Why do cops get "military" rifles?
- Thread starter The Grand Inquisitor
- Start date
- Status
MagKnightX
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2003
- Messages
- 867
As the starter of the P90 thread (it wasn't about LEO markings, it was actually about the size of the midget gun), let me step in to say a few things.
I am fully for the police having access to things like FN-P90s and M60s and M2s and whatnot. There are situations in which each could be a necessity, especially in big cities like New York or Los Angeles. If they can sink an incoming boat that's carrying a WMD before it can set it off, wouldn't you be happy? At the same time, I don't think that most of them are patrol weapons. For patrol cars, all officers should have effective pistols, and there should be a long arm of some sort kept cruiser ready.
I also think that the citizens should be allowed to have whatever police have (although I do think that a NICS check on low quantities of high explosives is a good idea, and purchasing licenses, no-tax, shall-issue, for high quantities), with little to no restrictions. I want to walk into a gunstore and come out with a M4 with M203 and 50 various 40mm rounds, an FN-P90, and a couple belts of .50 cal. If, of course, I can afford it. I honestly think that there would be far less crime if criminals thought they could easily get 50 rounds of 5.7mm dumped into their chest if they broke into a random house, or that mugging people gets a MAC-10 drawn on them.
Granted, I don't think that citizens should have access to WMDs, but then, a police department has no need for a nuke or for sarin shells. Let the Dep't of Energy control The Bomb like it always has.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled pointless bickering.
I am fully for the police having access to things like FN-P90s and M60s and M2s and whatnot. There are situations in which each could be a necessity, especially in big cities like New York or Los Angeles. If they can sink an incoming boat that's carrying a WMD before it can set it off, wouldn't you be happy? At the same time, I don't think that most of them are patrol weapons. For patrol cars, all officers should have effective pistols, and there should be a long arm of some sort kept cruiser ready.
I also think that the citizens should be allowed to have whatever police have (although I do think that a NICS check on low quantities of high explosives is a good idea, and purchasing licenses, no-tax, shall-issue, for high quantities), with little to no restrictions. I want to walk into a gunstore and come out with a M4 with M203 and 50 various 40mm rounds, an FN-P90, and a couple belts of .50 cal. If, of course, I can afford it. I honestly think that there would be far less crime if criminals thought they could easily get 50 rounds of 5.7mm dumped into their chest if they broke into a random house, or that mugging people gets a MAC-10 drawn on them.
Granted, I don't think that citizens should have access to WMDs, but then, a police department has no need for a nuke or for sarin shells. Let the Dep't of Energy control The Bomb like it always has.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled pointless bickering.
Fed168
Member
Remember that the P90 came out well after 1986, so just about the only folks who can get one are military and LE or a dealer with the proper letter. It's not like we can just go out and get one, much less the ammo for it.
Beren
Moderator Emeritus
This isn't the job of the NYPD. Sounds like a job for the military to me. How exactly would you sink a boat with an M-60, anyway?
Personally, I'm not concerned so much with police having "military weapons" as I am with some police having "military attitudes." That said, anything the police can purchase, I should be able to purchase.
Why do cops get military rifles?
Handguns are feeble as stoppers, whether the threat is armored or not. Remember the expression about a handgun being something you use to fight your way to a long gun? Handguns also make you have to close the distance to the threat, which is a problem if the adversary has a firearm with more range. Handguns are harder to shoot. Forget about police officers, does the average PERSON shoot a rifle or a handgun better? How about when the distance goes beyond 25 yards, 50 yards, 100 yards? In your community, what kind of distances could one encounter in a school hallway, mall, parking lot, etc.?
Bank of America, Columbine, etc., were just wake up calls to agencies that thought that the beat cop was just supposed to handle run of the mill calls for service. They reminded police that the average beat cop on the street needs to be able to handle anything that comes along, because it takes time to put together a team of people with “special weapons and tactics.†As far as I can tell, the public wants the police to shut down problems as quickly as possible. The public is being warned every day that more bad things are coming to America. Well, if the police are going to be expected handle that, they need to have the tools necessary to do it. To me, that isn’t militarizing the police. I can argue that putting rifles in the hands of the average patrol officer de-militarizes the police because it takes away the aura of the specialized highly trained magic ninja unit that swoops in and solves problems that beat cops can’t solve. And shame on any of us who argues that the police are “militarized†because they carry guns that look like “army guns†instead of .30-30s—that’s the same argument used to support the AW ban.
BTW, from where I sit, I see cops and agencies buying the exact same neutered post-ban semi-automatic rifles as everyone else. Full auto generally is a big no-no except for the entry weapon subguns that are in pistol calibers and which, to me, are less effective than the rifles available to the general public.
Finally, ask yourself this question: if you were knowingly driving to a gunfight or a probable gunfight, what would you grab? From what I see on these forums, the average person would take a whole lot more guns and ammo than the average cop.
Handguns are feeble as stoppers, whether the threat is armored or not. Remember the expression about a handgun being something you use to fight your way to a long gun? Handguns also make you have to close the distance to the threat, which is a problem if the adversary has a firearm with more range. Handguns are harder to shoot. Forget about police officers, does the average PERSON shoot a rifle or a handgun better? How about when the distance goes beyond 25 yards, 50 yards, 100 yards? In your community, what kind of distances could one encounter in a school hallway, mall, parking lot, etc.?
Bank of America, Columbine, etc., were just wake up calls to agencies that thought that the beat cop was just supposed to handle run of the mill calls for service. They reminded police that the average beat cop on the street needs to be able to handle anything that comes along, because it takes time to put together a team of people with “special weapons and tactics.†As far as I can tell, the public wants the police to shut down problems as quickly as possible. The public is being warned every day that more bad things are coming to America. Well, if the police are going to be expected handle that, they need to have the tools necessary to do it. To me, that isn’t militarizing the police. I can argue that putting rifles in the hands of the average patrol officer de-militarizes the police because it takes away the aura of the specialized highly trained magic ninja unit that swoops in and solves problems that beat cops can’t solve. And shame on any of us who argues that the police are “militarized†because they carry guns that look like “army guns†instead of .30-30s—that’s the same argument used to support the AW ban.
BTW, from where I sit, I see cops and agencies buying the exact same neutered post-ban semi-automatic rifles as everyone else. Full auto generally is a big no-no except for the entry weapon subguns that are in pistol calibers and which, to me, are less effective than the rifles available to the general public.
Finally, ask yourself this question: if you were knowingly driving to a gunfight or a probable gunfight, what would you grab? From what I see on these forums, the average person would take a whole lot more guns and ammo than the average cop.
Tamara
Senior Member
Cops probably get military-style rifles for the same reason I do: There are just some emergencies that these implements were pretty much designed to handle.
The question shouldn't be why police departments can get them; the question should be why their employers can't.
The question shouldn't be why police departments can get them; the question should be why their employers can't.
itgoesboom
member
Asking why police need to get military style rifles is like asking why civilians need to own military style rifles. If you start to say that the police don't need them, than surely we lowly peons don't need them either.
I honestly don't have a problem with the police having military style rifles, including full auto.
On January 3 this year, here in Portland, OR, a man was holding a knife to his girlfriends throat at the greyhound terminal. This man was going to kill his girlfriend, and the SWAT team wasn't going to have time to respond and properly set up sharpshooters and such.
Fortunatly, one of the officers who responded was issued a AR-15, and from a fairly short distance, fired one round, striking the man in the head, killing him and saving his girlfriends life.
While it was, technically, an "easy shot" (how easy is a shot when there is a hostage involved, and you have to shoot someone???), it would have been a much more difficult shot had the responding officers only had their sidearms and shotguns.
Their are times when only a rifle will do, and there is no point in limiting the capability of that rifle.
If a badguy starts shooting up a mall with his rifle or shotgun, I would prefer a responding officer to be able to make the shot rather than waiting half hour for the SWAT officers to show up and put a plan into action. How may people can a person kill in one half hour?
I.G.B.
I honestly don't have a problem with the police having military style rifles, including full auto.
On January 3 this year, here in Portland, OR, a man was holding a knife to his girlfriends throat at the greyhound terminal. This man was going to kill his girlfriend, and the SWAT team wasn't going to have time to respond and properly set up sharpshooters and such.
Fortunatly, one of the officers who responded was issued a AR-15, and from a fairly short distance, fired one round, striking the man in the head, killing him and saving his girlfriends life.
While it was, technically, an "easy shot" (how easy is a shot when there is a hostage involved, and you have to shoot someone???), it would have been a much more difficult shot had the responding officers only had their sidearms and shotguns.
Their are times when only a rifle will do, and there is no point in limiting the capability of that rifle.
If a badguy starts shooting up a mall with his rifle or shotgun, I would prefer a responding officer to be able to make the shot rather than waiting half hour for the SWAT officers to show up and put a plan into action. How may people can a person kill in one half hour?
I.G.B.
LeonCarr
Member
Most full auto/suppressed weapons, here in Texas anyway, used by law enforcement have to be purchased by the department on police purchase order or department letterhead, and issued to the individual officer by the department. The individual officer himself/herself, with department letterhead, can purchase semi-auto only firearms and law enforcement high capacity magazines. The individual officer does not OWN the full-auto/supressed weapon, it is issued to them.
Try www.gtdist.com for a better explanation on the ins/outs of police having restricted firearms.
Just my .02,
LeonCarr
Try www.gtdist.com for a better explanation on the ins/outs of police having restricted firearms.
Just my .02,
LeonCarr
Why military style rifles?
Durability-They're often tougher than 'hunting' rifles.
Parts Availability-Parts are easy to get, and you are not locked into a single vender
Ease of Use - Many people already have training on them.
Cost - Buying in bulk, for their capabilities, these rifles are a good deal.
Durability-They're often tougher than 'hunting' rifles.
Parts Availability-Parts are easy to get, and you are not locked into a single vender
Ease of Use - Many people already have training on them.
Cost - Buying in bulk, for their capabilities, these rifles are a good deal.
The Real Mad Max
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 92
Stupid thread
Stupid question.
Stupid question.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that a taxpayer is an employer of the police department. I used to misunderstand the situation as well, but I've been corrected often enough to have gotten the point. Police don't work for taxpayers. They work for the people who write their cheques. Like in retail - you don't work for the customer, you work for the store.
'Course, when it comes to stores, you can walk away from a store with bad employees whereas you don't have the same option when it comes to police.
Cops should have the most effective tools and training that they can afford. Like Beren, I'm not concerned with military weapons in the hands of police, but military attitudes in the minds of police.
liliysdad,
May I refer to a post of yours on another thread?
So ... is "jealousy by the have-nots" okay when it's you talking?
MagKnightX
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2003
- Messages
- 867
The military may take too long to mobilize, whereas the police can be ready in a few minutes. Would you rather wait for the Coast Guard to take a 20-minute journey to stop a terrorist speedboat, or an NYPD boat to engage it?
A Ma Deuce certainly helps with the sinking part, as do RPGs or other explosives.
ojibweindian
Member
Only difference I see is in the pomposity of your position; Civvies don't need EBRs, but us cops do to keep you serfs down. No wonder people think of LEOs in terms of JBT with attitudes like yours.
Treylis
Member
I'm not against police having advanced weaponry... I just want it in my own non-LEO, non-military citizen hands as well.
ojibweindian
Member
I'm not the only one, then, with an attitude problem as many here, on this board, and in the public perceive the police as becomming more hostile towards their employers.
Could it be possibly that you guys do have a crappy rep? Could it be that this crappy rep is somewhat deserved, given the actions of some of your fellow officers? Could it be that the "circle the wagons" approach to defending the miscreants within your ranks has only exacerbated the problem?
Hmmmm.....
Think about that statement and then replace fellow "officers" with fellow "gun owners". As I said before the level of hypocrisy on this forum amazes me sometimes.
You will actually cut off your nose to spite your face. Obviously if a police officer is on this forum he's got an interest in firearms and I would wager to say support the ownership, use and carrying of them by everyday citizens. But some people here are too worried about bashing every police officer in the country to realize that. Seems an awful lot like the anti-gunners if you ask me.
ojibweindian
Member
That is, quite simply, a crock. In essence, that statement says "you can't criticize me because I'm a cop AND a gun owner." If you'd take the time to research this site, there are plenty of criticisms laid upon those who practice unsafe handling and ownership, as well as the tin-foil kooks.
ojibweindian
Member
But many of them, for reasons of "officer safety", don't want you or me to have them. I suppose our safety is trumped by their safety.
Funny how I have yet to see ONE police officer on this board who advocates that. Yet you continue to attack and attempt to put down every officer that posts here. You obviously have some deep seated, irrational hatred of the police so much so that you won't even accept that the vast majority of police officers are on YOUR side. You would rather take the few political chiefs and a number of individuals who go against you and say "see look!! they're all a bunch of gun haters!!". Get real will you.....as a group the police are FAR more pro-gun then the general public. You need an attitude adjustment, but I can see that no matter what I say I'll be wrong and you'll be right in your mind so from now on I'll just put you on my ignore list.
Thank you and good night.
Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
- Status
