How many PDs are buying full-auto weapons? Why?

[Gunnerpalace]

Cops are just like us, they like full auto, they though can get post 1986 stuff and 1 higher up who is a gunnie and about 4 others is all it takes,I would be more for this sort of thing if they let us(the tax payers) go and shoot them, But yeah M249 oh well if you can get them go for it IMO.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Full auto is only good for 2 things, killing a large amount of people, or suppression fire. Police shouldn't be setting out to kill anyone, much less large amounts. And they can achieve the effects of supressing fire just as well with flashbangs, gas, and large volumes of aimed semi-auto fire. Other posters said it best. Police usually outnumber the suspects by a large degree. They don't need every officer to have large volumes of fire at their disposal. It's not like they are a squad of 8 or 9 soldiers vs. 40+ insurgents. That kind of thing is why full auto for suppression is a great idea for military. Small number of good guys maneuvering against fortified large number of bad guys. But here in the states, there is no need for that. It's not a combat zone with enemies everywhere. The police have a whole city, or county, or state, or even nation of cops and good guys to draw from. The bad guys have only a handful in any given situation.


As for us having them and them not, Dr. Venkman, I am usually one who agrees with you. I am very pro-police in these types of threads, and I agree with you that some people here are hypocritical in wanting to tie the hands of the good guys(police) who actually deal with bad guys, but think internet commandos should be able to do anything.

BUT, I can't help but think that police are in a specific job. WE empower them and set their guidelines. I think that full auto, short barrels, suppressors and the like should be things every one of us should be able to get as law abiding citizens. Not necessarily to use them as self defense, but as just plain fun. We, as private citizens, don't need a reason to buy certain firearms. We are US citizens and "because I feel like it" is a good enough reason. Police, on the other hand, while acting in their official capacity, DO have to justify their every move to us. If we, as their bosses, don't want them to do something, well that's that. So they do need a reason. We don't. "Just for fun" is something we can cite as a reason to buy a full auto. But police should not be buying anything officially for fun. Hey, if a cop wants to go buy a full auto to take to the range while he's off duty as a citizen, I think he has that same right as us. But not with taxpayer money. They need to justify their purchases with real police needs. We don't need to justify our purchases with anything.


Now I am NOT advocating a blanket "no police should be allowed to purchase full auto because I think it's bad" law. I AM saying that they should explain and justify the purchase to the taxpayers in their jurisdiction. If their taxpayers are OK with it, than so am I.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

One more thing: Quote

"Police shouldn't be allowed to purchase something as outrageous as a 249."

We are starting to sound like the anti's, that concerns me.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

The police dept. where I used to live issued their SWAT team brand new fully automatic mp-5's... but the SWAT uniforms didn't say "police" on the front, because custom embroidery just wasn't in the budget

So, anyway, they hand an mp-5 to one officer with known rage issues (previously beat on a state trooper's desk with an aluminum bat), and another officer on the team had prior marijuana and DWI convictions (as a juvenile in another state, and he lied on his application).

The night of the big raid comes, they smash a window in a young couple's rental home, and toss a flash-bang grenade inside... and it lands right next to the suspect, who was sitting on his extremely flammable sofa. The suspect runs, and just as he reached the staircase he was shot multiple times with an mp-5 on full auto (by the officer with rage issues). The officer did shout an order to "stop" before firing, but the suspect ear drums may have been ruptured by the flash-bang device which exploded only 3 feet away. An officer entering through the door on the other side of the home tripped over his own shoe laces (I'm not kidding) and the officer behind him, thinking his partner was shot, opens fire with his pistol... although he later admitted he had no idea where the suspect was.

By this time the entire living room is on fire. The suspects fiance was upstairs, hiding from what she described as "ninjas" (remember, they couldn't afford to write "police" on their all-black uniforms). When the smoke became unbearable, she opened a window and cried for help. As soon as she was pulled from the burning building she was arrested, even though she was not a suspect, nor was a warrant issued for her arrest. She was later interrogated for 12 hours by the same officers who participated in the raid which resulted in her fiance's death.

Remember, the house is now on fire! Pity none of the officers remembered the fire extinguisher that the manufacturer of the flash-bang grenade strongly recommends. They call in the fire department, but refuse to let them into the flaming building untill they have "secured the scene," which apparently means standing around and watching it burn for ten minutes.

A later investigation revealed a 5 shot revolver on the floor near the suspect's body... but, the revolver had sweatshirt material melted to it in the fire, and the suspect was known to have wrapped it in a sweatshirt and kept it in a bookcase near where his body was found. A cache of ammunition... actually, a styrofoam block of .38 SPL... was found at the top of the stairs. The fire marshall didn't recall seeing it in his investigation, and thought it was strange that the styrofoam didn't even melt when the floor beneath it was charred. Oh yeah, they also found enough marijuana for 5 or 6 joints.

The result? The city was $ued for million$ and million$ of dollar$... and the officer shooting the sub-machinegun asks his supervisor if the whole team will get a commendation, and a special medal to wear on their uniforms. The suspect is dead, the crime scene is on fire, a bystander is falsely arrested, another officer shooting wildly at a target he can't see... and someone has the cajones to ask for a medal?

I don't know if full-auto firearms have a place in civilian law enforcement, or if they are really better kept as implements of war... but they surely have no place in the hands of the Keystone Kops!

Can't say I really believe any of that. Since you say "The police dept. where I used to live" instead of "The police dept. where I used to work at", I can't see how you have access to this story other than hearsay and bitter rumor. No offense intended, but it sounds like a drop or two of truth mixed into a tank of BS.

 

[simmonsguns]

Out here our two major PD's use P-90 and MP-5's (got 2 MP-5SD's in here now).
Lenexa PD uses the MP-5's, they are 20 year's old and in OK shape, and Olathe SWAT uses the P90's.
The MP5SD's are from Independance MO PD.
There is other stuff like M-16's here and there but nothing bigger.
Several other PD's also have armored responce trucks. used for water rescue and hostage stuff.

 

[RKBABob]

The LA Riots would have been over quicker, and would have posed less danger to innocent people.

Authorzing the use of full auto weapons on a crowd seems like a dangerous precedent.

1st it will be used exclusively on violent rioters...
then it will be expanded to protesters who may have destroyed property...
then to protestors who obstruct trade...
then to politcal dissidents...
then to anyone in an open market in Boston, ala the shot heard 'round the world.

Nah... I prefer my police to remain in the habit of aiming each and every individual bullet, and hopefully only at those people who need to have an agent of the state put a bullet in them.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

I think full auto for LEO use if fine--provided it comes with actual training---and we all know that many times that isn't the case in smaller areas.

Saying that they will 'never need it' because a scenario can't be easily imagined right at this moment is silly--I wouldn't accept that argument if it was aimed at me--the world is ever changing and bizarre things happen on the turn of a dime. In my mind, in not costing much except ammo for practice and training--that's money WELL spent.

 

[Steve in PA]

As a police officer and firearms instructor I would not push for full-auto for patrol. SWAT guys would be a different story. Of course things like the North Hollywood shooting could sway the issue. Shooting on full-auto is not an easy thing to master, and yes I have shot full-auto stuff before.

Patrol guys usually don't get the same level of training as the SWAT guys do, so a semi-auto would be a better choice for them.

 

[strangelittleman]

The militarization of American police is unnecessary. In days past, the likes of Bill Jordan, Bill Tilghman, Charles Askins, Clint Peoples, Jim Cirrilo and many others patrolled the roughest of patrol zones with just sidearms, shotguns, and perhaps leverguns and a carbine or two, while facing off against bandits and bank robbery crews that were all carrying full-auto weapons and out numbered the lawmen overwhelmingly, yet the good guys came out on top again and again.....Someone once said," The moral outweighs the physical, 3 to 1." It's the man not the machine, that determines the outcome.

 

[RKBABob]

Neo, Kent State happened before my time... and you're right, nothing to joke about. I've deleted it out of my post.


Steve in PA wrote:

As a police officer and firearms instructor I would not push for full-auto for patrol. SWAT guys would be a different story....

That sounds very reasonable, Steve.

....Shooting on full-auto is not an easy thing to master.... ....Patrol guys usually don't get the same level of training as the SWAT guys do, so a semi-auto would be a better choice for them.

I don't believe some cities SWAT teams get the same level of training as other cities SWAT teams. In some places I've been, I'd get nervous if the patrolmen were armed with a flintlock pistol and a blunderbuss. Fortunately, I now live in a city with a very competant police force, and I have faith that they will issue full auto arms only after the officers are properly and thoroughly trained, and for only when the situation warrants its use.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

I saw that you re-thought your post and I edited mine also--(I edit myself quite a bit sometimes!). Before my time (Kent State) also. It's hard to imagine how high-pitched the stress was as that moment in history. An odd anecdote--some years ago the LEO's at Kent wanted to get AR's and a group of students balked saying that that would remind them of the massacre---of course, no AR's were present, but memories are short and logic often goes away.

 

[RKBABob]

some years ago the LEO's at Kent wanted to get AR's and a group of students balked saying that that would remind them of the massacre

So, the more recent students, who weren't even born at the time of the massacre, complained that the rifles which weren't used would bring back terrifying memories of a horrible incident, which didn't happen to them, personally?

I can see that dark event in history creating a mistrust in the local area of any authority figure carrying any type of military rifle, though.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Right--I think they worked around it by selecting a weapon with similar capabilities (for their purposes) but less 'menacing' looks--maybe Mini-14's or something--I really don't know what they finally did.

With regards to full auto sub-guns and such, a member here on THR (forgive me, I don't remember who) pointed out the over looked obvious--the energy from a single 12 ga shell (oo) is roughly the same as a 5 shot burst from a mp-5.

 

[RKBABob]

taurusowner said:

Can't say I really believe any of that. Since you say "The police dept. where I used to live" instead of "The police dept. where I used to work at", I can't see how you have access to this story other than hearsay and bitter rumor. No offense intended, but it sounds like a drop or two of truth mixed into a tank of BS.

First of all, I don't hate the police. I do watch my local government closely, however. Its my job as a citizen to be informed and vote, afterall.

I wish I didn't believe it either... and everything I know came from press reports of the courtroom testimony (under oath). I know the press can exaggerate, and I really did take that into account when forming an opinion. Every day's proceedings were documented, since this was a big issue for a city of about 60,000.

Also, a police officer who worked at that department at the time of the incident testified that he heard the SWAT team members discussing that it was a huge screw up, and that he believed it may not have been justified. There's your guy who used to work there.

The incident of the police officer beating a state troopers desk with an aluminum bat was recorded in his personnel file, if I recall correctly, and presented in court as evidence.

The testimony of the fire marshall about the condition of the cartridges, and their styrofoam packing, is his professional opinion... although it had little bearing on the case.

The officer tripping over his laces, or for an unknown cause, was by his own testimony.

At any rate, the facts that can't be disputed are that a man was killed. A house was burned. Evidence was destroyed by fire. The team neglected several safety precautions, by their own admission. Someone was arrested without a warrant. Hardly a success story.


I only mentioned it as a cautionary tale, for the people who would hand the police anything from bazookas to nuclear weapons, all to fight some menace that may or may not ever come.


Here's a link to about 50 articles from one of the local papers where this happened:
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-hirkostories,0,859097.storygallery?coll=all-homepage-utl

 

[obxned]

When I read the figures on how many innocents get hit by police fire with semi-auto pistols, the thought of multiple officers firing full auto weapons scares the living **** out of me!!

 

[Zoogster]

Of course things like the North Hollywood shooting could sway the issue.

Once again I don't see how. The main problem there was the inability to defeat body armor, not a lack of rounds fired. A single shot from a medium powered rifled would have defeated it.
In fact the local gun store down the street that was put out of business by lawsuits for giving the police the guns remedied the situation by giving them some rifles.

It does not matter that the perps were using automatic weapons, they still got hit plenty of times by the officers' semi auto weapons, they just couldn't defeat the body armor.
These guys were body builders who put on gear so hot that they had a timer to let them know how long they could go before overheating, which was only a short time span. That should give you an idea of just how much aramid was used. They relied on the fact that officers only had pistols and shotguns with buckshot. The armor was designed not just to defeat the rounds, but was so overkill that the force of the rounds did not even cause injuries. A standard issue vest for example will still often leave an officer with a broken rib from a gunshot. One of the guys had it from neck to ankle, and the other one did not have leg coverage which is where they focused on shooting him to subdue him.

A scout rifle in the trunk was all that was needed. Not full auto.

 

[Daedalus7]

My department (a medium-sized urban dept.) has several full autos in the armory (mostly MP5's, IIRC), but I don't think they ever see the light of day, save for when the range staff cleans them every so often haha. Its too bad...

 

[larry_minn]

Before the former Cheif of my small burg retired he was looking at getting some full auto. When asked I had to give TWO opinions. On one hand I would like chance to (play) with some full auto toys. (used M-16s early ones with safe,semi,full auto)
On other hand they don't NEED it in any way and nobody on dept (at that time) was 1/5 as "trained" with it as I am.
Plus the volume you can put out (on targer) with a semi auto AR from a stationary position. Unless you have multiple threats you have covering fire.
Next county DID get the rifles. They had them at a range day. The decision was made to lock them up that same day. IMO they would have been better to limit them to safe/semi only as they have uses.
It seems many depts have trouble getting/keeping its officers to master qualifications with pistol/shotgun. Adding a rifle/carbine is one thing but if the depts are CRYING about ammo costs to qualify with pistol can you imagine cost to qualify (really train/qualify) with full auto?
I took a AR class (that I don't consider enough to "qualify" me with the carbine) (IIRC)Just over 500rds .223 and close to 100rds handgun.

 

[antagonist22]

Assuming that police operate in urban environments, wouldn't selective-fire weapons increase the chance of over-penetration and put civilians and anyone beyond the target at harm?

Police don't need full-auto

 

[roscoe]

This brings to mind the scene with the police machine gun in Dashiel Hammet's Red Harvest.

 

[opd743]

Well, I am a police oficer. As far as us wanting full auto, I will ask this one question. Would you want to go into a gun fight evenly matched, or out guning your oponent? That's why most cops want full auto. That being said, I do not think we NEED full auto. A semi AR will do the job. But then again, my department does not allow anything but sidearms and shotguns, even for the ESU team.

 

[Zen21Tao]

I think many police agencies are buying into the false gun-control belief that 'full-auto weapons are more efficient at killing because you don't have to aim them.'

I guess they could make the argument that when a civilian draws a gun and open fires, officers want to have the ability to point and fire while making their way to cover rather than trying to exchange aimed fire with the subject. If this is the case, then selective burst fire would be more accurate and thus more effective.

IMHO, the only benefit that full-auto has over semi-auto is in sustained suppressive fire situations where your goal is to keep enemy heads down while your own men can maneuver. I don't see much call for this type of tactic in law enforcement, with the minor exception of some isolated SWAT instances.

 

[PercyShelley]

There was that story about police (in Florida?) Buying .50 beowulf AR-15s for the express purpose of animal control. Perhaps the more exotic belt fed weapons like the 249s have a similar, specialized use in mind.

 

[ilbob]

If I was dictator and had any say in things, I would seriously discourage the carrying of FA firearms by police. There is just not much need for it. Maybe a few just for the heck of it, but the need just does not exist.

It does seem reasonable for patrol officers to have access to something like an AR15. It would not bother me all that much if every squad car had a lock box in the trunk with an AR and a 12 gauge, assuming they get some training on them, especially in rural areas.

 

[General Geoff]

By all means I encourage the availability of select-fire weapons to both police departments and civilians. The key operating term here is select-fire.

If I trust you with any type of firearm, then I trust you with every type of firearm. Select-fire has no disadvantages to semi-auto only. It exists to give the operator more options. That's always a good thing.