Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[SactoDoug]

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.

The fact that they have not been used does not nullify the need for a justification to have them in the first place.

The "uproar" is a real concern over the militarization of law enforcement. We are not subjects. We are citizens that deserve answers, not contempt.

[TRICKSTER]

The fact that they have not been used does not nullify the need for a justification to have them in the first place.

The "uproar" is a real concern over the militarization of law enforcement. We are not subjects. We are citizens that deserve answers, not contempt.

Since I have not worked in every area of the country and have not dealt with every problem that they encounter, I cannot say for sure whether or not a FA is or isn't justified. I can say that I never had a need for one and was never issued one. As far as the militarization of the police, they are no more militarized now than they were in the late 1800s or throughout the 1900s. The only difference is that we now have the internet and people spreading stories.
By the way, if you really want answers, take your questions up with your representatives and the government officials that authorize these purchases, do some real research instead of complaining on an internet forum.

Let me add, we are not subjects, we are also citizens voluntarily answering questions on the internet. We do not represent any department or government agency. We do not have to answer any questions here, but we do so when we can, even in the face of some of the blatant anti-LEO sentiment here. So lighten up Francis.

[Squidward]

The short answer to the original question is, no they don't need FA. Here is why; data shows that most police shootings are close in range with few rounds fired. Sure, there are incidents of multiple rounds being fired by multiple officers, commonly referred to as "bunch firing" or "sympathetic firing". But FA provides no advantage in most settings.

As previously mentioned, officers are held accountable for the final resting place of every round. Lawyers are standing by and willing to file a lawsuit at the slightest hint of easy money. Sadly, cities settle out of court on a regular basis to "save money" by not going to court. IMHO, this puts the LEO in a bad place (implying guilt even though there may be none) and this perpetuates other lawsuits that are often tried in the media. LEOs know this and it's a potentially deadly thought to keep in the back of ones head.

Finally, most LEOs are not "gun guys/gals". This meaning its a tool that they carry allot and use very little. LEOs are constantly receiving training; Legal updates, Racial profiling, CLETS training, baton and Taser training and the list goes on... You'd be surprized at how infrequently they get firearms training. Mostly, due to time constraints and budgets. Consequently, most LEOs are not great shots; which is disconcerting due to the heavy amount of liability associated with the use of a firearm!

Yes, there are exceptions in the LEO community. There are the "high-speed, low-drag operators" who are on specialty teams. And they may need FA but they also get allot of extra training time which is mandated by the state. IMO, the LEO not only doesn't need FA, he/she doesn't need one more thing to complicate an already endlessly complicated job.

[omgwtfbbq]

Finally, most LEOs are not "gun guys/gals". This meaning its a tool that they carry allot and use very little. LEOs are constantly receiving training; Legal updates, Racial profiling, CLETS training, baton and Taser training and the list goes on... You'd be surprized at how infrequently they get firearms training. Mostly, due to time constraints and budgets. Consequently, most LEOs are not great shots; which is disconcerting due to the heavy amount of liability associated with the use of a firearm!

Yes, there are exceptions in the LEO community. There are the "high-speed, low-drag operators" who are on specialty teams. And they may need FA but they also get allot of extra training time which is mandated by the state. IMO, the LEO not only doesn't need FA, he/she doesn't need one more thing to complicate an already endlessly complicated job.

While I agree that many LEOs these days are not "gun people" I will say this: CA Penal code states that LEOs defined under Section 830.1 must qualify with their service firearm at least quarterly (once every three months).

Officers who carry multiple weapons as part of their assignments must qualify with each of the weapons they use as part of that assignment. If they do not, they will not be allowed to carry out said assignment. Officers in specialized assignments such as SWAT or similar teams typically receive more frequent training due to the increase chance of lethal force employment as thus increased liability on the part of the department.

As to the need of FA, I stated early in this thread that many departments have already moved away from select fire or FA weapons even for those officers with specialized assignments. Those firearms that remain, generally speaking are subguns, which fire pistol ammunition. The theory for the need of such weapons is the same as that of any other organization or individual who finds the need this type of firearm. They are short, easy to use in close confines and allow the user to send more lead down range in a shorter period of time, thus increasing the potential lethality.

[sl0re10]

I worry about the stray bullets on the occasion they all start shooting at something...

5.56 can go through many walls...

[Bobby Ricigliano]

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've been in LE for many years now, and never handled a FA weapon on duty. The guys that do have access to that kind of firepower in my department are a tiny percentage of exceptionally well trained and high speed cops who are in a league all their own.

I am not disputing the talking head posters here who apparently think every patrol officer carries an MP5 on the hip with a SAW in the rack, but that is just not the case. Perhaps their vast experience gained from GTA5 and The Walking Dead have taught them differently, but most street cops never use FA.

The only time in my life i ever shot a select fire weapon was in the military. The actual military, not Call of Duty. If I had access to FA in patrol I probably would not want it. All of my rifle training on and off duty has been with semi auto AR's with Eotechs, same stuff the BF3 players posting here have. I'd rather have that in a gunfight because my butt is in the line criminally and civilly for every errant round I send down range.

[omgwtfbbq]

I am not disputing the talking head posters here who apparently think every patrol officer carries an MP5 on the hip with a SAW in the rack, but that is just not the case.

In fact, you are disputing those people, and that is totally fine, because you're right and they are not.

[SactoDoug]

LE does not hold a monopoly on military vets. I am one as well and I have fired the real deal too. I know how difficult they are to control which just adds to my questioning as to the justification why LE needs FA weapons.

I don't see LE using FA for suppression fire or room clearing. With the penetration of those rounds and the sheer number being fired, there is a high chance of hitting unintended targets.

You don't like the stereotypes that people have of LE, yet you quickly use an Internet Rambo stereotype of those critical or questioning of LE.

Past all of the ad hominem attacks, I don't see any valid reason for LE to have FA weapons.

[TRICKSTER]

LE does not hold a monopoly on military vets. I am one as well and I have fired the real deal too. I know how difficult they are to control which just adds to my questioning as to the justification why LE needs FA weapons.

I don't see LE using FA for suppression fire or room clearing. With the penetration of those rounds and the sheer number being fired, there is a high chance of hitting unintended targets.

You don't like the stereotypes that people have of LE, yet you quickly use an Internet Rambo stereotype of those critical or questioning of LE.

Past all of the ad hominem attacks, I don't see any valid reason for LE to have FA weapons.

You made your position quite clear with this post, so one must wonder why you continue to push the issue if your mind is already made up.

If I had my way, LE would only be able to use and own what the average citizen could use and own.

There used to be a time when the only difference between LE and the average citizen was the badge. They had the same access to weapons, vehicles, etc. as everyone else. Today they are a class all their own.

Except in a time of severe crisis, Americans would not tolerate seeing armed soldiers patrolling our streets. I don't see much difference between an Army infantryman and a police officer any more.

By the way, in many parts of this country, the public does have access to FA weapons and the same vehicles that law enforcement has. Like I said, do some real research.

[SactoDoug]

You made your position quite clear with this post, so one must wonder why you continue to push the issue if your mind is already made up.

By the way, in many parts of this country, the public does have access to FA weapons and the same vehicles that law enforcement has. Like I said, do some real research.

I can say the same for the LEO's that posted in this thread. The contempt that you and others have shown is thick. Your stance is quite clear that you want access to your toys and don't give a damn about anyone that doesn't think you should have them.

I am well aware that with a thick wallet and the right paperwork, a FA weapon can be owned in other parts of the country. This is a California forum, not a nationwide forum. You might as well have said it is legal to own them in Saudi Arabia for all I care.

Since you are going through my previous posts in this thread, you conveniently missed this one:

No one is saying LE should not have rifles. They should. The North Hollywood bank robbery showed the need. They should not be limited to pistols and shot guns.

It is a big leap going from rifle to machine gun.

If there was a legitimate need for FA weapons, I might have been convinced. I see nothing but condescension, contempt and indignity of even being asked for a justification.

[omgwtfbbq]

I can say the same for the LEO's that posted in this thread. The contempt that you and others have shown is thick. Your stance is quite clear that you want access to your toys and don't give a damn about anyone that doesn't think you should have them.

I am well aware that with a thick wallet and the right paperwork, a FA weapon can be owned in other parts of the country. This is a California forum, not a nationwide forum. You might as well have said it is legal to own them in Saudi Arabia for all I care.

Since you are going through my previous posts in this thread, you conveniently missed this one:

If there was a legitimate need for FA weapons, I might have been convinced. I see nothing but condescension, contempt and indignity of even being asked for a justification.

I guess we have been reading two different threads. I have seen several individuals, LEOs and not, address the perceived need for FA weapons, and I've also seen several LEO members, including myself, admit that there isn't much of a need for FA or select fire guns in normal LE duties.

I have to say, your blanket statement about the intentions and opinions of LEOs who have posted in this thread is offensive.

I think you have mistaken the intention of LEOs trying to dampen some of the myths and misunderstandings about LE equipment and procedure as people side stepping the question, but in all honesty, the vast majority of LEO don't view the question as worth answering because it's a non-issue to them. As many of us have stated only a small fraction of LEOs even employ FA or select fire weapons. The first thing I thought of when I read the thread title, was "What the heck is this guy talking about?" because I've never seen an FA weapon used on duty, and other LEOs in this thread have said the same.

EDIT: Also I haven't seen anyone make a case that we "want to keep our toys"... There as some exceptions to firearms laws for LEOs yes and I don't personally agree with them either, but it's not like we all have gun safes filled with personal AWs and FA weapons either.

[TRICKSTER]

I can say the same for the LEO's that posted in this thread. The contempt that you and others have shown is thick. Your stance is quite clear that you want access to your toys and don't give a damn about anyone that doesn't think you should have them.

I'm sorry that you consider not getting the answer that you wanted as contempt. Also I have not seen one LEO here post that they want access to their toys and don't give a damn about anyone that doesn't think they should have them. Interesting that you would make that claim, maybe you can reread the post with a more neutral attitude and gain a better understanding of what has been posted.

[Artema]

I can say the same for the LEO's that posted in this thread. The contempt that you and others have shown is thick. Your stance is quite clear that you want access to your toys and don't give a damn about anyone that doesn't think you should have them.

I am well aware that with a thick wallet and the right paperwork, a FA weapon can be owned in other parts of the country. This is a California forum, not a nationwide forum. You might as well have said it is legal to own them in Saudi Arabia for all I care.

Since you are going through my previous posts in this thread, you conveniently missed this one:



If there was a legitimate need for FA weapons, I might have been convinced. I see nothing but condescension, contempt and indignity of even being asked for a justification.

I don't think anyone needs a FA weapon. I think a 3 round burst would be a great option. I just think that everyone should have access. Big reason why I don't mind people having FA is they'll blow their ammo real quick. Just a dumb decision.

[SactoDoug]

I'm sorry that you consider not getting the answer that you wanted as contempt. Also I have not seen one LEO here post that they want access to their toys and don't give a damn about anyone that doesn't think they should have them. Interesting that you would make that claim, maybe you can reread the post with a more neutral attitude and gain a better understanding of what has been posted.

Is there or is there not a need for LE to have FA weapons? If so, state clearly what that need is.

[TRICKSTER]

Is there or is there not a need for LE to have FA weapons? If so, state clearly what that need is.

If you turned off the bias, you would see that I already gave my answer to that question.
Just because it wasn't the answer that you wanted doesn't make it any less of an answer.