pbearperry
Member
The cops would not have to do the weapon escalation thing if carreer criminals were put away by the courts instead of being shoved thru the revolving door.Nah,that's too easy.
Boston Mayor Rejects Idea to Arm Police Officers With Military Assault Weapons
- Thread starter peyton
- Start date
- Status
jerkface11
Member
Weapon escalation is a media driven excuse for guncontrol.
Deanimator
Member
European cops used to routinely be armed with short rifles and carbines.
A friend has a Vz33 police carbine.
There is nothing that I'd want routinely done in a crowded urban setting that a bolt gun with a 16" barrel couldn't do that an automatic weapon could. There's nothing that a 55gr. 5.56mm bullet can do that a 198gr. 7.92 can't. One shot to the head a piece from that Vz33 would have stopped the North Hollywood incident in very short order.
The Wiry Irishman
Member
Fixed it.
bigger hammer
Member
Pervasive Vagrant said:
It's only about "the image" if you think that perception is more important than reality. That is usually the province of politicians and the press. Often such rifles are deployed and not fired. Does that count as "use" in your question?
In some situations a shotgun is appropriate, but in many it's not. I spent nearly 30 years in LE and would have preferred to carry a rifle than a SG any day.
peyton said:
The conversions that I've seen are done by restricting movement of the safety. It's a semi-permanent conversion that requires tools to remove.
Most police shooting happen at very close ranges. But there are quite a few that take place further away. But it's not just distance that's involved in the decision to deploy a rifle, it's the far better stopping power of an intermediate cartridge over a handgun cartridge.
bigger hammer
Member
crebralfix said:
The missions have quite a few similarities. Tactics that work well for one group often lend themselves to the other. But without specific references it's hard to understand what this statement means.
To show a few places where you're wrong; both wear uniforms to identify themselves to friends and foe. Both have a rank structure so that someone is in command at all times. Both are ultimately controlled by civilians. Both have guidelines and laws that guide their behavior. Both have structures that punish them for breaking those rules.
crebralfix said:
Got some links that support this statement about SWAT teams "going out on minor calls?
crebralfix said:
You're right. We should let murders and rapists wander around loose until it's convenient for us to catch them when they're nor armed. Good point. ROFL.
bigger hammer
Member
ShadyScott999 said:
Is someone giving 200 of them to the police "free of charge" as is the case here?
bigger hammer
Member
The Real Mags said:
LOL "The civilian population" in every major city has FA weapons. Step out the door at midnight on New Year's Eve sometime and give a listen.
razorback2003
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,231
It is interesting that European police often carry subguns in public at train stations and airports, but American liberals wet in their pants at the idea of our police doing the same. I thought the anti gunners wanted America to be like Europe?
bigger hammer
Member
To Expand
To add to your answer. Most police officer find themselves in a shooting situation as a surprise. You walk up to the door and shots ring out. You stop the speeder, he exits and starts shooting. You go to stop the suspicious person, he takes off and during the chase shots are fired. When that happens, the long gun, be it rifle or SG is usually back in the car and so the officer responds with what's available, his handgun.
As at least one firearms instructor says, "A handgun is to fight your way to your long gun." On a planned event, an entry, a roadblock, a known felony stop where there's a passenger officer who is not concerned with the duties of driving the car and has the time to get the long gun out of the rack or trunk, situations where there's time to put the rifle into the picture, most officers will do so. Given the choice between hand gun or long gun, a well trained officer will almost always choose the rifle as his primary tool.
But I don't know if that qualifies as "use" in your question or if you're only talking about situations where shots are fired. You've said that your question was answered tho, so glad to have been of assistance.
Pervasive Vagrant said:
To add to your answer. Most police officer find themselves in a shooting situation as a surprise. You walk up to the door and shots ring out. You stop the speeder, he exits and starts shooting. You go to stop the suspicious person, he takes off and during the chase shots are fired. When that happens, the long gun, be it rifle or SG is usually back in the car and so the officer responds with what's available, his handgun.
As at least one firearms instructor says, "A handgun is to fight your way to your long gun." On a planned event, an entry, a roadblock, a known felony stop where there's a passenger officer who is not concerned with the duties of driving the car and has the time to get the long gun out of the rack or trunk, situations where there's time to put the rifle into the picture, most officers will do so. Given the choice between hand gun or long gun, a well trained officer will almost always choose the rifle as his primary tool.
But I don't know if that qualifies as "use" in your question or if you're only talking about situations where shots are fired. You've said that your question was answered tho, so glad to have been of assistance.
ShadyScott999
Member
Didn't mean that at all. I think they should take them. Just a little thread drift...
Officers'Wife
Member
First I have to wonder what policies Boston has that have failed so miserably that arming LEO's with such weapons should even be considered.
Second, I have to wonder why bother with posse comitus if LEO's are going to be issued military hardware.
Second, I have to wonder why bother with posse comitus if LEO's are going to be issued military hardware.
My small town PD and SO issue ARs to many of the deputies. Is there "policy failure" making these rifles a requirement to battle criminal activity? No.
Do the rifles give the LEO a little more advantage against a criminal, especially for the LEOs that are often alone without nearby backup? Yes.
Now, how about we focus on stuff that is ridiculous, like police departments that have APCs with mounted .50 cals? There are plenty of boondoggles to target instead of tools that are useful to LEOs on the street.
Officers'Wife
Member
Because the subject at hand is civilian police being issued battle rifles. But I can see where an APC would give a small town PO that added advantage when back-up is far away.
bigger hammer
Member
Officers'Wife said:
I'm unclear as to how you get to "failed policies" of a PD from the Feds giving them weaponry. Can you explain? Was it "failed policy" when PD's went from revolvers to semi-auto handguns? Was it the same when they went from 158gr. round nose bullets to HP's? How about when they started wearing bullet resistant vests?
bigger hammer
Member
Avenger29 said:
I don't think that an APC is a "boondoggle." They're great for downed–officer (or citizen)–rescue missions, standoffs at the end of pursuits and barricaded suspects. Mount a .50 M2 on it and you have a great intimidation factor!
I think a wheeled APC can be a very good tool for a department to possess, but the situation I am describing is where a certain department in Columbia, SC purchased a tracked APC (M113 IIRC, not very road worthy, in my opinion) with a mounted .50 cal M2. I kind of have to draw the line at that.
jerkface11
Member
Because the police need to be intimidating the population.
bigger hammer
Member
Earlier I wrote (referring to police using an APC),
Although jerkface11 chose to quote only my last sentence, in an attempt to completely change the context of what I wrote.
I said nothing of "intimidating the population." Quite obviously, I was talking about intimidating suspects "at the end of pursuits and barricaded suspects." If those folks can be intimidated into surrendering, shots won't have to be fired and they can be taken into custody without being injured. Perhaps if I'd said something about using the APC for routinely patrolling the streets, you'd have a valid point. As it stands, you don't.
Although jerkface11 chose to quote only my last sentence, in an attempt to completely change the context of what I wrote.
jerkface11 said:
I said nothing of "intimidating the population." Quite obviously, I was talking about intimidating suspects "at the end of pursuits and barricaded suspects." If those folks can be intimidated into surrendering, shots won't have to be fired and they can be taken into custody without being injured. Perhaps if I'd said something about using the APC for routinely patrolling the streets, you'd have a valid point. As it stands, you don't.
Originally posted by Pervasive Vagrant:
You break out a long gun when serving a felony warrant or making a felony traffic stop. You may not need it, but that's what your sling is for.
The shotgun's also a great tool, but is useful for very short range. Slugs are, for example, better at reliably penetrating a car and retaining enough energy to stop the driver. You can, with slugs, hit a target out to 50/100y, but you'll never be as accurate as you would have with an AR15.
Originally posted by General Geoff:
The round is an excellent penetrator and man stopper, but this risks overpenetration. The .223 penetrates less wallboard than a 9mm thanks to tumbling and fragmentation, whereas a full-sized battle rifle will punch through an exterior wall and a couple interior walls and retain its lethality. Plus the AR15 is lighter and more accurate in a non-match configuration!
Originally posted by crebralfix:
This is really a different sort of situation. The patrol rifle referenced by the article would be used in lieu of a shotgun to increase ammunition capacity and accuracy while reducing weight and without greatly increasing penetration. It would be used in the same way a shotgun would -- serving felony warrants and approaching violent suspects.
Typically in a situation where a police officer would deploy a long gun, whether that be a shotgun or rifle, they're approaching someone who's a danger to those around them. Often an immediate danger. Waiting puts citizens at risk. Would be a shame if someone were threatening your life and officers didn't respond because of safety reasons. They'll get him eventually
You break out a long gun when serving a felony warrant or making a felony traffic stop. You may not need it, but that's what your sling is for.
The shotgun's also a great tool, but is useful for very short range. Slugs are, for example, better at reliably penetrating a car and retaining enough energy to stop the driver. You can, with slugs, hit a target out to 50/100y, but you'll never be as accurate as you would have with an AR15.
Originally posted by General Geoff:
The round is an excellent penetrator and man stopper, but this risks overpenetration. The .223 penetrates less wallboard than a 9mm thanks to tumbling and fragmentation, whereas a full-sized battle rifle will punch through an exterior wall and a couple interior walls and retain its lethality. Plus the AR15 is lighter and more accurate in a non-match configuration!
Originally posted by crebralfix:
This is really a different sort of situation. The patrol rifle referenced by the article would be used in lieu of a shotgun to increase ammunition capacity and accuracy while reducing weight and without greatly increasing penetration. It would be used in the same way a shotgun would -- serving felony warrants and approaching violent suspects.
Typically in a situation where a police officer would deploy a long gun, whether that be a shotgun or rifle, they're approaching someone who's a danger to those around them. Often an immediate danger. Waiting puts citizens at risk. Would be a shame if someone were threatening your life and officers didn't respond because of safety reasons. They'll get him eventually
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Menino is right to recognize that such puny weapons are useless against his Mooninite Overlords.
1-31-07. Never Forget.
1-31-07. Never Forget.
Not very often. Most urban encounters are zero to 75 yards. Most shotguns though are carried with buckshot, which depending on your ammo can spread between 1" per yard and half that for a flight control wad. Even at 10m that makes it difficult to, under stress, account for where every pellet goes. The M16 or AR15 will be right on target, every time.
The m16 is less likely to cause collateral damage, has similar penetration through an object while being more likely to penetrate body armor, is more likely to hit what you aim at, has a higher ammunition capacity, is faster to reload, is lighter ... Only downside I can see is the scary shape of the darn thing.
Unless you want to argue for pistols only, which I see as an officer safety issue.
Plus in a rural setting, encounter ranges go up.
As an aside, typically wildlife enforcement officers carry quite a bit more firepower than a patrol cop. There you'll find the .308, the .223, a dart rifle, a shotgun...
The m16 is less likely to cause collateral damage, has similar penetration through an object while being more likely to penetrate body armor, is more likely to hit what you aim at, has a higher ammunition capacity, is faster to reload, is lighter ... Only downside I can see is the scary shape of the darn thing.
Unless you want to argue for pistols only, which I see as an officer safety issue.
Plus in a rural setting, encounter ranges go up.
As an aside, typically wildlife enforcement officers carry quite a bit more firepower than a patrol cop. There you'll find the .308, the .223, a dart rifle, a shotgun...
- Status
Similar threads
