atlctyslkr
New member
Make them all carry a .44 mag or higher. See how those gangbangers like that! I like my cops well armed. In this city they need all the firepower they can get!
Should Police be made to carry Revolvers, Semi-Automatics or Their Choice
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
firespec35
New member
huh dude I wanna see some of these 120# chicks that aren't gun enthusiasts carry a .44 mag. Now I am a firm believer in the patrol rifle policy. Each car should have an AR and a Shotgun.
Would a carbine (same caliber as their pistol) be better than an AR to prevent over penetration?
I feel that it is best to limit the types of rounds that must be stocked by the dept. Have maybe 3-4 types at most, say 9mm, 44 or 45, .223 ,12gauge. That seems like it is more than enough maybe take out the .223 as most LEO DON'T NEED AN AUTOMATIC OR AN AR. These people are not the army, they are not a part of the militia (national guard right?) so they can NOT have them. They are just like us, if we can't buy it LEO should not either.
I don't feel that cops get to just pass off shooting a bystander like the army can. I don't live in a war zone, I don't want to hear the term "collateral damage" on the news being uttered by a cop. They are here to protect citizens not to mow down the bad guys with a M249 or patrol car mounted Gatling gun. Nor do I want them using land mines, RPGs, tanks, or gunships if it ever gets to this point we have lost all of what we once stood for.
I feel that it is best to limit the types of rounds that must be stocked by the dept. Have maybe 3-4 types at most, say 9mm, 44 or 45, .223 ,12gauge. That seems like it is more than enough maybe take out the .223 as most LEO DON'T NEED AN AUTOMATIC OR AN AR. These people are not the army, they are not a part of the militia (national guard right?) so they can NOT have them. They are just like us, if we can't buy it LEO should not either.
I don't feel that cops get to just pass off shooting a bystander like the army can. I don't live in a war zone, I don't want to hear the term "collateral damage" on the news being uttered by a cop. They are here to protect citizens not to mow down the bad guys with a M249 or patrol car mounted Gatling gun. Nor do I want them using land mines, RPGs, tanks, or gunships if it ever gets to this point we have lost all of what we once stood for.
Rent the HBO program "Waco: The Rules of Engagement".
The part where "America's Top Cop" (Atty. General Janet Reno) equates the illegal use of a borrowed tank with a "rental car" is pretty nauseating.
As far as what the police should be made to carry - simple.
If Joe Six Pack can carry it, then Officer Friendly should be able to also.
If Joe can't, neither should Friendly..
IMHO, cops should be able to carry whatever they like and preform best with, within limits. No .25s or .454 Casulls, but any other reasonable weapon should be an option.
In the interest of logistics, the departments could encourage certain trends, such as only providing ammunition for a couple caliber. But the officer should still be able to pick their own gun.
In the interest of logistics, the departments could encourage certain trends, such as only providing ammunition for a couple caliber. But the officer should still be able to pick their own gun.
Handy said:
A few posts later you basically agree with Marko, who pretty much made the same point as I. Wonder why?
The poll was about revolver, semi-auto, or choice. That's it, Handy.
Not about whether or not someone should be allowed to carry a low end gun like a "Filipino 1911", or if they should be allowed to carry a high end HK or SIG.
So in its intended context yeah, to me it's a silly question.
"A competent police firearms authority" should have a selection of guns available from which officers can choose (satisfying your requirement that no one is allowed to carry those cheap brands you so deride). This selection should include both semi-autos and revolvers, from whatever manufacturers the "police firearms authority" deems appropriate. From this lot, the officer should be able to choose between revolver or semi-auto.
I really think it should be their own choice--after all, everyone else has that choice. Shouldn't police too?
I strongly dislike the concept of police being elite, privileged citizens. This is true. However, I am equally disdainful of the idea that they should be reduced to a state beneath ordinary citizens. Equal protection under the law (in its actual meaning, which is considerably different from the modern interpretation) dictates that neither condition should be allowed to occur.
I strongly dislike the concept of police being elite, privileged citizens. This is true. However, I am equally disdainful of the idea that they should be reduced to a state beneath ordinary citizens. Equal protection under the law (in its actual meaning, which is considerably different from the modern interpretation) dictates that neither condition should be allowed to occur.
Trip,
Read the whole paragraph referencing Marko. I agreed with his opening statement, but not his sentiment in toto. WE shouldn't be picking their guns, but neither should they have free reign.
Being a policeman grants no special insight to weapons selection. Moreover, even if an officer is a slightly better shot with a revolver, that still doesn't mean that there aren't other concerns, like the ones I mentioned, that might override that preference.
The head of whatever bureau is ultimately responsible for EVERYTHING he has the ability to influence when it comes to his officers' conduct and performance. That assuredly includes weapons. So I disagree with you and Marko when you say the individual officer's preference or bias is the most important consideration. Policemen are not loners, but part of a team that must be able to conform in order to enact tactics in a predictable and safe manner.
Policemen need to walk a narrow path - that is their job. Uniforms, squad cars, standardized radio calls, handcuff type and use of force are all dictated so there is a standard to be relied upon WITHIN the organization. There is plenty of room for choice and initiative where it is important.
Read the whole paragraph referencing Marko. I agreed with his opening statement, but not his sentiment in toto. WE shouldn't be picking their guns, but neither should they have free reign.
Being a policeman grants no special insight to weapons selection. Moreover, even if an officer is a slightly better shot with a revolver, that still doesn't mean that there aren't other concerns, like the ones I mentioned, that might override that preference.
The head of whatever bureau is ultimately responsible for EVERYTHING he has the ability to influence when it comes to his officers' conduct and performance. That assuredly includes weapons. So I disagree with you and Marko when you say the individual officer's preference or bias is the most important consideration. Policemen are not loners, but part of a team that must be able to conform in order to enact tactics in a predictable and safe manner.
Policemen need to walk a narrow path - that is their job. Uniforms, squad cars, standardized radio calls, handcuff type and use of force are all dictated so there is a standard to be relied upon WITHIN the organization. There is plenty of room for choice and initiative where it is important.
People die. This will happen to you and me someday too, and cannot be avoided.
Those four officers died because of one thing: the criminals' actions. Do not be so crude and cynical as to blame them for their own deaths. Their revolvers did not murder them, nor did they commit suicide. Nor should other officers suffer being forced to accept what you think is best for them.
Great idea! The government should definitely be better armed than the citizens. Hey, it's for the children, and if it saves just one life...:barf: :barf:
I cannot imagine that I've ever seen a statement more facilitative to the overgrowth of government control over the individual as this one above. I am left wondering: are you a police officer that is not allowed to carry a fully automatic weapon?
casingpoint
Moderator
<are you a police officer that is not allowed to carry a fully automatic weapon>
No. I am a civilian who does not carry one because of the federal red tape involved. While I advocated police carry, I did not rule out civilian carry of fully automatic weapons. Since automatics are what you would arm a contemporary militia with today, I view the right to carry them as a Second Ammendment entittlement. Hey, other Americans have their own entitlements. Employment rights, the right of a local govenment to sieze your property and give it to private developers, gender rights, welfare rights, food stamp rights, gay rights, ad infinitum and ad nauseum.........what the hell is wrong with a right to own a machine gun. Seriously, once you have trained with fully automatic weapons, you see things in a different light. Everything else pales by comparison.
No. I am a civilian who does not carry one because of the federal red tape involved. While I advocated police carry, I did not rule out civilian carry of fully automatic weapons. Since automatics are what you would arm a contemporary militia with today, I view the right to carry them as a Second Ammendment entittlement. Hey, other Americans have their own entitlements. Employment rights, the right of a local govenment to sieze your property and give it to private developers, gender rights, welfare rights, food stamp rights, gay rights, ad infinitum and ad nauseum.........what the hell is wrong with a right to own a machine gun. Seriously, once you have trained with fully automatic weapons, you see things in a different light. Everything else pales by comparison.
This is just low. You've taken a tactical analysis of weapons choice and tried to make it sound like a personal barb. Get over yourself.
Most police units feel the exact same way, which is why higher-than-revolver-capacity autos have pretty much erased revolvers in police use for the past 20 years. There is a LEGITIMATE concern about capacity, and the example given illustrates this concern nicely.
stephen426
New member
As I said in my earlier post... do you think that police officers will spend the time to become proficient with automatic weapons when many don't even practice until just before requalifications? While we may be gun enthusiasts and spend every free minute at the range, a gun is just a tool of the trade for most police officers just as knives are tools of the trade for chefs. I don't think we need all officers to be equipped with automatic weapons... that is what the SWAT team is for and they practice to reach a high level of proficiency with their weapons.
As for police officers not being allowed to carry what we are prohibited from carrying... I don't see the logic. Does that mean that SWAT should not be allowed to carry automatice weapons? What about the DEA or FBI? They aren't military either. What if citizens were only allowed to carry revolvers but criminals were buying high capacity semi-autos off the black market? Don't you feel that police officers should be able to carry guns that level the playing field with BAD GUYS rather than just the average law abiding citizen (provided they train with them and are proficient with them)? That is why most officers carry a regular handgun and maybe have a shotgun in the car while SWAT team has all the heavy fire power... TRAINING!!!
Handy, if you were the police firearms authority in charge of selecting the weapons allowed, would you include revolvers?
It's entirely possible I'm reading into your comments a little too much, but for some reason I'm getting the impression you believe revolvers, due to their capacity (or lack thereof), are obsolete for a police officer given the type of scenerios police officers may encounter.
It's entirely possible I'm reading into your comments a little too much, but for some reason I'm getting the impression you believe revolvers, due to their capacity (or lack thereof), are obsolete for a police officer given the type of scenerios police officers may encounter.
steelheart
Moderator
Seeing as how there is a proliferation of negligent discharge incidents involving police officers and semiauto pistols, prehaps they should be required to carry revolvers...
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Until relatively recently and perhaps still, New York City police officers bought their own firearms and they had a choice, which varied over time. They used departmental issue ammuntion, which also varied over time. The changes in personal weapons for that department over the last thirty years were all controversial to one degree or another but there were changes--they don't carry Model 10's with .38 Special RNL ammo anymore. It would be interesting to know what the policy is now.
By the way, policemen are civilians.
By the way, policemen are civilians.
casingpoint
Moderator
<do you think that police officers will spend the time to become proficient with automatic weapons>
Proficiency with fully automatic carbines and machine pistols is not the same thing as with revolvers and pistols. One of the great attributes of machine guns is that an opponet will instinctively cower and hide at the first burst of fire. And if he ain't used to it, and what civilian is, he will piss his pants. Then, burst firing continuously, it is possible to advance to his position while he is not looking and kill him. Or take him into custody. Right. This scenario is not without risk of course, but may well have resulted in less casualties at Newhall and the Miami FBI shootout. Otherwise, hitting something repeatedly, especially someting on the move, is much easier with a fully automatic weapon than with static guns. So to answer your question, the average cop will be fairly efficient with autos right out of the box. Proficiency will come with quickly to those who can learn.
Proficiency with fully automatic carbines and machine pistols is not the same thing as with revolvers and pistols. One of the great attributes of machine guns is that an opponet will instinctively cower and hide at the first burst of fire. And if he ain't used to it, and what civilian is, he will piss his pants. Then, burst firing continuously, it is possible to advance to his position while he is not looking and kill him. Or take him into custody. Right. This scenario is not without risk of course, but may well have resulted in less casualties at Newhall and the Miami FBI shootout. Otherwise, hitting something repeatedly, especially someting on the move, is much easier with a fully automatic weapon than with static guns. So to answer your question, the average cop will be fairly efficient with autos right out of the box. Proficiency will come with quickly to those who can learn.
casingpoint
Moderator
http://www.savvysurvivor.com/supplementary/x_submachinegun.htm
Note the interesting addendums at end of article.
Note the interesting addendums at end of article.
The idea that we need to have every cop with a machine gun in his or her hand is outrageous. Even a SWAT team has little true use for something that fires a large number of rounds quickly, as the whole point of them being there is to protect people, spraying an area with 30+ rounds to "get the bad guy" is more likely to get one or more of the people they are supposed to protect dead.
If I had to make a shot where I knew there was a chance I could shoot a bystander I would prefer to have a weapon that did not fire more than one round a trigger pull.
We don't live in a war zone.
I want to give an example of what I am talking about (not real but it could happen)
One day the local wal-mart is held up by a group of well armed thugs, they have a number of pistols and sawed off shotguns. The local police dept quickly responds with several patrol cars (story A they have M-4s) (story B they have glock semi auto pistols) They arrive and quickly form a plan that to get in the store. Once inside they confront the group of thugs and are fired upon, they return fire with (A: M-4 rifles) (B: semi auto pistols) But during the confrontation one more person that they did not know was there suddenly appears (A: He is fired upon by multiple automatic rifles and falls) (B: He is fired upon by multiple semi auto pistols) But to the officers horror (A: there was a woman behind, and has been hit and killed by over penetrating bullets) (B: The thug does not react to the pistol shots for a moment and fires a single shot killing one of the officers)
What one was better?
I would say B because the officer always accepted that the job of protecting people may one day result in his death.
A: Is the problem with having automatic rifles in common use by officers. The risk to the officer is acceptable compared to the risk to a citizen.
The job of a police officer is to go into harms way to protect peoples lives and property. If someone is unwilling to take the risk of being out gunned they should never be a police officer.
I am not a cop, never want to be one. But I can understand some of both sides, wanting to have the ability to go to the trunk and getting a machine gun to trump what ever the guy that wants to kill you has. And the fact that bullets over penetrate and having more of them in the air makes the risk much larger.
Basically I would not be the one to take away the officers automatic, but I always cringe when I hear that the local police are getting more.
If I had to make a shot where I knew there was a chance I could shoot a bystander I would prefer to have a weapon that did not fire more than one round a trigger pull.
We don't live in a war zone.
I want to give an example of what I am talking about (not real but it could happen)
One day the local wal-mart is held up by a group of well armed thugs, they have a number of pistols and sawed off shotguns. The local police dept quickly responds with several patrol cars (story A they have M-4s) (story B they have glock semi auto pistols) They arrive and quickly form a plan that to get in the store. Once inside they confront the group of thugs and are fired upon, they return fire with (A: M-4 rifles) (B: semi auto pistols) But during the confrontation one more person that they did not know was there suddenly appears (A: He is fired upon by multiple automatic rifles and falls) (B: He is fired upon by multiple semi auto pistols) But to the officers horror (A: there was a woman behind, and has been hit and killed by over penetrating bullets) (B: The thug does not react to the pistol shots for a moment and fires a single shot killing one of the officers)
What one was better?
I would say B because the officer always accepted that the job of protecting people may one day result in his death.
A: Is the problem with having automatic rifles in common use by officers. The risk to the officer is acceptable compared to the risk to a citizen.
The job of a police officer is to go into harms way to protect peoples lives and property. If someone is unwilling to take the risk of being out gunned they should never be a police officer.
I am not a cop, never want to be one. But I can understand some of both sides, wanting to have the ability to go to the trunk and getting a machine gun to trump what ever the guy that wants to kill you has. And the fact that bullets over penetrate and having more of them in the air makes the risk much larger.
Basically I would not be the one to take away the officers automatic, but I always cringe when I hear that the local police are getting more.
Harley Quinn
Moderator
Depts, have policy.
So that is what you will do. Rules you have to love um (or not work there).
I believe the Semi-auto is what should be the weapon on force's these days.
Training and more training. Is very important. "To shoot or not to shoot that is the question". Training and more training.
I am glad some of you have no input into the making of a LEO or the weapon they should have, or the right that they have to carry.
Some Depts require you to all carry the same, some don't. Some have strict rules when to shoot, other Dept's., are more lax.
Rules, and more rules the bigger the city and denser the population.
Some can carry different calibers some can't.
Since a very high percentage of the people that drive cars, cannot or will not obey the law pertaining to the driving of said vehicle, I would say that goes with the general melt down of people who have the ability to be LEO's.
Quite a few die by there own hand, whether it is by the gun, or the vehicle.
Training and more training. Need to keep a sharp eye out for them, they are on the leading edge and go over it quite often.
Rules and training very much an issue for the LEO, without the guideline we would have to many or more John Wayne's out there, very hard to keep it from happening.
But limiting their ability to have a good and efficent firearm is not one of the ways IMO. There are a lot more bad guys on the street than there is LEO.
Beware what you want, it might come back to bite you, big time.
My thought's
HQ
So that is what you will do. Rules you have to love um (or not work there).
I believe the Semi-auto is what should be the weapon on force's these days.
Training and more training. Is very important. "To shoot or not to shoot that is the question". Training and more training.
I am glad some of you have no input into the making of a LEO or the weapon they should have, or the right that they have to carry.
Some Depts require you to all carry the same, some don't. Some have strict rules when to shoot, other Dept's., are more lax.
Rules, and more rules the bigger the city and denser the population.
Some can carry different calibers some can't.
Since a very high percentage of the people that drive cars, cannot or will not obey the law pertaining to the driving of said vehicle, I would say that goes with the general melt down of people who have the ability to be LEO's.
Quite a few die by there own hand, whether it is by the gun, or the vehicle.
Training and more training. Need to keep a sharp eye out for them, they are on the leading edge and go over it quite often.
Rules and training very much an issue for the LEO, without the guideline we would have to many or more John Wayne's out there, very hard to keep it from happening.
But limiting their ability to have a good and efficent firearm is not one of the ways IMO. There are a lot more bad guys on the street than there is LEO.
Beware what you want, it might come back to bite you, big time.
My thought's
HQ