Why do cops get "military" rifles?

[The Grand Inquisitor]

In a thread on the rifle forum someone mentioned he saw a FN P90 at a gun show that was marked "LEO only". Why is it that all of the legislation on guns has reduced the amount of firearms that civilians are allowed to own, yet has expanded and extended the lethality of weapons of the police.


As someone who has numerous police in his family, I am of the opinion that the police are the LAST ones who should be allowed to own/operate deadly weapons; besides the fact most cops have about 8 hours of weapons training per YEAR, police rarely need powerful weaponry, and in fact, the police should not be allowed to use such powerful and deadly weapons (what exactly does a cop need a full auto rifle for except to accidently kill civilians).

The militirization of American "police" forces has been well documented (best so by Gore Vidal in "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace") and I question the rationale of why it is OK for the police force to increase their potential for owning weapons, while citizens are being increasingly denied their potential to own any firearm.

 

[liliysdad]

Wow..this is sure unusual of this board...jealousy by the have-nots..

 

[DorGunR]

Just a guess........but it may have something to do with the Hollywood shoot out a few years ago where the bank robbers had AK's and the police had handguns............until they borrowed some rifles from a gun store.

 

[The Grand Inquisitor]

I would not qualify my feelings as jealousy, I am most interested in C&R rifles, but what I am concerned with is a growing tyrannical "security" structure.

 

[Azrael256]

The idea is that police are facing better armed criminals who wear body armor. I think they are, and I think they should be trained and equipped to deal with that sort of criminal. Look at the tape of that bank robbery in California a few years ago, and you'll see why. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the police having the best equipment, training, and weapons available so that they can do their jobs. They should never be prohibited from carrying whatever weapon they see fit. They are citizens first.

I also agree that the police are becoming too militaristic. Effective policing does not necessarily require assault rifles and riot gear on a daily basis. Although I should reiterate that they do need them sometimes, and police should have them when appropriate situations arise. There is a trend toward using all of the force they have instead of using the minimum amount necessary. I think this trend is one of mindset more than weapons. That bothers me, too.

I don't think I need to say anything about prohibiting the people from owning the same weapons.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Wow..this is sure unusual of this board...jealousy by the have-nots..

And comments like this are sure going to help matters. You're providing plenty of reasons to agree with the inital post.

- Chris

 

[liliysdad]

Deleted due to complaints to the powers that be, and out fo respect to the owner, and the owner alone.

 

[Pilgrim]

I think the "Cops Only" was a marketing decision made by Fabrique Nationale.

Pilgrim

 

[ConserVet]

Gotta agree with Azrael on this one; The police are becoming far too military in nature and structure, with "Tac Teams" and other special units becoming so popular. Cops do need heavy weapons from time to time though, and I want them to be close at hand when necessary.

I wonder about situations where criminals wear body armor, though. I'm not a street cop, so I don't have an intimate knowledge, but I thought that turds wearing body armor was extremely rare. Wasn't the LA shootout a once-in-a-lifetime kind of thing, or am I wrong?

 

[liliysdad]

Yes, it is extremely rare...that is the problem. You never know if this is to be the shift it happens agian.

 

[Spot77]

I agree that most police forces need to back away from the military look and tactics, but I don't mind every police cruiser having an AR-15 or similar in the trunk. There's surely exceptions, and I CERTAINLY don't think full auto weapons are appropriate for 95% of the police population. There's no doubt in my mind that most departments can't afford to train properly with full auto, and there certainly doesn't appear to be enough situations to justify having fully auto weapons in every car or even every department.

 

[LawDog]

but I thought that turds wearing body armor was extremely rare. Wasn't the LA shootout a once-in-a-lifetime kind of thing, or am I wrong?

Body armour on bad guys was, indeed, a rare thing. Unfortunately, this is changing.

Also, the serious bad guys have starting picking up some decent training.

Going to get interesting, the next decade or so.

LawDog

 

[R.H. Lee]

Even in my small town of 22k, we've got a SWAT/ParaMilitary team in the local PD. EBR's and who knows what else. I see a couple of them in the donut shop from time to time. They're local guys and I'm not worried at all. Pity the poor slob who starts somethin' in this 'hick' town.

 

[Nightfall]

Why do cops get "military" rifles?

I suppose because military rifles are practical and useful tools for dealing with a multitude of violent situations. Apparently body armor is becoming more prevalent amongst criminals in some cases, and handguns just don't cut it when somebody has a vest strapped on. Personally, I'd feel safer if patrol cars had an M4 wannabe in the trunk, and a well trained and well practiced officer behind the wheel.

Of course, that's in a society that respects the RKBA. It's the increasing gap between "regular" citizen and law enforcement (and military) armament that is the cause for concern, as you said. This nation was founded on the principal of power in the people, in particular the general populace not being outgunned by the cops/military/gov't. The gulf between Joe Blow and those given power in the name of his governance is growing ever wider with no end in sight, which can mean some terrifying things...

 

[DorGunR]

You never know when the cops may need those military rifles for their war on hibiscus.

 

[Aikibiker]

Personally if I was equipping a police force I would want to outfit them with either bolt action or lever action rifles with nice bluing and fine grained walnut stocks. Something an officer could be proud to show off in public. Not some ugly black plastic thing. I guess I am in the minority though.

Body armour on bad guys was, indeed, a rare thing. Unfortunately, this is changing.

Also, the serious bad guys have starting picking up some decent training.

Going to get interesting, the next decade or so.

LawDog

What kind of training and where from? Do you have any sources I can research? I don't get much info on criminal trends in my job as a corrections officer and I would value any intelligence you can share

 

[LawDog]

Aikibiker, contact Calibre Press and see when they're going to have a Street Survival Seminar somewhere near you.

Take the money you were going to spend on your next gun, and go to the seminar. Your money will not be wasted.

What kind of training and where from?

The short answer is from the collapsed Soviet Union. Their military hasn't been getting enough to eat for some years now. Some Vietnamese. Thai and Chinese military refugees out on the West Coast and South Texas, too.

LawDog

 

[madcowburger]

Yeah, we better hurry up and pass a federal ban on civilian possession or use of body armor. Some bandits wore some *home-made* body armor in a bank heist in the PRK seven and a half years ago, so it's now officially an epidemic of body armor-wearing.

We can't have civilians wearing bullet-resistant armor. Good heavens, what if *this* guy had been wearing a Kevlar vest?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10A12FC3F590C768EDDAE0894DC404482

Why, he might not have been quite as intimidated by all the guns being pointed at him for no good reason. Of course, they had the muzzles pressed right to his head, so a vest wouldn't have done him much good if one of them slipped or got bee-stung or something.

MCB

 

[Ian]

As we all know, more expensive guns don't make better shooters. If an officer can't shoot straight to begin with, giving him a gizmo'd-up M4 won't help anything. In my vision of Utopia, any peace officer would be required to carry something like an NEF Handi-Rifle until they passed a rigorous practical qualification course. After that, they could carry any firearm of their choosing.

liliysdad - If heavily armed and armored bad guys are a threat, then the people with first access to the neat-o military small arms should be the bank tellers, liquor store owners, jewelers, and couriers. They're going to be the ones who encounter those bad guys first, not the police.

 

[R.H. Lee]

If heavily armed and armored bad guys are a threat, then the people with first access to the neat-o military small arms should be the bank tellers, liquor store owners, jewelers, and couriers. They're going to be the ones who encounter those bad guys first, not the police.

No, that would make aforementioned businesspeople subject to immediate execution. The BG's want to remain covert as long as possible, and carry the heavy armament in case they're not successful.

 

[sendec]

Be Careful What You Wish For......

Typical police weapons are no different that the millions owned or ownable by civilians. If there is no good reason for the police to have them, why should anybody? The odds of a cop actually needing to use a firearm are infinitely higher than that of the average citizen. Are you proposing that no one needs miltary pattern weapons?

The idea that the police are becoming increasingly militarized gets bandied about pretty freely, but no one seems to be able to define or quantify it. There are definitions in the police management field, but typically here the complaint is "they got BDUs and machine guns."

Incidently, the BATFE was responsible for the markings on the P90, as it has no sporting analog.

 

[DorGunR]

sendec I think the police should have military rifles, if (I repeat, IF) they have the proper training.

 

[LawDog]

Yeah, we better hurry up and pass a federal ban on civilian possession or use of body armor

Don't think for a moment that they aren't trying.

so it's now officially an epidemic of body armor-wearing.

Epidemic? Not that I know of. Check back with me in a decade or so, I might have changed my mind on the 'epidemic' part. Or not.

Only Federal Law that needs to be passed regarding body armour is the one that says if you take a shot at LawDog while wearing body armour, and survive the experience, neither LawDog nor his county have to pay any medical bills incurred from having a LawDog-sized boot removed from your fourth point of contact.

LawDog

 

[sendec]

In my experience the majority of agencies that issue or allow rifles require pre-issue training and ongoing qualification with them. The norm is that an officer must demonstrate a level of competence with each weapon they draw or carry. If the standard cannot be met, that officer does'nt get the gun.

The body of case law regarding the training of LEOs, preservice and inservice, is massive. If the explosion of civil litigation experienced in the U.S. over the past 3 decades has an upside, it is that just about everything a cop does is covered by a training model. I daresay that for the majority of officers working today there is documented training on each and every devise they use, from a laptop computer to a precision rifle. You cannot be a cop in the state I live in unless there is documentation that you performed about a dozen different activities related to driving a car. For defensive tactics there are IIRC 44 standards that must be met.

I can remember a time before mandated training, but those days are fading fast if not gone from everywhere.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

but I thought that turds wearing body armor was extremely rare. Wasn't the LA shootout a once-in-a-lifetime kind of thing, or am I wrong?

Am I the only who who finds it kind of ironic that on a board full of gun people who tote around a concealed weapon on the very slim chance that they might get robbed or assaulted, they all of a sudden have a problem with police having advanced weaponry to face increasing threats that they are PAID to protect the public against? Seems a tad hypocritical if you ask me.