benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
"Evil Black Rifle." Humorous term for modern-looking guns that cause gun-404 types to go into hysterics, e.g. AR's, civilian AK's, etc.
Levers For the Cops
- Thread starter Mauserguy
- Start date
- Status
This is absurd.
So, if the cops do what you advise, which is hunker down, hold the perimeter and wait for SWAT, we get Columbine, and an outraged nation wondering how a bunch of armed cops can stand by and allow children to be murdered, and rightly so.
If the first responding officers take on the bad guys, they're engaging in Wyatt Earp mentality and so forth, according to you.
I'll be blunt. I'll face disapproval from you if it means that I saved lives by prudently and capably engaging immediate threats to the safety of others. Somehow, I'll manage to get over it. What I won't be able to get over is the knowledge that I could have done something to save lives, and did not. What I won't be able to get over is the rage of a thousand sets of parents who wondered why I did nothing. But I'll live with your disapproval.
Now, this does not mean that I'm advising that the cops always charge in like Elliot Ness (or Wyatt Earp), but it means that they have to have the option. In the Trolley Square instance, the shooter was pinned down by a CCWing off-duty officer, and within three minutes was killed by responding SWAT officers. Guess what? You're not always that lucky. You usual SWAT call-out takes an order of magnitude longer. I don't know off the top of my head if there just happened to be a couple of SWAT officers nearby or what, but that response time is the exception, not the rule.
Trolley Square is actually an excellent example of how a rifle-armed patrolman can be useful. Look at the ranges involved. Look at the availability of a good backstop (shooting down from above). Look at the odds of taking on a shotgun-armed gunman while armed only with a pistol. Hammond and company were very brave- and very lucky. Obviously, Hammond would not be carrying a rifle in the food court off-duty, but this might have ended even more quickly if his first responding backup had rifles. Heck, I dunno- how many of the patrol officers responding there did have rifles? Some did. They clearly thought there was a need. I concur.
The simple fact of the matter is that having an AR-15 does not turn a single patrol officer into a well-trained one-man assault force. No one is arguing that. However, NOT having an AR-15 does turn an officer into a less-capable threat to the bad guys. With a rifle, you always have the option to hang back and wait for help, if the situation allows, but not having a rifle denies you the option of effectively assaulting the BG when the situation demands that you do.
Can you get by with a lever action in many of these scenarios? Sure. Having any rifle is a huge advantage when the ranges get long, or there is armor (or cover) involved. But the AR-15 is a bigger advantage when you're facing multiple opponents, or otherwise have to shoot multiple times.
Mike
Last edited:
you know, I honestly can't think of a time when having a AR would have made much of a diffrence in a mass shooting or terror attack.
Even the bank robery in LA could have been handled with side arms and shot guns... With proper training of corse.( something that the LAPD, clearly did not have)
Even the bank robery in LA could have been handled with side arms and shot guns... With proper training of corse.( something that the LAPD, clearly did not have)
I dunno. I don't want to go up against a heavily armored and armed pair of bank robbers armed with my sidearm and a shotgun. I'll take a rifle, please. Torso shots at range with a rifle have a lot better probability of success than a headshots at range with a pistol. I'll assume that you know and understand this, and not belabor the point. Just because you CAN do something with an inferior tool is not a reason to HAVE to do it with an inferior tool. By the same logic, you don't need a shotgun or a high capacity handgun to defend your home. A single shot shotgun will suffice. I mean, you can take care of a bunch of bad guys with a single-shot, if you know what you're doing. But, would you want to?
Ditto training, though.
Mike
Ditto training, though.
Mike
I'd much rather be facing a couple aggressors with automatic rifles with at least a lever action 30-30 than a handgun or a shotgun.
The argument that maybe you can handle without a rifle is a moot point.
Would you rather try to handle it with inferior short range weapons while some A-hole chewed your patrol car to pieces with an AK?
Even if you're not a cop just think about it logically. Suppose you know beyond any doubt that there is going to be a mass shooting down at the local supermarket and that it's going to happen in five minutes. The phones are out and you are the only guy who knows about this and can get there in time to stop it. So you run to the gun cabinet and fling the door open.
In front of you is an AR-15, a Remington 870, and a Glock in whatever caliber you like. Are you honestly saying that you wouldn't want the AR?
I know which one I'd be grabbing and it WOULDN'T be the 870.
If you can afford AR's, more power to you. Being able to reload faster and having more rounds available without reloading isn't a bad thing.
But if money is tight or officers are allowed to supply their own long guns why not let them use lever actions?
The argument that maybe you can handle without a rifle is a moot point.
Would you rather try to handle it with inferior short range weapons while some A-hole chewed your patrol car to pieces with an AK?
Even if you're not a cop just think about it logically. Suppose you know beyond any doubt that there is going to be a mass shooting down at the local supermarket and that it's going to happen in five minutes. The phones are out and you are the only guy who knows about this and can get there in time to stop it. So you run to the gun cabinet and fling the door open.
In front of you is an AR-15, a Remington 870, and a Glock in whatever caliber you like. Are you honestly saying that you wouldn't want the AR?
I know which one I'd be grabbing and it WOULDN'T be the 870.
If you can afford AR's, more power to you. Being able to reload faster and having more rounds available without reloading isn't a bad thing.
But if money is tight or officers are allowed to supply their own long guns why not let them use lever actions?
Point is, if the LAPD had been trained in shooting people with body armor, had been allowed to have slugs( they could not at that time) It would have ended very quickly. Besides that, us normal folks in CA can't have Ars, the police should not have them either.
I would actually aprove of an AWB if it had the provision in it that it applied to LEOs as well.
I would actually aprove of an AWB if it had the provision in it that it applied to LEOs as well.
Phil DeGraves
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,531
That is ridiculous. Rifles against rifles.
In other words, had they been armed with 12ga RIFLES, the situation would have been over quicker. Yes, that is true. However, a rifle always makes a better rifle than a shotgun does. In the B of A robbery, one officer with a bolt action rifle and good position would have been able to end the situation quickly. It is absolute nonsense to take on two guys armed with rifles with your handguns.
coyotehitman
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 558
The same reason they don't use single action revolvers.
Then why wasn't it handled with sidearms and shotguns, since that is what the first crews on the scene were armed with? Why were rifles brought in? Why did they make a mad dash to the store for rifles as their handgun rounds were bouncing off the body armor?
I disagree with that. They would likely have been using bead sighted, smooth bore barrels and foster slugs, under stress from full auto rifle fire. Hit probability would have been in the crapper aiming at center mass, let alone taking headshots.
coyotehitman
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 558
Training may have played a factor, weapons definintely played a factor, as did other issues. Tab, I do not know your background or experience level, but making a head shot on a moving target, under stress, and dodging bullets, is not an easy task.
JImbothefiveth
Member
The robbers were wearing body armor, so a body shot would not work, unless they had rifles or possibly slugs.
Seems a lot of the arguements against arming cops with ARs could be applied to well us.
I mean, you don't need that 17 round magazine for your pistol do you? You're not expecting to lose all 17 rounds while walking done a dark alley. So lets cap it at 10.
Perhaps just holding that AR makes you feel like a Rambo, John Wayne, Wyatt Earp or whoever you want to be so we should keep it out of our hands.
Honestly, the arguments have been pretty silly. So lets just give no one(police or us) guns at all! And then just the bad guys will have them.
I mean, you don't need that 17 round magazine for your pistol do you? You're not expecting to lose all 17 rounds while walking done a dark alley. So lets cap it at 10.
Perhaps just holding that AR makes you feel like a Rambo, John Wayne, Wyatt Earp or whoever you want to be so we should keep it out of our hands.
Honestly, the arguments have been pretty silly. So lets just give no one(police or us) guns at all! And then just the bad guys will have them.
Shade00
Member
I'm no cop, but my best friend of 21 years is - and in Shreveport, LA. Right now he's only carrying his issue sidearm (a Glock 22) and a Walther PPK as a backup. I'd love to see him carrying ANY long gun - if things work out I plan to give him at least a shotgun for a Christmas gift. I'd love to hand him an AR-15, but can't be that generous right now. However, I probably would feel better with him having a good ol' Marlin 336 - or even a Marlin 1894 in .357.
If I were a policeman, I'd probably feel adequately armed with a lever gun. But hey, I understand that shot placement trumps having a ridiculous number of rounds, and even many police officers don't understand that.
If I were a policeman, I'd probably feel adequately armed with a lever gun. But hey, I understand that shot placement trumps having a ridiculous number of rounds, and even many police officers don't understand that.
It's not the rifle being issued to cops I'd have the problem with. That idea actually makes a hell of a lot of sense. If the cop is trying to keep me and mine alive I'd certainly want him to have something more than a Glock.
Having 30 rounds on hand RIGHT NOW is fine with me. And if the officer only has time to grab the rifle at least he still has 30 rounds to deal with the problem.
But before someone mentioned cover fire. Although I understand that cops do find themselves in dangerous situations I just don't see how that would be an appropriate use for the extra firepower. It doesn't make sense to walk into a building where someone is spraying the place down with lead and respond to that attack by spraying some of your own lead around. Bullets don't care what they hit. They'll do the job on the shooter or on a pregnant teen with equal efficiency. The victim will still be just as dead whether the bullet comes from the shooter's gun or from yours.
I'm not a cop but it seems to me that from a liability standpoint even thinking about cover fire should be enough to just about put you in cardiac arrest. So it would seem that whether you're carrying an AR or a lever action, you'd better be paying attention to every round you send downrange.
So for you guys who are or have been LEO's, you'll probably be the best ones to answer this:
How many rounds are usually expended from a rifle when it's used? Because if it's less than six or seven rounds, wouldn't a lever action do just about as well as a semi-auto?
It's a training issue for sure (most things are), but it's also a tool issue. It is easier to hit with a rifle, period. Rifles hit harder, period. If I had the choice of going up against two machine-gun armed criminals with my sidearm and a 12 gauge pump gun loaded with slugs, or with an AR-15 and a spare magazine, I know which one I'm going to chose. This argument borders on the absurd. It's the better tool for the job. I can unscrew a flat-head screw with a butter knife, but I'll do a better job with a screwdriver. When "doing a bad job" means an increased chance that the wrong people die, I want the best tool for the job.
In any scenario like this where an officer responded with a handgun, his response would probably more effective with a rifle.
Mike
Only in the most facile sense. Criminals don't own the rounds they spray (or rather, they do, but they don't care). Cops own every round that comes out of that gun and heads downrange. I think most people who have done the job of patrol officer will tell you that there is no need for full-auto for that very reason. The advantages that the rifles give you are range, power, penetration of armor and magazine capacity, not volume of fire in the full-auto sense.
Let's go with the most obvious one, Columbine. The school resource officer was on scene with a cruiser and traded shots with Harris outside of the cafeteria prior to most of the bloodshed. Harris had a long gun, Gardner (the resource officer) had his sidearm, and the exchange took place at some distance. Neither party was struck. Had Gardner been properly armed and trained, Harris might have been whacked before it got as bad as it did.
In any scenario like this where an officer responded with a handgun, his response would probably more effective with a rifle.
Mike
HorseSoldier
Member
I'd say put them on a PACT timer, in the hands of officers of varying skill levels with long guns, and see how they do on both time and accuracy. I suspect that even if you chambered the lever gun for a pretty light caliber (like .38 Special, rather than a rifle cartridge), the simple mechanics of auto loader versus manually cycled gun would give you superior results in terms of both speed and accuracy.
Dunno. It is fairly small, usually. Same with handguns, usually.
It's the unusual ones that get you.
Seriously? For most situations a lever action would work just fine. Basically, a shotgun loaded with slugs is the same sort of thing. But what happens where you run into the takeover scenario that we all fear (gunmen in a mall or school) and we suspect is coming, and you're the first responders with your lever actions?
Mike
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
In fact, for the vast majority of situations, cops don't even need guns. For most situations, SWAT teams are not needed, etc. However, rifles and SWAT are used for most situations and they are often employed in the least ideal of situations where skimping is a bad thing.
As for the notion of cops not being trained well enough, maybe so. I still haven't figured out what training program would involve rolling up on the suspect at the N. Hollywood robbery and having him turn and open full auto fire on you from such a short range that you would be able to return controlled fire at the start of the engagement as TAB is suggesting. Heck the cops in the squad didn't even know they were rolling up on the bad guy until the last moment (according to interviews).
Yes, all cops should be super trained. Nobody wants to pay for it.
Coronach said:
Well...
What happens if you're the first responders to a school take-over and you have AR's. Lets go a step further and say that you have highly accurate, well accessorized, utterly reliable AR's with stacks of loaded magazines on hand.
Even if you have that you're still going to be facing an entrenched force with hostages. They know which way you're coming from and they'll be watching for you. They'll have cover and you won't. IIRC, back in my youth there was a figure tossed around that you may need up to nine times as many attackers as defenders to take an entrenched position - and that's with the benefit of just spraying the whole freakin' place down with lead and explosives (Army style). Cops can't do that because they have to play by different rules.
I'd say that this is probably more than the "average" handful of cops can handle anyway, regardless of what they're armed with.
Then only issue 10 round magazines. There ya go, problem solved.
I mean, limiting the ammunition is the same arguement that the anti's try to use on us, so why turn around and try and us it on the cops?
Like I said, you don't really need those 17-round magazines do you? When confronted with a threat, and because you know how important shot placement is, you could do the job in 1 or 2 shots. So really, limiting you to 10 rounds a magazine is more than generous.
As for the cover fire arguement, I think it would depend on the situation. I don't see cops "spraying and praying" towards a bad guy when they know he's got an innocent for a shield, or a group of them right behind them. Nor do I see them providing cover fire to the rear when the bad guy is to the front. I mean really, come on. Use some common sense.
woodybrighton
member
ARs are cheap if you buy in bulk cheaper still if you can get them via the US goverment.
simple reliable ex military types will already be trained as will swat types so they can train the patrolmen. looks tacicool so might intimidate somebody into not starting something.
its reasonably low recoil while hitting hard and accurate if your a big department your swat team already have ars in the inventory so spares and an armorer to fix them
simple reliable ex military types will already be trained as will swat types so they can train the patrolmen. looks tacicool so might intimidate somebody into not starting something.
its reasonably low recoil while hitting hard and accurate if your a big department your swat team already have ars in the inventory so spares and an armorer to fix them
The current idea/belief is that any organized takeover scenario will be like Beslan, a suicide misssion. If you allow them time to set up inside (read: if you secure the perimter and wait for SWAT), everyone inside is going to die. If you hit them while they are still consolidating their hold on the building, people are still going to die, but it will not be as many.
Yes, this is terrible, body-bag math. But it is reality.
Add in the fact that the VAST majority of the active-shooters end their rampage when confronted with armed resistance (often by suicide, as at VT, but often enough by effective fire, as at Trolley Square), the choice becomes more clear: be aggressive enough, swiftly enough. That spells R I F L E to me.
Mike
COMPNOR said:
No offense man, but go back and re-read what I said.
I didn't bring up the issue of "spray and pray" as you call it - actually no one did because that's not what cover fire is. But someone farther back did mention cover fire as an AR selling point. For military applications, sure. For LE use, not so much.
I also would never expect people under stress to not miss because it is going to happen. But there are consequences to missing if you're a cop (or if you're a private citizen). If one of your misses kills an innocent you're probably in a world of hurt. Plus it's counter productive to go around killing people when you're supposed to be there to save them. Following that logic, don't you think it would be a good idea to stop the attacker without missing a half-dozen times?
On the magazine capacity, I don't recall saying anywhere that cops are too irresponsible/stupid/poorly trained to be trusted with a 30 round magazine. Nor did I say that AR's and their like shouldn't be issued.
What I did say was that a lever action rifle will probably serve about as well as an AR most of the time. I can't think of any compelling reason to NOT to use one if that's what you have.
If you can afford an AR and a stack of mags or if your dept issues them, more power to you.
Coronach - I hear what you're saying and I suppose you're right that it would be better to go in on your own than to sit tight and wait for help.
My point is that even with the best training and equipment available, if the enemy is waiting for you and knows where you're coming from then he has a serious advantage. He'll take up a position behind cover and engage you as soon as he sees you. You and yours will be more exposed and will probably provide a target rich environment for him. Without the benefit of someone laying all kinds of cover fire and explosives on them (since you're not the military), your guys will probably all get killed or incapacitated before you can do anything productive. Either that, or when he suspects that he's about to be overtaken he'll just execute his plan and take out as many hostages as possible.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. As you say, the math of the situation indicates that there is no way to win.
OTOH, I am more than less an amateur. My training wasn't that extensive and it's been awhile so maybe I've missed something.
Last edited:
- Status
