Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[TRICKSTER]

Since half the murders committed with legally owned machineguns in America since 1934 have been committed by police officers (the corrupt Ohio officer who used his MAC10 to murder an informant in 1989) law enforcement should have the same restrictions that apply to civilians.

WOW! Who can argue with that logic.

[five.five-six]

Just about any rifle round larger than a .22 will go right through body armor. If LE had any rifle during the North Hollywood bank robbery then it would have been over a lot sooner. Body armor is most effective against pistols and shotguns..

Not true, the had trama plates and layered body armor IIRC. you would be hard pressed to get through that with a single shot of .300WM

[SVT-40]

Since half the murders committed with legally owned machineguns in America since 1934 have been committed by police officers (the corrupt Ohio officer who used his MAC10 to murder an informant in 1989) law enforcement should have the same restrictions that apply to civilians.

That could be no restrictions for LE or the rest of us as suggested by a literal reading of the second amendment, or the current restrictions the rest of us have nationally (no machine guns made after 1986) and at the state level (no automatic weapons in California).

Since most of the thousands and thousands of murders committed with legally owned firearms are committed by citizens, we should take away all firearms, as they are obviously far to dangerous......

Your argument sounds just like the same argument the gun grabbers use to try and take our guns.....

[Artema]

Since most of the thousands and thousands of murders committed with legally owned firearms are committed by citizens, we should take away all firearms, as they are obviously far to dangerous......

Your argument sounds just like the same argument the gun grabbers use to try and take our guns.....

Cops are city employees, citizens.

[KABA556]

Not true, the had trama plates and layered body armor IIRC. you would be hard pressed to get through that with a single shot of .300WM

A trauma plate should not be confused with a rifle plate. Trauma plates simply add protection against blunt force trauma and help lessen the likelihood that a non-penetrating round [pistol/shotgun/etc] will not cause sufficient trauma to break a rib, push a rib into a lung, etc.


Their body armor was still level III-A and a round of .300 WM would be able to go through two III-A vests stacked on top of each other.

I recall some test somewhere that somebody conducted [going to search for it, it might be on the Box of Truth site which has stuff about gun performance/penetration] where THREE level III-A vests stacked together were able to stop a round of .308 winchester.

[IrishJoe3]

Today I see an AR in post patrol cars. Even so, the law makers felt the need to outlaw body armor. That was unnecessary and IMO puts people in danger that would have otherwise been safer if they had the ability to buy body armor. A restaurant manager in a bad neighborhood might want to put on a vest as he takes thousands of dollars in cash to the bank deposit box. That option is no longer legal.

No....body armor is perfectly legal. The only restrictions are individuals with convictions for violent felonies. OTher than that, you can own whatever hard or soft body armor you want.

*Note, even though legal, some vendors will not sell body armor to civilians, though thats the equivalent of cheaper than dirt not selling an AR15 part to California.

[Bobby Ricigliano]

If I had not become a LEO, my second career choice would have been an internet analyst and critic of police tactics. It would have been awesome to just sit in my den and disseminate endless pearls of wisdom over the internet, offering critical and sharp analysis of LE incidents across the nation.

The fact that none of my analysis or opinions are based on any sort of real life experience is entirely irrelevant. On the internet, everybody can be an expert.

[SactoDoug]

If I had not become a LEO, my second career choice would have been an internet analyst and critic of police tactics. It would have been awesome to just sit in my den and disseminate endless pearls of wisdom over the internet, offering critical and sharp analysis of LE incidents across the nation.

The fact that none of my analysis or opinions are based on any sort of real life experience is entirely irrelevant. On the internet, everybody can be an expert.

As a LEO, why do you need a FA weapon?

Maybe I missed it, but I have not seen any justification for it in this thread.

[ziconceo]

As a LEO, why do you need a FA weapon?

Maybe I missed it, but I have not seen any justification for it in this thread.

I'd have to guess and say because gang members have full autos and LEOS need to be in an even playing field in order to win a firefight with their superior training and numbers. Again, just a guess

[Artema]

I'd have to guess and say because gang members have full autos and LEOS need to be in an even playing field in order to win a firefight with their superior training and numbers. Again, just a guess

If gangs have full auto, then all civilians should have full auto. Sectioning off a group of elites that can defend themselves properly is improper.

[KABA556]

I'd have to guess and say because gang members have full autos and LEOS need to be in an even playing field in order to win a firefight with their superior training and numbers. Again, just a guess

Only in stories such as Miami Vice does every single criminal have a fully-automatic MAC-10, an UZI, or an M16.

If you watch a show like Miami Vice you'd think that the average cop faces death four times each day and kills a dozen criminals each month and a cartel boss every few months, all while taking fire from 20-30 cartel soldiers and street gangsters armed with fully automatic weapons.


I have an inkling suspicion that less than 10 police have been killed by criminals armed with fully automatic weaponry during the last 10 years.

[omgwtfbbq]

As a LEO, why do you need a FA weapon?

Maybe I missed it, but I have not seen any justification for it in this thread.

I don't think many of the LEOs who have posted in this thread have been advocating for FA weapons.


The remark you quoted I believe is related to all the other unrelated crap that has come up in this thread. If you read back, you'll see this thread went off the rails pages ago. The armchair CSI and legal scholars of lawful use of deadly force have all come out of woodwork for this one.

[TRICKSTER]

As a LEO, why do you need a FA weapon?

Maybe I missed it, but I have not seen any justification for it in this thread.

How many LEO's have FA weapons?
What are the duties of those LEO's?
Seriously, its not like every LEO on patrol is carrying a FA weapon, in fact, they are quite rare when compared to the total number of LEO department firearms.
I may have missed it, but I have not seen any justification for this thread other that to whine about LEOs and spread a bunch of false information.

[SactoDoug]

How many LEO's have FA weapons?
What are the duties of those LEO's?
Seriously, its not like every LEO on patrol is carrying a FA weapon, in fact, they are quite rare when compared to the total number of LEO department firearms.
I may have missed it, but I have not seen any justification for this thread other that to whine about LEOs and spread a bunch of false information.

That does not answer the question. You are implying that there are situations where a FA weapon will be needed by LE. What are those situations?

[TRICKSTER]

That does not answer the question. You are implying that there are situations where a FA weapon will be needed by LE. What are those situations?

I have never seen a FA weapon fired in a deployment situation in 30+ years of service. In fact, most of the departments in my area limited what FA weapons that they had to 3 round burst which serves a purpose.
What I am saying is that this is really a non issue much like the uproar over departments receiving specialized vehicles.