Why is the shotgun (seemingly) fading in police circles?

Roy,
If you're gonna give police guns at all, wherein lies the the problem in giving them "enough" guns as opposed to only "some guns"?
It's not a game of saying "I don't want them better armed than me", and I can't help feeling you show some paranoia in your statements.
Arrest & detain is perfectly fine, I always prefered it. But, what about those cases where the arrestee & the detainee refuse to be arrested & detained? If circumstances dictate that the person has to be stopped from what he's doing as a threat to others, and he or she resists, threatens, or continues to harm others with firearms, then he or she has to be met with firearms. And, once the situation requires them, they might as well be the most effective possible in the hands of the police. Senseless to say, "OK, you can have a gun, but it can only be a .38 and a shotgun" in today's world. Something like saying, "OK, let's play baseball, but I don't want your team to have a full-sized bat, you might beat me, so you can only have those little kids' bats", but with much more serious potential consequences.
Like it or not, police are essential to the existance of this country, it would break down totally without them or something similar. There has to be rules, and the has to be penalties for breaking the rules. Without a societal enforcer, no large scale society today can survive in this country.
As to who controls the police, it's the society that empowers them, which is you & me in the form of internal policies, outside court and public opinion constrictions, and the power of the vote. Occasional lapses occur, occasional bad cops get into the system, and it's not perfect in either concept or execution. But, it's the best we've got right now, and it beats a military dictatorship to maintain order. We are very far from a police state.
Denis
 
The Policy Not The Police

I don't like the policy. Taking away the peoples second amendment rights and then arming agencies of the government goes against why we fought a revolution and adopted a Bill of Rights. Didn't Ben Franklin have saying about what folks deserve if they give up any liberty?
 
It's not your police trying to take your guns away, it's your state government. Yes, the Second Amendment was created to protect your gun rights, and yes, the police are a part of government. But, giving cops adequate tools to do their job has nothing to do with the State Of California telling you what guns you can & can't have.
Denis
 
The Same Group

It is the government taking away my gun rights. It is the same government that arms and controls police agencies. I know this is probably paranoid talk on my part. But I just feel uneasy about the situation. I do not have blind trust in our elected officials.

I do thank you and your fellow officers for the work you do. These rants are not aimed at you personally.
 
You shouldn't have blind trust in your elected officials, nobody in their right mind would. :eek:
I'm just trying to say there's no connection between California suppressing guns and properly equipping police to do their legitimate jobs nationwide.
I don't take your comments personally, and I do appreciate your thanks.
Denis
 
The California gun bans aren't going to escalate much more than they are. What do you need an assault rifle for anyway?

Anyway, back to the issue at hand, there are very few gun fights in which a police officer needs a rifle. Usually it just ends in them arresting the perpetrator, not having to kill or disable him. The shotgun is not fading as much as you think...most cops still carry a shotgun...and it's not like they use any of their weapons, aside from Non-Lethals much anyway.
 
Dante690 said:
The California gun bans aren't going to escalate much more than they are. What do you need an assault rifle for anyway?
Click to expand...
Regarding “assault rifles”:

I own a Springfield Armory M1a rifle… a semiautomatic version of the M14 which saw service in the Korean and Vietnam wars. It is considered an assault weapon. The only possible case that they might be considered ‘overkill’ is in a hunting situation, and only since it becomes very dangerous when hunters start trying to ‘spray and pray’ that they hit something. In that situation, a 5-round magazine restriction (while hunting) has solved the problem perfectly. We don’t want the woods to be filled with bullets flying thru the air.

In a home/neighborhood defense situation (New Orleans, for example) it is exactly what I would want… I could decimate a mob of 20 guys with shotguns coming down the street towards me in less than 30 seconds, if I had reasonable cover.

Just because it can rapidly kill a lot of people doesn’t mean that it is inherently evil… I would consider the afore-mentioned mob to be evil.

What if I died defending myself with a 5-shot pump action shotgun that I emptied into the mob, and the remaining 15 guys got me in the end? When I could have wiped out the entire group with a more intelligent weapon? Just because it was once used or is currently used by the military doesn’t mean that I’m not intelligent enough to operate it, too…

We live in a republic, not a democracy. Right is determined by logic and God, not by the latest gallup poll. Mobs cannot take property, mobs cannot take lives, and be in the right. A ballot proposition is the same thing as a mob attempting to curtail rights.
 
The California gun bans aren't going to escalate much more than they are. What do you need an assault rifle for anyway?
Click to expand...
Really. I mean, why do you even need a handgun, right? The police are here to protect you, that's why we are arming them as much as our military, so they can take out the "bad guys" for you.

You've no need to trouble yourself with guns, especially not rifles, those are only for the "big boys" to use. You'd just shoot your eye out. :barf:
 
not that it means much..

but I have fired 3" mag slugs, i am 16 and 120lbs on the nose, now I have to get into stance and it still tips me a little like a friendly shove from a friend(actual friend ,not the recoil) the recoil is not really pleasant, i can hit 50 yrd steel plates that are pie pan sized, I think that getting a second shot off after the first traumatic one is going to take longer than a guy with a 9mm to get 4 shots from his gun at you, thats pretty bad, especially if you miss the first time. thats the underlying reason cops switch. I personally would carry an 06' sawed off, huge amounts of energy, great accuracy, maybe a semi auto by remington or sumthing. Thast me, might have something to do with the fact the 06' is my favorite cartridge, plus I took my first buck with one
Chase
 
Dante690

You are right, gun bans in California are not going escalate much more. They will stop somewhere between banning Daisy BB Guns and BR-15's.
 
You are too paranoid. I mean yes, I do like assault rifles. It would be nice if we had them un banned. To be honest, I would buy one. And steve, there is a big difference between a handgun and a high cap assault rifle. I don't think assault rifles are evil, I just see no use for one. Sure, the guys in New Orleans could use them for self defense, but...be real for a second. Are you really going to use an assault rifle for Home Defense? They can't ban guns much worse than they already have. If it gets out of hand, I will move. Too many people have guns, and that's why they will never be able to truly ban guns in PRK.
 
And steve, there is a big difference between a handgun and a high cap assault rifle. I don't think assault rifles are evil, I just see no use for one.
Click to expand...
Not a big difference to the folks in San Francisco. I believe that's still part of the PRK, right? You can't have handguns there anymore, either! See, its baby steps. :(

You may not see a use for them, but that's your own opinion. Why is your opinion more valid than all the people out there that DO see a use for them?
 
Dante690,
I'm new here, but I think I'll jump in. The same politicians who have passsed your current gun bans want guns completely eradicated. They see every gun as a "assault weapon".
If your senators and representititves had their way you'd see this;
Glock 17? Assault pistol- banned. Can hold too many 'bullets'. S&W Mod 10? Banned- nobody needs a gun that holds more than 5 shots. S&W 642? Banned- snub nosed "Saturday night special". Remington 1100? banned. Semi-auto assualt shotgun. No one needs a semi-auto shotgun. Sharps .50 cal? Banned. .50 cals can shoot down airplanes.
All semi-auto rifles? Banned. "No legitimate sporting purpose".
Think I am exagerating? I think it was Finestein who said she would ban all guns if she could get away with it. May have been Pelosi(sic?)

What is happening is that the gun grabbers are slowly pushing their aganda through one "victory" at a time. Many gun owners have no problem with gun laws, until they affect themselves directly. You don't care about "assault rifles". Others don't care about handguns. There are plenty of examples of restricted handgun ownership here in the US. Where is the public outcry? There isn't any, because that specific "public" doesn't care. Once California gets to the point where legislation banning handguns will make it through the State Senate, you will see them go 'bye, bye'. Don't count on a public out-cry.

Wow, what a thread hi-jack. Sorry.
Take care,
John
 
Dante690

What do you suppose would happen if they proposed a total gun ban in California?

Right, even folks in this state would rise up.

They are going to chip at gun rights in California in a slow and methodical way. Even liberal politicians know who butters their bread.

I bet that those people in Germany that followed that leader with the funny mustache thought things couldn't get much worse either.
 
I've been around to watch local officers qualify with handgun and shotgun. The shotgun was an 870 and on each instance there were officers who forgot to pump or who short stroked. Both sets preferred an AR15 when given the choice. It was more similar in operation to the duty weapon (Beretta).
 
..if I had 20 people in a mob coming at me...I would want something else besides just a 5 or 6 shot riot gun....what I mean is an additional weapon..but I still want the riot gun.....at a distance of 35 to 50 yards, buckshot would probably hit more than one person if they were together in one mass.....there is a reason for the slang 'street sweeper' you know...
 
roy reali isn't paranoid

I live in California and I agree with him 100%. The politicians here don't just confine their shenanigans to guns either. The California Air Resource Board started out with a clearly defined purpose but it is now being twisted and used by some politicians to ban things that they don't like(diesel engines). I can think of several examples of extreme hypocrisy ranging from anti gun politicians who have concealed carry permits to the fact that the state has banned smoking from bars for health reasons yet allows the liberal use of "medical marijuana". I think most of the politicos in this state need to have some sense slapped back into them.
 
Our Hunting Regulations

I know this is going to be off topic, but a look at how our hunting regulations are set will explain how goofy things are here. Many of our laws pertaining to hunting are decided by ballot initiative, yes a vote. The game officals and biologists are often ignored.

We have a serious mountain lion over-population problem. We need to hunt them again. Not only to bring their numbers back in line, but also because the cats are loosing the fear of man. Several weeks ago a guy here in the foothills just outside of my city heard a commotion out in his backyard. He went and found his dog in battle with a cougar. He had his shotgun but didn't want to shoot directly at the cat because of the risk to his dog. He fired a shot into the air. The lion ignored the shot and continued his battle with the dog. He fired the next shot into the rear end of the cat, this made him break the fight and take off. This cat had no fear of a gun blast.

Some years ago a ballot measure was up for a vote. It would have opened up hunting for mountain lions. The residents of SF and L.A. didn't want the poor little kitties hurt, so it failed.

My point is that if we can not intelligently regulate our wild life here how in the hell are we going to get anywhere with gun issues!
 
What happened to the Mountain Lion?

Now that it was wounded and a far more dangerous animal? Has it been dispatched, caught or seen of since?

I believe the person who shot the animal to be pretty reckless, he should of shot to kill and not worry about his dog (which was doing his job by the way).
If he would of put himself closer to the fight and shot the animal in the vitals it would have been better in my opinion. Another bad decision was to fire the shot into the air. Training will get you everytime.

Bad decision on the part of this untrained citizen and now a wounded mountain lion is on the loose???

Just reading the story and trying to show how things are not done right with out training. Even with training it does not always go the way it should.

As far as a mob goes, do they deserve death??? How come you have that right and not the Police that are hired to do the job. See what I mean the shoe is on the other foot...

Harley
 
Don't Know Exactly Why, But

Apparently he could not get a clean shot at the cat because he was entangled with his dog. I suppose he wanted to not shoot his dog if possible. He might have taken a different course of action, but in the heat of battle things don't always go as planned.

The main point though is that the cat showed no fear. A little hunting pressure would have the cats retreating away from humans. But as I said earlier, the good people of our urban areas deemed it not necesary.

I think that they should live trap a bunch of mountain lions. Then they should relocate them in the parks around the bay area. They like the cats so much they need to have some around to enjoy. Then the people of Marin County have a new activity to look forward to on weekend mornings. They can get up and slip on their Birkenstocks. They can then grab some granola and soy milk. They could put that in a bowl and go feed the big kitty cats in their local parks. They can even photograph each other hugging and frolicking with the cougars.

They could show the rest of the state that these cats are indeed harmless and misunderstood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top