Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Should LEOs have Full Auto?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by TechBrute, Jun 11, 2004.

?

Should LEOs have Full Auto?

  1. Heck no. LEOs don't need to be spraying lead.

    66 vote(s)
    77.6%
  2. Of course. LEOs need every weapon they can lay hands on.

    19 vote(s)
    22.4%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TechBrute

    TechBrute Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,264
    Location:
    DFW, TX
    The title says it all. Typically, full auto is used for fire suppression. Is there a police role ever that needs suppressive fire in that magnitude? I can't really think of a reason. Door Kickers might have a need, but not being knowlegable about that, I can't say that I'd know what that need it. I can certainly say that no town needs any sort of belt-fed weapon (hint-hint, bay area.) It would seem to me that any scenario I can think of is typically better handled by a well placed shot, rather than many shots that may or may not be aimed.

    Can I have some input on this? LEOs?
     
  2. Cortland

    Cortland Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Messages:
    902
    Location:
    Carrollton, VA
    Third option

    Only if I can.
     
  3. wasrjoe

    wasrjoe Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,242
    Location:
    Arizona
    I don't mind anyone having full auto. It's supposed to be a real nice thing to have for sub guns. I don't even mind it on a full powered rifle if they are trained in how to use it - which means they rarely (if ever) would.
     
  4. Spot77

    Spot77 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,221
    Location:
    MD
    My only concern is that few officers would train regularly with these firearms.

    Many departments in my area only train/qualify with their handguns on an annual basis.


    Alarming.
     
  5. Mad Man

    Mad Man Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    587
    Location:
    USA
    [Deleted by Mad Man]
     
  6. Telperion

    Telperion Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,482
    Location:
    Oregon
    My understanding is that submachineguns and automatic carbines are not designed for suppressive fire, in the traditional, open-field battle sense. They are used as a force multiplier for CQB situations by entry teams, and in my mind, they are valid for that kind of police work. I'd like to see less door-kicking in general, but that's a different subject. Do the police need crew-served belt-feds to get their job done? Probably not.
     
  7. TechBrute

    TechBrute Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,264
    Location:
    DFW, TX
    I thought about that, and I agreed for a minute but then changed my mind. Whether or not I can have it is irrelevant to LEOs having it. The citizenry should have it in case the government gets too uppity, but a LEO has a very defined position and it is a job. What in his job neccesitates full auto? True, spraying down a rebellious crowd would be easier with an auto, but I've never talked to a LEO, no matter how elitist they are, that would just let go into a crowd of people with unaimed bullets.

    When it comes down to it (and they conveniently forget this), LEOs are public servants. It is a paid position and they have no rights. So, rights being removed from the issue, do they have a NEED for full-auto. I certainly wouldn't ask a firefighter to fight fires without the equipment they need, but they would have to establish a NEED prior to me approving a fire truck for each individual firefighter to drive.

    I'm trying to establish a NEED for LEOs to have full-auto. Anyone have one?
     
  8. Dbl0Kevin

    Dbl0Kevin Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,183
    Location:
    SC
    The average patrol officer really has no need for a full auto weapon, and as most of you pointed out not many of them would train enough with them after they qualified. I was sick to see how bad shots about 60% of my police academy class was. Half the time I'd have my shots center mass in target and re-holstered before the rest of the line even got the first shot off. Unbelieveably some of them had the nerve to make comments to me that I was taking things too seriously or they were scared cause I "knew too much about guns". I would say to each one of them the same thing......if you got into a shootout on duty who would you want coming to back you up......me......or one of those guys? Then I shook my head and walked away.

    That being said there are certain units of officers who could use full auto weapons and WILL train with them enough. SWAT teams who do high risk entries should have the best possible weapons with which to do their jobs. These are highly skilled officers who are definately qualified with the use of full auto and should be given them in case the need arises.
     
  9. CannibalCrowley

    CannibalCrowley Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    926
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, Michigan
    I'm in the "only if I can" bunch. As much as some hate to admit it, they're still normal citizens who should follow the same laws that we have to. So only by an across the board change should they be granted the ability to have full auto firearms.
     
  10. Dbl0Kevin

    Dbl0Kevin Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,183
    Location:
    SC
    I always like to hear how LEOs are just regular citizens and should follow the same rules. How many non LEO's have jobs that involve involving themselves in dangerous situations to help protect people they don't even know? Anybody have to walk around and wonder if you'll run across a murderer or other violent felon that you helped arrest or put in jail while you're out with your family? How many non LEO's have had prices put on their heads by gangs or other criminal elements? I would venture to say that not too many have to worry about any of the above situations.

    Does any of that make LEO's better than regular citizens....in my opinion no it doesn't. But it sure as hell does make them different and it irks me when people think they should not be granted extra priviledges to defend themselves or given the best equipment to make their job as safe as it can be.
     
  11. PUMC_TomG

    PUMC_TomG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    208
    Location:
    USA
    Last I checked, law enforcement officers were civilians.

    Last I checked most of us are "civilians."

    Since I support the principle that everyone should be able to own/carry whatever the heck they want, I voted yes.

    It seems hypocritical for people on this forum to advocate the disarming of a certain class of individuals in society - when we say that we advocate equal access to all types of firearms...

    Just my .02
     
  12. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,756
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    I say NO!

    and I have a two word reason; Collateral Damage


    Spraying lead is fine if you don't care if you kill bystanders (like in a war zone) but the liability for police acting in the middle of a crowded city is just too great.

    Plus we all know how well the average cop is trained with his semi auto pea shooter ... the though of one of these yahoos with an MP5 gives me chills.


    I agree that any cop who wants a full auto gun for his own collection should be allowed to have it just like any other civilian ... but in the line of duty, police work does not have a place for full auto.
     
  13. Third_Rail

    Third_Rail Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,981
    NO! Private collection, sure, no problem.


    In the line of duty, LEOs and SWAT members tend to get a bit edgy, which equals squeezing the trigger. Semi-autos have less of a chance of spray and pray from LEOs, but then again, 60 (or was it 80?) shots to kill a dog...
     
  14. Dbl0Kevin

    Dbl0Kevin Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,183
    Location:
    SC
    Where are you getting this information?? LEOs and ESPECIALLY SWAT members are by far very restrained in their use of deadly force. You're using the exact same tactics that the gun-grabbers do against us in referring to the police. There are tons and tons of SWAT operations that go on everyday....amazingly you never hear of them. Know why? Cause no one got shot and when a suspect is apprehended it is usually without firing a shot. However, when something goes wrong or there is a shot suspect it's all over the news. Frankly I'm very dissappointed that gun owners, of all people, would be saying such things. :banghead:
     
  15. Greg L

    Greg L Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,381
    Location:
    Northern KY
    Perhaps a 3 round burst option but I don't know about complete full auto for the average trunk gun. After 3-4 shots the muzzle will be going all over the place which is if not ok then at least acceptable out on the battlefield. However in an urban situation there needs to be more control.

    That said, I would rather that the police were held to the same gun control laws at the people that they serve. If they want more than 10 rounds in their pistol then fine, work for the repeal of the ban. If they want MP5s then they need to open it up to everyone & not just those who can afford to pay the pre ban prices. Same with M16/M4s as a trunk gun, open the surplus market up to anyone who wants to go through the paperwork. If your state outlaws "assault weapons" or "high capacity magazines" then the police don't get them either. Etc.
     
  16. Mr. Kook

    Mr. Kook Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    105
    Location:
    Kansas
    I voted no for the reason that LEOs are civilians. If the rest of us can't have them than neither should the LEOs.

    To the LEOs out there reading this, I'm sorry. I know you have a dangerous job and that your duties put you in positions where having a sub-gun or an assault rifle would help your chances of survival, but the rest of society is also put in similar situations. If we can't have MP5s or UMP45s for home defense then LEOs should not get these weapons for SWAT work. I know this sucks, but I do not believe in having two standards of law.

    I am of the opinion that if LEOs can have them, we should be able to have them. I am also of the opinion we should be able to have them regardless of what LEOs are, per the discretion of their departments, equipped with.
     
  17. Dbl0Kevin

    Dbl0Kevin Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,183
    Location:
    SC
    Mr. Kook,

    While I will fight as hard as possible for your right to own an MP5 or other machine gun, provided you are a law abiding citizen, do you really think you can compare the danger of someone invading your house to that of SWAT officers who have to go up against armed violent offenders on a semi-regular basis? Sorry to say but your stance seems rather spiteful that just because you can't have one, you really don't care if myself or one of my friends is killed serving a warrant to get a violent and dangerous criminal off the street. Not what I would expect from a gun owner who should be aware of what it's like to have other's opinions forced on you. :(
     
  18. Jay Kominek

    Jay Kominek Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    563
    Location:
    Boulder County, CO
    Not many. But then again, they're not getting paid for that, either. That is an unfortunate part of signing up to be a LEO. And they should get paid amazing sums in compensation. Another unfortunate part of LEOness, is that they're not paid those amazing sums. But they shouldn't be made magically special instead.

    IMO, full auto shouldn't be department-issue. But since cops are just citizens like the rest of us, they ought to be able to buy and carry full auto if they like. (Just as everyone ought to be able to.)
     
  19. Combat-wombat

    Combat-wombat Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,683
    I'll have to agree with that.
     
  20. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,513
    Location:
    Winter Haven, FL
    Why not approach this topic with the same consideration we always wish the public would approach general gun ownership? Get some facts before reaching a decision.

    - How many departments issue their officers full autos?

    - What is the primary need for the officers being issued a full auto?

    - How many times was a department issued full auto utilized, but not fired, in the line of duty in the past 2 years?

    - How many times was a department issed full auto fired in the line of duty in the past 2 years?

    - Of these, how many shots were fired on full auto vs. semi auto?

    - Of these, how many shots hit the intended suspect, how many shots missed and did any missed shots it another person?

    Unless the use of machineguns by law enforcement is resulting in unnecessary injury to other officers or bystanders, why would you not want to allow LEOs the option of using one?
     
  21. Warbow

    Warbow Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    611
    Location:
    Central Texas
    I voted yes. My city PD (mid-sized suburb of Dallas) has eight (maybe more) fully automatic firearms. The only officers who can use them in the line of duty are the ones who have trained at and completed an official Texas Tactical (SWAT) course. I find that a very reasonable policy. I'm not sure where some of the people are getting their ideas that SWAT officers are on the edge and will shoot you just because they're pumped up, or something. Maybe where you live, I don't know. Luckily, Texas certified SWAT officers are highly trained with their weapons. If you ask them to shoot off six rounds on FA in one string, they can. Ask them for nine rounds, they can. And, yes, they hit the target with all rounds fired.

    If your local PD has some sort of Citizen's Police Academy, I suggest you sign up. I took the one mine offered and it was very informative (they even demonstrated their FAs and a flashbang for us, and let us shoot some basic drills on P226s). Every officer I interacted with was very professional about their job. I know there are some LEOs out there who are not so good (and some downright bad) and took the job for all of the wrong reasons, but I think some of you believe every LEO is like that. The vast majority are out there to help keep your community safe and aren't out to get you. Really.
     
  22. sendec

    sendec member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Messages:
    913
    Uh-oh

    People seem to be discussing multiple issues that branch from possession, to use, to rights. Just a couple of observations:

    Police officers have the same rights as everyone else, regardless of their status as "servants", including the right to the best tools needed to do the job.

    Suppressive or surgical fire is not dependent on weapon type. I can dump a thirty round mag into one gaping hole, and I can spray bullets with a bolt gun. Weapon type does not dictate application.

    There is little need for ANY full auto fire outside of the military and aerial applications. If it cannot be justified for the police, you'd have a hard time justifying it for hobbyists. "Keeping the mean old government at bay" will not go over well with the legislature.

    I cannot think of any realistic scenario that would justify sending full auto fire into a crowd. I have never seen full auto weapons deployed in a crowd control scenario in the U.S. I dont know where that writer is coming from, but not from any civil disorder I have seen.

    I can think of scenarios, albeit limited, in domestic LE where the option of FA weapons would be valuable, typically in breaching and possibly in some active shooter scenarios.

    I am not a fan of full-auto professionally, but I'd prefer something other than objections based on philosophy and the fact that civilians have (slightly) more hoops to jump thru to get them than agencies. People may not realize it, but typically agencies have to go thru BATFE for approval and licensing. We cannot walk into Buzz-Guns-R-Us and walk out with a SAW. Far more agencies do not have "special" weapons than those who do, largely because of the hassle.
     
  23. Third_Rail

    Third_Rail Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,981
    I just realized that I voted incorrectly in this...

    I used the argument "Only if I can have them!!", which is how people lose their rights.

    When you look at the poll, it should have one less no and one more yes.
     
  24. MaceWindu

    MaceWindu Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    387
    Huh?

    ""I always like to hear how LEOs are just regular citizens and should follow the same rules. How many non LEO's have jobs that involve involving themselves in dangerous situations to help protect people they don't even know? Anybody have to walk around and wonder if you'll run across a murderer or other violent felon that you helped arrest or put in jail while you're out with your family? How many non LEO's have had prices put on their heads by gangs or other criminal elements? I would venture to say that not too many have to worry about any of the above situations""


    Yeah, but realize this: The job is 100% VOLUNTARY. No one dragged a person off of the street and forced them to become a cop or correctional officer.

    I respect the job and it is tough. But, if I hear: ".....well I put my life on the line everyday....." :scrutiny:

    In the PDRK LEO's and CO's regularly make over $100K per year. THATS RIGHT FOLKS OVER $100K PER YEAR!!:fire:

    Soooo....fully auto?! No....only if the LAWFUL citizens like myself can have'm too.

    Should the cops all have semi-auto AR's? Sure in the PDRK they already do and we cannot have those and the other nice toys. If the job is "too dangerous" you can quit anytime, you knew that when you took the job....

    In the PDRK the cops are NO JOKE. And yes, they do often have the attitude that "we are BETTER than you"....

    MaceWindu
     
  25. gulogulo1970

    gulogulo1970 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    862
    Location:
    Fort Worth, Texas
    They as civilians should be subjected to the same laws as the rest of us. If we can have them so should they, if we can't then they shouldn't. I will grant that the military should have things the aveage person should not have i.e. tanks, stinger missles, maybe even full-auto weapons. But the police are not the military and that line should never be blurred. They are civilians just like everyone else.

    Need should have no bearing. I have quite a few guns I really don't "need". I don't want that logic to apply to anyone.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page