BART cops with M4's

[carpettbaggerr]

Actually, they'll probably get the M4 into action faster than a HOLSTERED Glock

How will they do that if the terrorist is 2 feet away? They'll never be able to raise the muzzle. They could draw a handgun in a crowd pressing shoulder to shoulder,and even fire at contact distance if necessary. You can't do that with a carbine.

It's a very poor choice for such close quarters. I think it's really meant just for show, but it could get the cops killed if something does happen .

 

[Wingshooter]

The day that I'm allowed to legally carry my AR in my trunk and my 1911 on my belt *everywhere* I go, is the day I'll feel good about seeing well armed SWAT officers on every street corner.

Then come on down to Texas. Just don't expect that part about well armed SWAT officers on every corner. Only a few places my 1911 can't go. In 3 years of CHL carry there have only been two consistent places I visit that I have to disarm, that's the voting booth and work (the FAA mucks up the work one for me, it's not on my person but in the Jeep). Everywhere else I just plan it out a little better. Do I like it, no... but it's something I live with. Every day that passes positively for CHL gets us one step closer to the lack of restrictions we really want.

Personally, I don't care if they wander around like that. I'm not relying on them for my safety and it keeps them somewhat productive.

 

[hartzpad]

I think a weapon such as the HK UMP45 would be far superior in this situation than an M4, both because of compactness and because of the danger of the .223 rounds passing through any bad guy and causing collateral damage to the allway present passengers on the train. A slow moving .45 out of a UMP would most certainly not pass through any human body.

Compact

What do you guys think? Good alternative? Is there a better alternative weapon?

 

[benEzra]

the danger of the .223 rounds passing through any bad guy and causing collateral damage to the allway present passengers on the train. A slow moving .45 out of a UMP would most certainly not pass through any human body.

With JHP's, a .223 will penetrate less in tissue than almost any .45 except perhaps frangible loads, though overpenetration with either would be very unlikely. Penetration of the 40-gr JHP's is only eight inches with complete fragmentation, IIRC.

One article in Police Marksman even discouraged the use of .223 JHP's for general law-enforcement use on grounds of insufficient penetration (recommending SP's instead), though they tend to follow the recommendations of Fackler et al on desirable minimum penetration in gelatin.

 

[bdiesch]

Carpetbagger – in a tactical situation, your eyes never look where your muzzle isn’t pointed. While I wouldn’t advocate *muzzling* someone, a move as simple as looking under a paper is minor compared to personal (LEO) safety

Standing Wolf – A terrorist is going to be able to slip through our borders anyways. Are you advocating shutting the borders, or merely profiling a certain ethnicity?

Artherd - The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to carry weapons, but not to carry a fully automatic weapon. Where would you get that from? Why would any logical person want an untrained and un(gun)educated populace to have an automatic weapon?

Furious Styles – The gloves are for use and not for looks. They have an EXTREMELY valid reason for wearing them.

Atek3 – Not “someone employed by the state†but rather someone who is trained and experienced with it. You wouldn’t drive a 18 wheeler with no training, neither would you pefform heart surgery with no training or experience would you? Would you let someone without training and experience perform surgery on you?

Nippy – Quals and training!!! Thank you very MUCH!!! Exactly!

Carpetbagger – An M4 really isn’t a long gun. That’s why it’s the M4 and not the M16

Deavis – Thank you!!! Another voice of reason!

Carpetbagger – Once again, in a tactical situation, your muzzle is always pointed where your looking. You NEVER look and not point.

 

[DRZinn]

The gloves are for use and not for looks. They have an EXTREMELY valid reason for wearing them.

What would that be? The flame-resistance? Accompanied by bare arms?

 

[carebear]

Stabbing and cut resistance, if they have to search things or people. Better grip if things get wet. Protects your knuckles from cuts if you have to give a beat down.

My big problem with required training and certs are:

1) Who decides what is the "right amount" of training?

2) Who certifies (and can thus remove)?

3) Who decides how much it costs?

4) Who decides who can get trained?

That's the problem with requiring training, it opens the door to discrimination and regulation, without doing anything to really guarantee the trained person is "safer" than the untrained.

 

[bdiesch]

When arresting/apprehending a suspect, the first thing you do is is ensure the area (and the suspect) is safe. Does the person have a weapon in there hands? No, then perform a Terry frisk. This is a quick on scene search incident to apprehension that does not require a search warrant. Search the suspect and his immediate area (in his control). This means searching his pockets. Ever watch "Cops" or any other police shows? Notice that before they search someone they ask "Do you have anything sharp in your pockets, anything that could hurt me". The gloves are a second line of defense against a accidental stick by a "sharps", anything that could hurt them ("Sharps" being the miedical term for hypodermic needles). I am sure that people are going to respond by mocking the LEO for wearing gloves to protect them from being poked by a needle, so let me preemptively ask, havent you ever heard of AIDS?

 

[bdiesch]

1) Who decides what is the "right amount" of training?
*The government (state govt most likely, same as a CCW license). And if youre going to go off on big brother, dont bother. A civilized society needs structure, rules and regulations. Period. The govt in association with a SME (Subject Matter Expert) would outline a qualification program.
2) Who certifies (and can thus remove)?
*State govt again. Easisest way would be to outline as similar to a CCW license.
3) Who decides how much it costs?
*If you really wanted the gun would you care? People get FFLs all the time to own a certain gun.
4) Who decides who can get trained?
*Once again, same as a CCW license. Not everyone should have the privilege to carry a concealed weapon, not everyone should have the privilige to own a M4.

 

[DRZinn]

Regular Nomex gloves offer no cut resistance, no stab resistance, no impact protection for the knuckles. While it's possible the gloves are Kevlar or Spectra lined, it doesn't look like it in the pictures. They look like regular old "tactical" gloves to me. As for grip in the wet, what are the chances?

My verdict? Posers. Subway Ninjas.

 

[Telperion]

1) Who decides what is the "right amount" of training?
*The government (state govt most likely, same as a CCW license). And if youre going to go off on big brother, dont bother. A civilized society needs structure, rules and regulations. Period. The govt in association with a SME (Subject Matter Expert) would outline a qualification program.
2) Who certifies (and can thus remove)?
*State govt again. Easisest way would be to outline as similar to a CCW license.

You obviously don't have a clue about the CCW situation in California, do you?

 

[cordex]

I'd be laughed at if I cited terrorism as a reason to carry a rifle in public.

"What are you gonna do", they'd say, "shoot at chemical or nuclear weapons?" Or maybe they'd say, "So, how is a gun going to protect you from a bomb planted on the tracks?"

On the other hand, when a police officer carries a rifle to combat terrorism, we're unable to hear for the applause on one side and the cries of "police state!" on the other.

I'm confused.

 

[sendec]

First the claim is that the government cant/wont provide protective services, then the complaint is how they do it. Sheesh.

I dont care if these guys do nothing more than deter pickpockets, there is nothing wrong with visibility. If it makes Grandma feel better, whats wrong with that? These guys could just hang out a the station and wait for a call.......

The short 5.56 is ideal for this scenario, only to be improved upon by a suppressor.

 

[bdiesch]

Pipsqueak – I have not lived in CA since 1984. I don’t know the CCW laws there. I know that here in WA it is pretty easy to get a CCW. In TX, it was only moderately more difficult (a required class). Why is it so difficult in CA (reasons and not rhetoric please).

Cordex – Shoot a chemical/nuclear/biological weapon? How about shoot the person who is going to detonate it? And by the way, the main goal of terrorism is to creat fear and TERROR. A visible deterrent obviously reduces that level of fear (read the replies of the people interviewed in the article.). Therefore, it is counteracting terrorism.

And from an earlier post. Talking about overpenatration of the round in the M4. You are a gun enthusiast also. Different rounds have different capabilities. Carry a round that has minimal overpen.

 

[Brian Dale]

The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to carry weapons, but not to carry a fully automatic weapon. Where would you get that from?

It doesn't? Where - oh, I'd say from the United States, prior to 1934.

Why would any logical person want an untrained and un(gun)educated populace to have an automatic weapon?

Fortunately, what one may have in this country seldom depends on justifying need to every person who walks by with an opinion. I'd prefer that a lot of poor drivers not be in SUVs, but they have them, and there's nothing I can do about it, and that's the way it should be.

I am sure that people are going to respond by mocking the LEO for wearing gloves to protect them from being poked by a needle ...

Fat chance. Protective gloves during a search are a different matter. Furthermore, don't be too sure of a knee-jerk "mock the LE officers" mentality around here.

 

[stv]

Pipsqueak – I have not lived in CA since 1984. I don’t know the CCW laws there. I know that here in WA it is pretty easy to get a CCW. In TX, it was only moderately more difficult (a required class). Why is it so difficult in CA (reasons and not rhetoric please).

California is one of the few remaining 'may-issue' states - that is to say that any applicant may be turned down for any reason.

It all depends on many factors, including but not limited to geographic location, the disposition of the Chief of Police and/or Sheriff, political climate of the surrounding area, race/gender/income of the applicant, whether or not the county has a high crime rate, etc.

For example:

San Francisco, where I live, has an extremely low issuance rate - lowest in the state, if I recall correctly. There are currently 8 permits on the books. We have a very left-wing population with a very left-wing city government, high crime rate, and a long line of Chiefs who are fervently anti-ccw. The Mayor, Gavin Newsom, does not believe CCW issuance would help fight crime. The Police Commission, which oversees the PD, is rabidly anti-cop and anti-gun - Louise Renne is on the Commish, and she made her living for years suing gun manufacturers as the SF City Attorney. Go figure.

Modoc County, however, is nearly the exact opposite - generally libertarian/conservative government, small population, low crime rate, and will issue to anyone who otherwise meets the requirements. I don't have the numbers handy, but I believe it has one of the highest issuance rates in the state.

There's too much to say on the topic in one post, but packing.org is a great resource, and a search on the subject on this forum will bring up more CA CCW threads than you can shake a stick at.

 

[Intune]

It might just be me but I felt a little reassured the first time I saw gents with full autos & Alsatians patrolling an airport. To my mind it beat a puny sidearm and a bored look. Oh, it was in 1968 at the Rome airport. It has taken America that long to realize if someone is going at you with full auto the .38 wheelgun in your holster might be a bit of a disadvantage. Eh, wot? I’ve flown with people who felt uncomfortable seeing the Nat Guard M16’s at airports. Sheep. Can’t eat 'em. Can’t protect them.

 

[cordex]

Cordex – Shoot a chemical/nuclear/biological weapon? How about shoot the person who is going to detonate it?

Oh ... so no one would laugh if I - as someone who is not a member of a police SWAT team - started toting an AR in public so I can shoot at the guy holding the fuse and the match? (I use "fuse" and "match" figuratively.)
I do carry a handgun, but not to prevent the Tangos from nuking DC.

And by the way, the main goal of terrorism is to creat fear and TERROR. A visible deterrent obviously reduces that level of fear (read the replies of the people interviewed in the article.). Therefore, it is counteracting terrorism.

Aaaaah ... I see. The illusion of safety brought about by seeing SWAT cops running around is reason enough?

But what about the people who feel that the increase in firepower and intrusiveness of police creates an illusion of control, not safety? Wouldn't that be just promoting a different flavor of terrorism? I mean, I know those folks are just overly sensitive and probably more than a little ignorant if that's what they think, but the same could be said for someone who thinks that a couple of cops with M4s are going to save them from a typical terrorist attack.

To be sure, terrorist attacks have been prevented by soldiers, police and armed citizens being at the right place at the right time, but I'm for a more distributed response - let the passengers carry their own weapons if they want to. Cheaper and easier.

Sendec,
A couple cops running around with rifles at the ready interrogating lunch boxes do not "protective services" make. They're window dressing. Sure, it's great to have well-prepared officers on call, but I'm just not all ga-ga over how great an idea this is. It ranks right up there with taking toenail clippers from airplane passengers. Not particularly offensive, but not a really great idea either.

 

[sendec]

The illusion of safety brought about by seeing SWAT cops running around is reason enough?

They're window dressing.

You are absolutely correct. So what's the problem? If it increases the illusion of security and/or deterence, as I said, it beats having them hangin' at Krispy Kreme. Why else do ya think the cops wear uniforms and drive funny looking cars?

BTW, you are'nt one of these "open carry deters crime" guys, are you?

 

[cordex]

You are absolutely correct. So what's the problem? If it increases the illusion of security and/or deterence, as I said, it beats having them hangin' at Krispy Kreme.

Well now ... repeal of the fourth would also increase the illusion of security too. By no means do I compare repeal of the fourth with this prancing around waving EBRs around, just saying that because something makes a few people feel good doesn't mean it needs to be done.

Why else do ya think the cops wear uniforms and drive funny looking cars?

To look good for the ladies?

BTW, you are'nt one of these "open carry deters crime" guys, are you?

Not really. Are you?
I can count on one hand the number of times I've open carried.
It'll deter a few crimes here and there, but I'm of the mind that making Johnny Crim (or Ima bin Jihading) guess who's packing and who isn't is a better strategy. I'm glad Indiana allows either form of carry because if I accidentally expose my pistol while taking of my jacket or something I don't have to be as worried when someone pees their pants and calls the cops because after a quick chat with the responding officer things are peachy. Plus I'm not interested in telling people what should work for them.

Look, I concede that it's better than having these folks securing the scene of a serial pastry dunking, I'm just not seeing that it has any real benefit.

 

[bdiesch]

Cordex - No, government and police involvement does not equal a different flavor of terrorism. I am not saying that the law enforcement community does not make mistakes, but as a rational person (with a wife and two young children) I would much rather that a LEO errs on the side of caution then on the side of not offending someone or encroaching on there second amendment rights. And also, I think that if you were legally able to walk around with a M4 you would carry yourself the same way.

Cordex – How can you not see any benefit? Is a terrorist going to attack a better guarded location or a weaker location? A strong defensive posture is key to security. Yeah, yeah the Tango is planning to die anyways (70 virgins in heaven and all that crap) but they want to die AFTER they accomplish their mission, not before hand!

I am confused. On the one hand you are saying that you want to be allowed to carry whatever weapon you feel necessary to protect yourself, but on the other hand, you are indemnifying LEOs for carrying the same weapons with the goal of protecting larger amounts of people. I understand what you are saying, that you should have the same rights as a LEO. But you don’t have the same rights. Due to their unique position as law enforcement, they have additional things available to them. What other law enforcement privileges do you want? Do you want to have flashing lights on top of your car? Do you want to chase someone at 90 mph when they cut you off in traffic? Or how about the right to put your life on the line for someone that is not going to hate you any less when you take a bullet for them?

 

[cordex]

Is a terrorist going to attack a better guarded location or a weaker location?

The WTC was a reasonably well guarded location.

It isn't a question of which they'll attack, it's a question of how they'll attack.

I understand what you are saying, that you should have the same rights as a LEO.

Actually, that wasn't what I was saying. I know there are multiple classes of citizens and that some classes live under different laws.
Since I apparently poorly communicated my attempt at irony, I'll spell it out here. I found it amusing that people seem to consider a rifle in the hands of a police officer to suddenly be capable of protecting them from anything and everything, whereas a rifle in the hands of anyone else is an example of how paranoid they are because a rifle isn't going to help in a terrorist attack you silly militia nut!

Modern "magic swords", I guess.

 

[OrvilleYertleson]

Here's a thought, why don't we simply stop presenting an illusion of security.

Perhaps if people began to realize how vulnerable they really are, they would start taking responsibility for their own safety.

 

[rock jock]

I found it amusing that people seem to consider a rifle in the hands of a police officer to suddenly be capable of protecting them from anything and everything, whereas a rifle in the hands of anyone else is an example of how paranoid they are because a rifle isn't going to help in a terrorist attack you silly militia nut!

I think you are misinterpreting the public's reaction. Most folks would be alarmed (including myself) at seeing a non-LEO walking around with a rifle in a public setting simply because I have no idea what his/her intentions are. (yes, lots of BG's carry handguns but those weapons have limited lethality and range). It really has nothing to do with your ability to stop a terrorist attack. LEOs get the benefit of the doubt because they are a known entity.

 

[cordex]

I think you are misinterpreting the public's reaction.

Could well be, but I still think that police running around poking at people's lunches with rifles presents a poor image of police without any redeeming benefit.

On the other side, I was stopped by an officer last night who made an excellent impression on me. Got a ticket (that I deserved) and I'm not all that happy about it, but the officer was polite, professional and a credit to his profession.