Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[infringed711]

Seriously though there is no reason whatsoever for any normal LE agency to have an M2

[Reelemup]

Whatever they can have we should be able to own too. I don't see anything wrong owning a howitzer

[raitheslacker]

The murder of Robert Rosas is an argument for border security to the point of building a wall, razor wire fences, and perhaps a minefield with observation towers every 300-500 meters.

http://www.odmp.org/officer/20005-border-patrol-agent-robert-wimer-rosas-jr

Border Patrol Agent Robert Rosas was shot and killed while on patrol near Campo, California, at approximately 9:15 pm. He was shot multiple times from ambush after exiting his patrol vehicle on the Shockey Truck Trail along the border.

A group of five armed men had traveled in Mexico to the U.S.-Mexico border with the intent of robbing a Border Patrol agent. Three of the men crossed into the United States while the remaining two men remained in Mexico to act as lookouts.

The three men who crossed into the United States setup and ambush and lured Agent Rosas out of his vehicle. He was shot multiple times before the men robbed him of his gear bag, handcuffs, firearm, and night vision goggles.




He was ambushed by five men who were looking for a border patrol agent. A select-fire or fully-automatic M4 style rifle would not have helped him.

His death might very well have been prevented by tight border security but enhanced weaponry on his part would not have helped.


In 2003 a group of Mexican army soldiers in the employ of a cartel used a mounted .50 caliber M2 to shred the mobile home of a rancher along the border who had reported their drug trafficking activities. How can a citizen effectively fight back against a squad sized element using a mounted M2 Browning?

Who are you to say that a fully auto weapon would not have prevented his death? Every piece of tool you have at your disposal may very well save your life one day. You were not there and don't know if a FA weapon might of changed the scenario. He actually got a couple of rounds off with his P2000 and wounded one of the attackers.

Sounds like your basically saying that we should just not even try to fight back even if we are against the odds, no matter what circumstance, and become food for the wolves. Awesome.

[raitheslacker]

You guys have to keep in mind that majority of law enforcement are pro gun. It is the law makers whom the people vote in that are effing it up for everyone.

I took an oath to uphold the constitution. Not to the politicians.

[Patrick Aherne]

Nope sorry. "The public"

Actually, the public does have the right to restrict tools. The SF Police Commission is directly responsible for three deaths that might have been prevented if they had allowed SFPD to issue tasers.

[Patrick Aherne]

Protecting a fixed location from a vehicle-borne IED is best done with barriers as opposed to belt-fed weapons or explosive weapons.

You are correct, of course. However, the places I am thinking of do not have such barriers. So, how would you secure those frontage roads, etc.? This is not a hypothetical; I've been sent to do so.

[bigger hammer]

If lumberjacks were going after criminals intending to bring them to court, there would be lumberjack killers.

Thanks for making my point.

Very few people actually go out of their way to get into violent encounters with police. There are rare exceptions, but they are rare and they are exceptions.

Yep, that's true. Thanks AGAIN for making my point.

Also, plenty of criminals go out of their way to target liquor store clerks, taxi cab drivers, convenience store clerks/owners.

Nope. Not so. They go after the "liquor store's" MONEY. They go after the "taxi cab drivers' " MONEY. They go after the "convenience store clerks' / owners' " MONEY. They don't target the clerks who work at the "liquor store, the taxi cab drivers or the convenience store clerks" when they're off−duty, on their way home. If you can't see the difference you're beyond help.

I've never heard of anybody trying to rob a uniformed cop. I have heard of radicals and gang members that made a point to target uniformed police for violence, but even those incidents are rare.

Yep, rare, but they happen and they don't happen to those in other professions.

[infringed711]

You are correct, of course. However, the places I am thinking of do not have such barriers. So, how would you secure those frontage roads, etc.? This is not a hypothetical; I've been sent to do so.

Use car as barrier? Are you saying you guys actually take out beltfeds to secure roads in the US?

[KABA556]

Who are you to say that a fully auto weapon would not have prevented his death? Every piece of tool you have at your disposal may very well save your life one day. You were not there and don't know if a FA weapon might of changed the scenario. He actually got a couple of rounds off with his P2000 and wounded one of the attackers.

Sounds like your basically saying that we should just not even try to fight back even if we are against the odds, no matter what circumstance, and become food for the wolves. Awesome.

Who am I to say? The information on his death stated that he was shot from an ambush as soon as he exited his vehicle.



He was killed by individuals he didn't even realize were there, from the way the article was written anyway... He was shot by a group of five men who were hiding and lying in wait. All the firepower in the world won't help you if somebody shoots you before you even know they are there.


You're the one making a red herring straw man claim that I have declared we shouldn't fight back.


Let me put it this way... I sleep with a suppressed AR-15 [along with a tactical light and a spare magazine in a butt-stock pouch] next to my bed. However, if somebody manages to slip into my house without making any noises or tripping or triggering anything, and they are able to get into my room and cut my throat in my sleep, it would be ridiculous to claim "If only that man had a belt-fed machine gun or a fully-automatic rifle, he might still be alive." There may be situations where such a weapon might have helped me, but that situation would not be one of them.


The Border Patrol agent you referenced was ambushed and shot dead by people he apparently never even saw. It made no mention of him exchanging fire with them, it simply stated he was shot dead "from an ambush" as soon as he exited his vehicle while on patrol. All the firepower in the world wouldn't have helped him because he never saw it coming.

[bigger hammer]

Also there are radicals who make a point to injure or kill lumberjacks because they believe lumberjacks are "killing the tree" and thus have to be stopped. Very rare, but they do exist. They're probably about as rare as people who go hunting for cops.

Much more rare than those who go hunting for cops. And those types of murder attempts happen only when they're on the job. They drive bolts into trees so when the 'jacks go to work with their chain saws, the chains "explode." They don't follow them to Winchell's (or the Duluth trading Post) and execute them.

Anonymous, and other hacker groups, are not going after lumberjack or taxi driver unions to release their home addresses. They're doing that to LE.

This argument about workplace danger is another example of apples and oranges comparisons. The danger to those, other than LE (and in a few cases, military) is different than the danger in other occupations. While there are other workplaces that are more dangerous, no one is specifically targeting those in other professions. Your examples are good examples of how people "beg the question."

[bigger hammer]

A group of five armed men had traveled in Mexico to the U.S.-Mexico border with the intent of robbing a Border Patrol agent. Three of the men crossed into the United States while the remaining two men remained in Mexico to act as lookouts. ...

Didn't you just write this a few posts back?

I've never heard of anybody trying to rob a uniformed cop. ...

I guess you found this reference AFTER you wrote this post?

He was ambushed by five men who were looking for a border patrol agent. A select-fire or fully-automatic M4 style rifle would not have helped him.

Talk about "cherry picking." Citing an incident where someone was ambushed does not support an argument against arming LEO's with select−fire guns. And unless you were there, you have no idea if such weaponry might have helped him. Were you there?

The fact remains that in some situations such weaponry may be useful.

[bigger hammer]

So any LE organization cannot request assistance from neighboring organizations, or the next higher level?

Yes, they certainly can. And GIVEN ENOUGH TIME they might actually arrive before the situation is over.

11 may be the average, but that ignores what actually happens.

Not really. Rather your proposal "ignores what actually happens." In real life, barricaded situations that go on for hours are VERY rare. Most shooting situations are over in less than a few minutes. Rarely is there time to wait for large numbers of backup officers to arrive. In such situations, a select fire rifle may save the day.

So yes, my statement is accurate that LE has all of those things at their disposal.

You made many statements. Among them was this one. "... I don't believe that LE is "outgunned" even if they go up against criminals with FA weapons."

It seems that the definition of the word "outgunned" has eluded you.

Also, you ignored my major point that LE gets to choose when/if they respond and the amount of force that they will use to respond with. Back to the Roseville example, there were dozens of officers on hand for a single guy with a pistol.

Those "dozens of officers" didn't arrive until AFTER the initial confrontation. If those officers had select fire weapons at that time, there may not have been a barricaded suspect situation at all.

Actually, the public does get the final say so. Like it or not, ultimately LE's actions are rewarded or punished at the ballot box.

LOL. Do you think that really has any affect on the armament that LE has? Let me be the first to let you know that it does not. I'm reminded of the uproar among the citizens when LAPD went to hollow−point ammunition and again when they went to semi-auto handguns. Guess what, they're still carrying both, despite many changes in City Council and the office of Mayor. Let's not forget that they also have select fire rifles, .50BMG rifles, an APC, and a piece of construction equipment meant for the piece−by−piece demolishing of buildings.

You may dismiss people like me who have real concerns about how LE has been turned into paramilitary troops, but it is becoming more wide spread on both the political Left and Right.

You're right that I dismiss such nonsense. And I don't believe that, as you claim, "it is becoming more wide spread on both the political Left and Right." Do you have some reliable, verifiable source to support this statement?

There will be a day of reckoning. Don't act surprised when your "tools" are taken away by the very same public that "doesn’t have the expertise necessary to make such judgments and often they make decisions based on emotion, rather than logic and reason."

Just about every generation (I'd suppose, since the beginning of time) has been warned by their parents that the music that they listen will ruin civilization. This rant ranks right up there with such nonsense.

I look forward to the day when we can "set our phasers to stun" and not find select fire weaponry useful. Alas, I doubt that I'll live to see it. Probably, neither will anyone else reading this.

[KABA556]

You are correct, of course. However, the places I am thinking of do not have such barriers. So, how would you secure those frontage roads, etc.? This is not a hypothetical; I've been sent to do so.

How would I handle physical barrier security for stationary targets that might be attacked?

I would hire experts in the field of physical barrier security and consult with civil engineers and mechanical engineers and decide what the likely threats are, what is reasonable to defend against, and what is affordable. I am sure if we throw enough money at an airport they could build defenses to deal with an attack by an armored battalion or helicopter gunships but those are not realistic threats and the likelihood of an incident involving a tank or a helicopter gunship would not justify the expenditure.


I don't believe anything would be helped by bringing in dozens of police armed with belt-fed weapons.


Besides, if society has fallen to the point where people actually feel they need police in M113s sporting M2 Brownings outside of the airport to make the airport safe, I don't want to live in that society and I want nothing to do with those people.


This is supposed to be the USA, not Mexico, not Somalia, not Brazil.


America is well on its way to becoming just another third world failed state with militarized police and internal security units spread across the cities and other areas held by gangs, cartels, militants, etc.

[KABA556]

I guess you found this reference AFTER you wrote this post?

Sometimes it is amazing what you can figure out by guessing!

You're on a roll, you might want to guess the lottery numbers for the next drawing, you might be on a streak.

[KABA556]

Didn't you just write this a few posts back?

I guess you found this reference AFTER you wrote this post?



Talk about "cherry picking." Citing an incident where someone was ambushed does not support an argument against arming LEO's with select−fire guns. And unless you were there, you have no idea if such weaponry might have helped him. Were you there?

The fact remains that in some situations such weaponry may be useful.

Let me try my hand at guessing now...


If the border patrol agent had been involved in a massive firefight the article might have mentioned something about it, instead of simply stating he was shot and killed from ambush immediately after he exited his vehicle. If there was a 2-3 minute firefight and he died because he was outgunned and his shotgun and pistol were insufficient in the face of enemies with automatic rifles, some mention of that might have been made.


You know when professional police departments were relatively new in the East Coast cities in the mid-late 1800s there was talk of arming police [originally city police were unarmed in the USA] and the main objection was "who is going to pay for all of this? giving every police officer a revolver will et very expensive."

There was a realization that citizens were owed an explanation and that police had to justify why they wanted to be armed and armed at taxpayer expense...


The police who have come into this thread have not offered any rational basis for why they believe they are entitled to have fully automatic or burst capable weapons provided for them at taxpayer expense and they have treated citizens seeking justification for the expenses with contempt and ridicule.