with handguns that they have shot for years, and would truly be fish out of water with full auto rock and roll guns. Budgets would need to increase drastically for the everyday cop to have FA weapons and use them safely and effectively. Train a few SWAT officers and give them the FA, much more cost effective for the taxpayer and safer for all of us.

DMF
June 11, 2004, 10:49 PM
Here in Virginia, for the purposes of reciprocity a police officer's commission is a concealed carry permit (we have a law to this effect). This puts police officers and "ordinary" citizens on the same playing field when negotiating for recognition in other states. A CCW law for police officers only would further serve to create that class of "super-citizens." If LEOs had national CCW, do you really think the Virginia State Police would give two hoots about expanding Virginia's reciprocity agreements? It'd be a dead issue.Thanks for proving my point. While you're out tilting at windmills fighting, "all or nothing" the anti-gun people are winning one little battle at a time. With each little victory of theirs the big victory of the pro-2A side becomes more of an impossibility.

Quit being Don Quixote, and realize that that screaming about cops within the pro-2A crowd, gives the anti-gun crowd more strength. The politicians see a divided pro-2A crowd, and a united anti-gun crowd, and know it's better to keep the united block of voters happy, than risk only getting support from part of a divided group. As long as the pro-2A crowd opposes any pro-gun move, unless it's an all or nothing victory the anti-gun groups will continue to win.

Again, they win because of silly narrow minded us v. them divisions in the pro-2A crowd.

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2004, 10:50 PM
Well, I've got a video on my computer where a cop covering a suspect while her partner is ontop of him discharges her gun and damn near kills them both. I'm sure y'all have all seen it though.

Well I could dig up the video from columbine or some other shooting as well. Does that prove that the public is not responsible enough to have firearms?

Steve in PA
June 11, 2004, 10:56 PM
Don't foget the Mason or whatever he was who shot the other guy in the head during a ceremony. I'm sure that non-LEO had lots of training too :rolleyes:

sendec
June 11, 2004, 11:27 PM
This is surreal. They do not hand us a free MP5 when we graduate the Academy. I'll say it again - I as a cop cannot get a restricted FA weapon any easier than any other person. I dont know what y'all are sprinkling on the pizza, but I would wager if you actually looked at individual class three permits you'd find more full-autos in the collections of rich citizens than held by individual cops. If you see FA in the hands of cops they are invariably agency guns. Go to Knob Creek or the Hiram Maxim shoot, you wont find a lot of cops. It's all that money they do not pay us, do we get ammo, or something like food.

Plus I guess I dont get the point. Police officers should not be allowed full auto and everybody else should? So you support restrictive gun control?

And the average gun owner is SAFER than the average cop? In my state minimum basic firearms training for a peace officer is 60 hours, for a "civilian" CCW it is 12, of which only 2 need be on the range. Granted, cops have horrific hit rates in gun fights, but I doubt the "civilians" do much better. For every stupid cop trick (anecdotal) you have on video, I can trot out plenty of civilian examples. Glass houses and all that.....

I suppose it isnt OK either that we "get" police package cars either. The privilege of heavy duty alternators and bench seats made out of concrete. Us snotty elitist super-citizens with our gas guzzling V8s and AM radios......

We get high intensity dome lights and you dont, suckers!!!!!!!!!:neener:

Hkmp5sd
June 11, 2004, 11:34 PM
LEO "training" should be considered a non-issue in this debate. Given the liability and negative publicity, is it likely that any agency is going to issue machineguns to their officers without extensive training? Look at the restrictions some agencies put on the type of sidearm and type of ammunition their officers carry.

I know of several small agencies that removed the ARs and Mini-14s from their patrol cars and replaced them with "traditional" looking carbines to prevent intimidating the citizens when they see the police carrying "assault weapons."

Politcal reasons aside, a gun is a tool. One of the tools needed by LEOs turns out to be firearms. Just like us civilians, one firearm does not meet all of our requirements. It is not the local police or sheriff department that passed a law preventing me from buying a machinegun made after 1986. Just because I can't buy my dream gun (P90), it isn't right for me to prevent a police officer, with a legitimate need for a select fire weapon, from getting one.

If you can use the "if I can have one too" argument, then you should argue to remove machineguns from all government agencies, including the military. Why should some private straight out of boot camp get a machinegun if I, an honorably discharged veteran, cannot have one? It is obvious the government already has little faith in his training and ability because they limit his "machinegun" to 3 bullets.

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2004, 11:40 PM
Look at the restrictions some agencies put on the type of sidearm and type of ammunition their officers carry.

If you really want to hear something ridiculous the NJ State Police recently wanted to upgrade their 9mm sidearms to .40 caliber. They were denied because the legal advisor stated that .40 caliber sounded too threatening and would scare the public. :banghead:

gulogulo1970
June 12, 2004, 12:19 AM
I know some people will try to make it an us vs them argument. I won't I just think it should be fair, so we're all us's. Civilian police forces and civilians should be treated to the same rights and privledges. I know for private ownership this is true of both groups.

By having a group (police force) that can have weapons that a normal civilian can't it creates an us and them atmosphere. Hey, they have that, we don't. It creates an elite class of gun users.

One thing we do have to understand is that some professions get to use things that the private people don't. Demolishions experts come to mind, they get to use explosives we don't. Sometimes the tools come with the job. I just think in this case it kinda hits a Bill of Rights brick wall. I know the next sentence is a stretch, but...I don't want to see a day when the only people that can exercise their free speech rights are the goverment trained and lisenced press. Scary thought, but it really is pretty much the same kind of logic.

Greg L
June 12, 2004, 12:23 AM
If you really want to hear something ridiculous the NJ State Police recently wanted to upgrade their 9mm sidearms to .40 caliber. They were denied because the legal advisor stated that .40 caliber sounded too threatening and would scare the public.

So what's the problem. The public (or anyways the bleating masses running over the cliff) decided that you should use 9mm as opposed to something that might actually work better. Sheesh, next you will be wanting to use hollow points or something ;) .

sharpie613
June 12, 2004, 01:18 AM
As far as I'm concerned, there is only one "us vs. them".

Let me paint a picture for you. Let's assume I live in the real United States and am carrying concealed. I trip, fall, and break concealment by accident in full view of an officer. Two possible outcomes will result.


"Here, let me help you up, you okay? If you need it, I have a first aid kit in my cruiser. Say, that's a nice rig you got there, where'd you get the rosewood grips? Have a nice day, okay?"


*Glock pressed into my eardrum* "Just freeze there while we make sure you are *supposed* to have this. What do you need to carry a gun for anyway? Hey, where'd you get these LEO clips?"


If you fall into the former camp, then you are "Us" and you have no greater friend and ally than the average firearm owner. You hate the dumb laws as much as the rest of "Us" do. The other guys...well....:uhoh:

Fed168
June 12, 2004, 05:21 AM
To the mention of police handing out anti gun victories- are they talking about the man on the street or the politico who likes to see their face on TV?

FA is hard to get in law enforcement. It's already been said ad nauseum. We need certain tools that others can't get- and we don't really own them anyway. It's department property.

Sunray- you must have had a bad experience. A very strong majority of tactical officers are quite proficient with FA weapons, among other things. Alot of it comes down to training with them.

Tamara
June 12, 2004, 10:16 AM
I'm fairly magnanimous; I think my employees should be allowed to own anything I can. :)

CannibalCrowley
June 12, 2004, 10:18 AM
Hkmp5sd If you can use the "if I can have one too" argument, then you should argue to remove machineguns from all government agencies, including the military. The police and military are two different entities with completely different missions. Your argument is that of one who wants the police to operate like the military, thus allowing America to pass its awkward stage.

Fed168 To the mention of police handing out anti gun victories- are they talking about the man on the street or the politico who likes to see their face on TV? The vocal majority of police support gun control. As to the number of LEOs that don't support it, we have no idea because they usually don't make their views known to the public; because of this the public only sees the supporters which causes them to believe that almost all LEOs support gun control.

Hkmp5sd
June 12, 2004, 10:30 AM
The police and military are two different entities with completely different missions. Your argument is that of one who wants the police to operate like the military, thus allowing America to pass its awkward stage.
I'm one who argues that there are some law enforcement situations where a select fire weapon would be more useful than a semi-auto and the fact the government has deemed it appropriate to restrict my rights as to machinegun ownership, the loss of my rights should not be the reason to hamstring law enforcement's ability to have them.

Art Eatman
June 12, 2004, 10:59 AM
The topic of the thread is the need for full-auto weaponry for LEOs in the course of their duties.

"Rights" and "civilian" and "us vs. them" and all that woulda/coulda/shoulda stuff is Off Topic for this thread.

Two topics per thread is bad enough, but this one oughta go to a landfill...

Art

Coronach
June 12, 2004, 11:06 AM
The vocal majority of police support gun control.Heck. The vocal majority of Americans support gun control as well, as defined by this board (read: any rule, reguation or so-called 'infringement' of the individual's right to bear arms). So what is your point? The cops resemble the citizenry they serve. This is not exactly news.

This really needs to stop being us vs them, for exactly the reasons stated by Fed et al. The Antis are winning because of it.

For every anecdotal incident of a cop NDing, there are anecdotal incidents of citizens doing it, too. For every department mouthpiece that gets up and shows his arse by stating how cops should own guns and the good citizens Sheepsville should not, you can go out and find a couple of thousand people who voted for Ted Kennedy and fervently believe he is correct. For each incident of cops shooting someone in a bad shoot, there are hundreds of homicides commited by american gun owners.

As I said- lets stop playing the Us vs. Them game. 'We' are not a monolith, and neither are 'They'.

Mike

txgho1911
June 12, 2004, 01:02 PM
quote:
Sadly those groups do not speak for the majority of the rank and file officers and I cringe whenever I see one of their leaders support some stupid gun control law

Get vocal and change the management at FOP and others.


Culimbine videos will not slow anyone down. We have seen 911 and Nick Berg.
Culimbine may be included in some of thos numbers that are not widely distributed in statistics because they would drive the "sucsesses of AWB" through the basement floor on their way to China. If they did include them where they only counted as one instance?

I know of LEOs "reserve deputy" who only wanted the title so they could drive fast without a hastle. Every one in my area knows the cops will blow a red light because they can.

us vs them only grows with time as police have a choice to police their own.

End rant

Coronach
June 12, 2004, 01:08 PM
Get vocal and change the management at FOP and others.I'll assume, then, that every one of us has 'gotten vocal' and changed our government, then? Same argument. I can assume, then, that your state and local legislators are pro-RKBA? And your governor, and President as well? :scrutiny:


Mike

txgho1911
June 12, 2004, 01:59 PM
I will stop and try to spread the news about that information I can confirm. Sharing with different people why should they educate themselves on what the missrepresentatives and congresscritters actually do while in office.
Some thinkers do not think. They tell me how GWB is not speaking ever when Cheaney is drinking from his water glass. Other thinkers yell me that they watch cnn and abc and nbc and thats what they know outside of VH1 and MTV or the local pop radio.
I can offer alternatives like Internet and history books.
Who is the most visible and aproachable representative of govt. It is not the elected officials. Police Sheriff and local marshals in some localities and constable deputies in others. They are also leaders by proximity and by example. Rules on LEOs barring political opinion in/out of uniform or duty IMHO have no place in govt.
I was holding back Con but to more completely explain my earlier post.

Art Eatman
June 12, 2004, 02:13 PM
I'm in no way Mr. Perfection about thread drift, but this has gone just way beyond belief...

Since the original idea is of little interest, this thread is plumb dead.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Should LEOs have Full Auto?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!