Quantcast

Police Armament

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by ARTiger, Nov 11, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. vynx

    vynx Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    719
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    For his job I think he's packed just about right. What fi there is a disaster like Katrina? He may need ammo for weeks or to loan out to other officers.

    Better too much and not need it than not enough and need it.

    I also think it is one of the better uses for Homeland Defense Funds.

    Of course sometimes I feel like I should outfit my trunk that way also!:)
     
  2. Jody Johnson

    Jody Johnson Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    This is one topic which I really didn't want to get into...at least initially. But then....

    I've been...still am...a LEO for almost 38 years. Seen a few things, done a few more. Got some urban experience, and some rural, and some best classified as a "mix".

    The passage of time, changing conditions and circumstances directly effect how some things are handled and, to some extent, the equipment available for use...including firearms...in handling them.

    Interestingly, when I started out ( as a Deputy Sheriff ) I quickly learned that you'd better have what you need on hand b/c if you don't, well...

    Most guys carried a revolver, .38 or .357 ( tho' some had 1911's ), twelve extra rounds in a belt slide, a 12 ga shotgun...and many had a rifle as well. If a guy could get one, he had a GI carbine or something similiar. At one time I had an 03 in the trunk, if needed. Everybody had some extra ammo stashed. This was simple common sense. You knew that you'd probably never need it, but if ya' did...

    I DID have to take the Springfield out a coupla' times, by the way...needed it, right then. Same with the SG...

    But...the bad guys armament began changing...from RG's and Titans, the rare sawed off SS or double barrel...to the newer, more sophisticated, higher capacity firearms, mostly products of the civilian market.

    We started changing as well, tho' very slowly.

    The advent of the AK's, mini's and the like, appearing in the hands of bad guys, was/is a major factor in the utilization of the .223 carbines. Which pretty much takes us to where we are today...

    And, commenting on the Deputy's armament...which started this whole thing...that's the business of his agency and the governing body thereof, including any applicable elected officials ( who represent the voters ). I believe I'd let them worry about it..if worry is indeed called for.

    We...at least in Texas...take an oath. Folks take that sort of serious here. We've a thing called the Code of Criminal Procedure that pretty much mandates what you "shall" do.

    I think most people understand that we don't have the option to "stand down" in the face of a dangerous situation...either directed at us or others. We have an OBLIGATION and a DUTY to intercede to the best of our ability and an equal obligation and duty to remove ourselves "from the line" if we feel that we cannot act when called upon. It was that way thirty eight years ago and friends, it's still so today! Rest assured of this, tho'...I sure as heck DON'T do this cause' I'm a guy tryin' to make a livin'...I still believe in certain things and always will. BUT if I just wanted to "make a buck, I KNOW I could make a lot more in the "civilian" world..

    Oh, and somebody commented about the "current mindset" of Officers today...don't really see a lot of difference. Most take duty seriously, and realize armed confrontations, etc., are but a small part n' parcel of the overall task.
    Further, most don't dwell on it and would probably be surprised at the fuss n' furor just generated here! And...well, I don't think any of us see ourslves as a "standing army"...really, that's a bit paranoid. In fact, a lot of us are shooters, hunters AND NRA-ers ( not that THAT is really anybodys business either). Moreover, most of us aren't anti-CHL either...

    Oh, one last thing...Agencies qualify personnel on any weapon used...

    And...thanx for the opportunity to comment. Best of luck to all.....
     
  3. Correia

    Correia Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    10,648
    Location:
    SLC
    I always find threads like this fascinating for two reasons.

    1. Posters who don't understand why somebody "needs" that much hardware. (that sounds familiar for some reason)
    2. Posters who are shocked by the "arsenal". (so does that)

    Guys, I normally have more guns than that behind the seat of my truck, and I'm the Cake Eating Civillian amongst my friends and associates. :rolleyes:

    A Remington 700! GASP! Militarization of law enforcement! What next? Tanks?! Think of the Children!

    You can talk about militarization of law enforcement all you want, but the stuff you're worried about has exactly zero to do with hardware, and everything to do with software. A cop having a more effective gun means no more than you owning an evil black rifle turns you into a blood thirsty school shooter like the Brady bunch wants to portray you as.
     
  4. Powderman

    Powderman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,624
    Location:
    Washington State
    THANK YOU, SIR!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!
     
  5. yhtomit

    yhtomit Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,670
    Location:
    E. Tennessee
    Guns or not, there's a Q that gov't. bodies must answer:

    Now, this isn't going to be *too* smirky, because there might be some good reasons that someone could come up with to wipe the righteous leer off my face, but when I hear discussions about police (feds, state, local, microscopic, whatever) buying expensive toys -- which doubtless all have important tactical significance, primarily in budgetary tactics -- I want to hear the answer to this question:

    "What would your incentive be for underspending your budget for the year?"

    Sometimes, I hear expensive purchases justified on the grounds of matching funds, especially ones with time limits (as I would hope all matching-funds programs would be born with), as in "if we don't spend the money on [pricey thing X], then we lose the federal money we could get to pay for a chunk of it, so we'd be giving up free money to the tune of 50% of X's price."

    Which is a pretty insidious argument -- a rational taxpayer (other than simple-minded loons who think the government should stick its nose elswhere rather than perpetually getting "involved" with more and more aspects of life which have nothing to do with the reasons government is a benefit at all ... but I digress) thinks, "Hey! If I'm going to get shafted every April anyhow, might as well get the best value per dollar in local law enforcement." With many mitigating factors and hedges, this does basically sound like a good thing; discount gas grenade launchers, after all.

    For that reason, I generally dislike matching-fund schemes when it comes to local spending; Federal matching dollars come out of the pool (bog) that's much stickier when it comes to tracking or affecting, whereas local elections often hinge on particular tax uses / misuses.

    But matched or not, the overspending issue still applies. An agency that spends less than its budget may get a pat on the back ... and a budget cut. An agency that vastly overspends will probably get a firm talking to, but risks actual meaningful scrutiny. The ideal (from the point of view of a govt. body) would I think be to slightly overspend the alloted budget, and look like it was a struggle. Use the words "stretching our resources" a lot in heroic memos, let the strain show on your face. Pat doesn't have a fur coat ... Pat has a plain, cloth, Republican coat. (etc.)

    And as a taxpayer who'd like a better bargain, I especially resent it when guns are destroyed when they needn't be, or sold by means any less transparent than an eBay auction lot.

    timothy
     
  6. LAK

    LAK Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,487
    All the gear makes perfect sense to me. A rural peace officer is literally on his own in many instances (I think I would leave all the silly attachments off the M4 though).
    Hmm; wonder what big strings came attached to that.

    --------------------------------

    http://ussliberty.org
    http://ssunitedstates.org
     
  7. jcoiii

    jcoiii Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    325
    Location:
    NE TN
    timothy,

    I find good sense in your logic. I use it when I'm looking at purchasing something that I can't afford. (or with my wife in the same situation)

    "Well, it's 50% off, but I really should save that other 50% anyway"

    But I repeat my first question. Were these weapons the officer's or the departments?
     
  8. Hoploholic

    Hoploholic member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    219
    Off-topic personal comments deleted- JShirley

    If the militarization of the civilian police forces is such a great idea, care to explain how the community will benefit from such? Care to take a poll of the law abiding gun owners who rode Katrina out to see how they feel about said militarization? Perhaps you will not be able to see the point until it is your mother or other loved one they are beating down over a 38 revolver rather than some strange face on the television.

    LEO's may very well be better served by military weaponry, military vehicles and military training. The community might be safer because of such. A number might die by not doing so. Its a necessary price to prevent subjugation of rights and perservation of liberty. This is the stark reality of the sitution. Accept it or not, it is what it is. Once a freedom is given up, its one mother of a fight to get it back.
     
  9. ArfinGreebly

    ArfinGreebly Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    11,721
    Location:
    North Idaho
    You know . . .

    I was a jackass once.

    I was always a smartass kid, growing up. Sarcastic and cynical.

    When I mustered out of the Service, I was a genuine jackass. You really wouldn't have wanted to know me. It was amazing, in retrospect, that my family put up with me for more than a month.

    I was fond of confrontational language. I really put people in their place. I was pathologically right. I delighted in rubbing other people's noses in their wrongness. I was one righteous bastard.

    Funny, none of the people I "enlightened" ever "saw the light" that I was so helpfully shining on their ignorance.

    I got over that, eventually. I had to spend a couple of years helping to bail people out of lives they'd dug for themselves before I could climb out of my own hole.

    Humility was slow in coming. It hurt like hell. I shed real tears before I was done with that process.

    I don't do that any more. Sometimes I can enlighten. Sometimes I can't.

    I'm sure there are moments when I slip. Who knows, some day I may be perfect.

    Hell, I was perfect once. Back when I was a jackass.
     
  10. DRMMR02

    DRMMR02 member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Exactly what rights are given up by allowing Police to have the same weapons the criminals have?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2006
  11. Optical Serenity

    Optical Serenity Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Amazing how an innocent thread about guns gets spun into Yet Another Cop Bashing Thread (YACBT). Heh...

    Amazing that everyone here demands to have the gun rights we've been afforded by our Constitution, yet, those who we pay to do the dirty work and deal with scum, we don't want them to have tools that we want. Sigh.

    Good for the police departments that properly equip their officers.

    And regarding training, around here we can't carry ANY type of rifle or Shotgun until we've been through long (week long training sessions) training sessions...

    Imagine what fit you guys would throw if you were forced to go through a ton of training before being allowed to carry.
     
  12. Correia

    Correia Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    10,648
    Location:
    SLC
    previous message from PvtPyle deleted because I'm at work posting from the same computer, and was logged in under his name.

    It honestly didn't cross my mind. You can do a search of this topic, and you will see that I pretty much always come down on the same side of this argument. I didn't even realize it was you that I was butting heads with.

    As for growing up, instead of casting aspersions at me as a moderator, whey don't we stick to the subject at hand?

    You will note, I talked about hardware. Hardware doesn't equal militarization. Software does. I personally own more machine guns, suppresors, night vision, and body armor than most small police departments, yet I don't trample on anyone's rights. I think that every single person in America should have evil black rifles and all the gear that they can handle.

    You are taking a difficult question about police responsibility and mission focus, and freaking out because somebody has a 700 and an AR15.

    The community benefits when bad people get shot, and good guys don't get shot. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

    Nice strawman. Set 'em up. Knock them down. :)

    Once again, I'm not saying militarization is good. And if you had a clue who I was, or what my history was, you wouldn't even dare go there. (just so you know, I was about the first guy online to relay information about the confiscations back from National Guard on the groun who refused to confiscate guns, and encourage everyone to call their governor's office. Those were my quotes that ended up in national news magazines, but attributed to someone else's name)

    However when you sound like a bleating anti-gunner, freaking out over evil features, expect to get called on it.

    Hardware has jack squat to do with how police abuse their authority. No more than your AR makes you a school shooter.

    Yep. Serve and protect and whatnot. That is their job. If I can have a suppressed AR to defend my home, why would I not expect a deputy to have the same tools.

    And on what planet does a rural sheriff's deputy having a 700 and an AR subjugate your rights and liberty? I do not accept it. I think your argument is flawed, and is just more chicken little, sky is falling BS.

    That same deputy could destroy your rights with a K frame .38 special. Before cops had automatic weapons or armor, back in the "good old days" it was pretty common for law enforcement to pick up "undesireables" beat them to within an inch of their life, and toss them on the first rail car out of town.

    Once again, hardware doesn't mean squat.

    The politics of the department are what are dangerous, not what is riding around in the individual's trunk. If that were the case, I would be one bad dude, but in reality, I'm a pretty nice guy.

    Have you ever argued with anyone on the internet and not been patronizing? You already hate my guts, so I'm assuming that is where that is coming from. Yes, I'm aware, but once again, I don't see a deputy having the tools he needs to face an emergency destroying my rights.

    Look, I've read about 1,000 of these threads, and it always comes back to the same general vibe. I think the ugly truth hiding just under the surface is that some folks feel outgunned, and that they are waiting to shoot it out with the cops when they feel their rights are in danger.

    If you are at the point when society at large's rights are in danger, and it is armed revolt time, the 700 in that deputy's trunk means about nothing.

    In fact, most of the deputies around here are on our side. Most of the NG around here are on our side. (there's a reason they won't let the Utah NG have nuclear weapons :) )

    Maybe we should concentrate on the real enemies of freedom, and quit generating stupid cop bashing threads that do nothing but drive a wedge between us and the rank and file that should be our friends.
     
  13. LawDog

    LawDog Moderator Emeritus cum Laude

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,101
    Oh, dear.

    You are obviously terribly disappointed by THR. Your expectations from the Staff here are not being met.

    A terrible sin, to be sure.

    *sigh*

    There is no hope. In order for you to be happy, you obviously need to find another Forum that is more conducive to you and your personality. Or engineer a personality readjustment.

    Since you are obviously having difficulty finding such a Forum, would you like me to aid your search? Would it help you I if remove your posting privileges so that you may have an extra incentive and more time to find another place to vent your creative soul?

    Tell me, do. My heart longs to read the words that you will write which will assure me that you have, indeed, found happiness. So -- bare your inner desires to me -- can I best help you help yourself by banning your butt, or will you find the True Path to happiness on your own?

    LawDog
     
  14. X-Rap

    X-Rap Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,656
    The question remains in my mind and the LEOs here are the ones to give it an honest answer although it will be slanted given the pro gun nature of the site. That the civilian police force has and continues to be turned into a paramilitary force seems to be undeniable. What causes this to happen is open for speculation. What will happen when after the amnesty period for turning in weapons the leadership of these groups says go and relieve the citizens (subjects) of their weapons? Will the militarization of the police forces enhance of improve this action? If so can you see that the civilian might be fearful or skeptical of the ultimate purpose that can at this time be viewed as enhanced officer capability and safety?
     
  15. BigFatKen

    BigFatKen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,008
    Location:
    Walnut Hill, about 35 miles west of Auburn, AL
    It is a Dept. weapon along with the others.

    Do the math. My semi-auto Ruger is 37 years old, maintained with a once a year oiling and I believe it will last another 63 years at least. Since I paid $90.00 for it that would be $0.90/ per year.
     
  16. XavierBreath

    XavierBreath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    5,054
    Location:
    Louisiana
    There is nothing more pathetic than a member trying to pull past history with moderators into play to bolster their argument.
    It is an unfair attack, and a personal one as well.

    I was in NOLA and the surrounding area during that time. I do not fault the police for wearing BDUs and Danner boots. I do not fault them for wearing boonie hats and carrying AR15s. I do not fault them for sweating through T'shirts and web gear while trying to stay hydrated with a Camelback.

    I do fault Eddie Compass, Warren Riley, Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco for giving the order to violate the US Constitution. I do fault the officers who carried out those illegal confiscation orders. I fault them for what they did, not what they carried or wore. That's your first response from a law abiding gun owner who was there after Katrina.

    As far as having necessary weapons......My position is to give police what they need, train them to use it effectively, and make damned sure they know the general public supports them. When officers of the law break the law, prosecute them as swiftly and as surely as any other criminal. Do not, however, withold any equipment that may save their lives. If you do not do the job, you have no idea what is needed to do the job. It is incumbent on you to listen to those who have done the job.

    A year or so ago, I was training a lady in handgun use and afterwards we talked about home defense. Of course, I'm an advocate of the shotgun. She informed me she owned a shotgun that her grandfather had used as a deputy sheriff between 1930 and 1970. She asked if I would take a look at it and see if it would be OK to use. "Sure," I said, "Just bring it to the range next week."

    A week later, she came walking up with a double barreled Crescent firearms shotgun with the barrels cut down to the length of the foregrip. My eyes bugged out. So did the range master's, who was a sheriff's deputy. The firearm was taken, and no charges were filed. This was her grandfather's personal sidearm, she said. it was the one he carried with him when he had to go to Beatin' Bubba's house in the middle of the night.

    This is truly not a problem with hardware. It's a problem with software. It's a problem with training, mindset and perceptions. It is the belief among some LEOs that they are above the law that is objectionable, not what they wear or what they carry. That software problem has been present among law enforcement since the days of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday. I do not look for it to change today. At least in the old days, the citizenry looked at what officers of the law did, and not what they wore, or carried.

    Jeff made a fine argument in Post #92 that has been overlooked. I'll repost it here.
     
  17. kbheiner7

    kbheiner7 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Location:
    Utah
    All I read was the initial post - two words: police state. :mad:
     
  18. Glockfan.45

    Glockfan.45 member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,369
    Location:
    Democratic Peoples Republic of Illinois
    Our local PD carries G22's, 870's, and either an M4, or MP5 in the trunk.
     
  19. hankdatank1362

    hankdatank1362 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,378
    Location:
    Myrtle Beach
    I wouldn't argue with Tiger Woods about what clubs were in his bag.

    I wouldn't argue with the ABC Home Makeover team about which nailguns they use.

    I really wouldn't argue with Jeff (or any other LEO) about which weapons they carry in their trunk.

    All are professionals in their respective fields, and know exactly what they need better than anyone else.

    As far as perssonal attacks, Correia has never been anything other than well-spoken, level-headed, and fair. Jeff might be a little gruff sometimes, but always earns respect.

    PS.... I wouldn't argue anything gun-related with a guy who owns a gun store!
     
  20. XD Fan

    XD Fan Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,012
    Location:
    Stuck up here (rural Missouri) and got Dixie on my
    Interesting thread --

    I believe that our LEOs should be equipped with whatever is needed to make them as safe as possible. I live in rural SW Missouri where we have a rather serious problem with meth use, meth production, and the crimes peripheral to these issues. This creates many challenging problems for our LEOs, and they should be euipped to handle whatever comes up.

    I suggest that we buy them all that they might need and add another person to the patrol car. What, you think this might constrain budgets a little? Well, maybe we could eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts. I would rather my tax dollars fund the adequate staffing and equipping of local police forces than to fund much of what passes for art according to the NEA.

    As for the militarization of police forces...equipping them well--even in .511s and Danner boots:what: --does not make them militaristic. Maybe we should take those uniforms away from the Boy Scouts, because uniforms are militaristic, don't ya know?

    May God bless our LEOs, and may we equip them well.
     
  21. Powderman

    Powderman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,624
    Location:
    Washington State
    Someone earlier made mention that police are becoming more "militaristic". Let me tell you about a small incident that may put it into perspective.

    Myself and another officer--the senior patrol officer in the department, by the way, over 23 years on--were doing a check of some of the more "rural" parts of the Reservation. We were on foot, and walking quietly along a path that was known to be frequented by transients.

    Without warning, my partner stopped. I started to speak, but I looked at him and froze in place. I noted that he had stopped moving everything but his eyes--and his eyes were on the path ahead of us. I looked down where he was looking and saw it.

    Tripwire.

    I very quietly drew my sidearm as my partner bent to the side and got a blade of grass. We had seen only the part of the tripwire that was reflecting a bit of light. I got into a low crouch and provided security, while my partner (I neglected to mention, also a Viet Nam combat veteran) found the limits of the wire.

    He patted my back and pointed; the wire was nothing more than an alarm system, hooked to some tin cans filled with rocks.

    We continued down the path, now hypervigilant. My partner kind of changed; (he's 66 years old, this year). He turned almost wolfish; moving without a sound, both of us on the edges of the path. We also encountered some glass, broken and spread (another type of alarm).

    We found, at the end of the path, a tent. Again, I provided security while he contacted the people in the tent to tell them that they had to move out.

    That was the last time I went into the woods without my AR.

    The Pacific Northwest is also a major meth and marijuana production center. Deep in the woods, you can find major grow and cooking areas. These areas are frequently protected by guard dogs, trip wires, tanglefoot, obstacles and man traps.

    On our Reservation, we patrol mostly urban terrain--but we have Tribal property all the way to Mount Rainier.

    Now, tell me again how I don't need my AR, my 12 gauge, or my .308 rifle?
     
  22. X-Rap

    X-Rap Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,656
    I don't disagree with an officer wanting to have the best weapons available. When I have traveled some of the outback areas of border country in the southwest and rocky mountains I expected trouble and prepared accordingly, and one only has to spend a few days and nights out in lonely country far from the comforts to have an understanding of what the LEOs are talking about. That said we are dancing on a double edged sword in that some places, a lot of places have harsh restrictions on type/design of firearm, method of storage, method of carry, ammunition capacity that I believe wrongly effect the civilian population and were they placed on law enforcement we would never here the end from anti gun LEO organizations. As we debate this topic try to understand that there are people out there who don't want any less than you and see the start of a slippery slope and the wedge that is being driven between them and us.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice